4.2 Article

Perceived responsibility for change as an outcome predictor in cognitive-behavioural group therapy

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY
卷 47, 期 -, 页码 281-293

出版社

BRITISH PSYCHOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1348/014466508X279486

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose. The study of control beliefs in psychotherapy research has been neglected in the past years. Based on the evidence that some patients do not benefit enough from therapy because of inadequate expectancies regarding the responsibility and the mechanisms of therapeutic change, assessing control beliefs specific to the psychotherapy context and linking them to therapy outcome can help highlighting this specific aspect and reactivating a neglected field of clinical research. Method. Using a new validated instrument (Questionnaire on Control Expectancies in Psychotherapy, TBK), this study investigated whether and how perceived responsibility for change predicts favourable response to group cognitive-behavioural therapy in a sample of 49 outpatients with social anxiety disorder (SAD). Patient engagement and therapy-related self-efficacy were assessed as possible process variables. Results. Among therapy-related control beliefs, low powerful others expectancies (towards the therapist) were found to be the strongest predictor for clinical improvement at follow-up. At a process level, analyses of mediation showed that powerful others expectancies predicted therapy engagement, which then influenced the degree of clinical improvement on social anxiety levels and global symptoms. The association between therapy-specific internality and outcome was confirmed for social anxiety at follow-up and was partially mediated by therapy-related self-efficacy. Conclusions. Findings confirm that therapy-related control beliefs predict psychotherapy process (patient engagement and therapy-specific self-efficacy) and outcome in cognitive-behavioural group therapy for SAD. Implications for clinicians and for future research are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据