Theory Around three: Increased therapist affiliation could be in the increased introject association within the DBT

To sample the 3rd theory i applied formula dos to look at the latest association between understood specialist association and you can introject affiliation across days from inside the procedures and cures class. All of our number 1 parameters provided: 1) the brand new dimensional studies from specialist association that have introject affiliation and you can 2) the revues des applications de rencontres militaires fresh new SASB class studies from affiliative decisions plus counselor affirm with introject self-affirm, counselor active love having introject energetic notice-love, and specialist include with introject notice-cover. This new five HLM analyses examining the association between these details during the DBT, whenever rated in one research period, just weren’t high neither was basically the brand new separate negative effects of therapist association on introject affiliation.

DBT patients just who claimed deeper recommendations off specialist energetic like said far more introject care about-love on the adopting the testing period, B = 0

Using the same variables, we ran a series of four lagged HLM analyses examining the association between ratings of the therapist behavior and next period ratings of introject. Dimensional ratings of therapist affiliation on next period introject affiliation in DBT were not significant nor were the independent effects of therapist affiliation on next period introject affiliation. Analysis of the lagged association between the SASB clusters revealed two significant findings. 23, SE = 0.08, t(97) = 2.99, p < 0.00, CI = 0.08, 0.39. Similarly DBT patients who reported greater ratings of therapist protect reported an increase in introject self-protect in the following assessment period, B = 0.18, SE = 0.09, t(97) = 2.11, p < 0.04, CI = 0.01, 0.35. Results were not significant for an increased association between therapist affirm and next period ratings of introject self-affirm in DBT.

In comparison to CTBE, DBT patients reported a stronger, positive association between therapist affirm and next period ratings of introject self-affirm, B = -0.37, SE = 0.21, t(96) = -2.25, p < 0.03, CI = -0.69, -0.04. In contrast, CTBE patients reported a tendency for the opposite pattern where higher ratings of therapist affirm predicted less introject self-affirm in the following assessment period. DBT patients also reported a stronger, more positive association between therapist active love and next period ratings of introject self-love compared to CTBE, B = -0.26, SE = 0.11, t(97) = -2.32, p < 0.03, CI = -0.47, -0.04 (See Figure 5 ). Results were not significant when comparing treatment differences in the lagged association between therapist protect and introject self-protect or dimensional ratings of therapist affiliation and introject affiliation.

Hypothesis Five: Enhanced counselor association could well be of this less common NSSI in the DBT

The fourth hypothesis examined the association between SASB rated therapist affiliation and NSSI during DBT. Poisson HLM models showed no significant effect for the dimensional rating of therapist affiliation on NSSI apart from treatment. In the DBT condition, patients who perceived their therapists as more affiliative also reported less NSSI, B = -0.87, SE = 0.45, z = -1.94, p < 0.05, regardless of time in treatment. In comparison to CTBE, DBT therapists reported a significantly greater association between increased therapist affiliation and less NSSI, B = 0.01, SE = 0.00, z = 2.36, p < 0.02.

Supplementary analyses examined the specific SASB therapist clusters contributing to this overall effect. Analyses resulted in three significant effects where higher levels of therapist affirm, B = -0.01, SE = 0.00, z = -2.37, p < 0.05, higher levels of therapist active love, B = -0.01, SE = 0.00, z = -2.56, p < 0.05, and higher levels of therapist protect, B = -0.01, SE = 0.00, z = -2.70, p < 0.05, were associated with fewer occurrences of NSSI for DBT patients. In comparison to CTBE, results showed a significant treatment interaction for therapist affirm and therapist protect where DBT patients reported a stronger association between increased affirmation and protection with decreased NSSI. In contrast, CTBE showed the opposite pattern where patients who reported higher levels of therapist affirm showed more frequent NSSI while therapist protect showed little association with NSSI. Lagged analyses examining the order of change between patient perception of therapist behavior and next period ratings of NSSI were not significant.