DOI: 10.17077/etd.9prqbgi6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Client-rated helpfulness of two approaches for addressing religious concerns in therapy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Publication Types

Select...
1
1

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Following Liddle (1996), we assessed global therapist helpfulness using a single item (Brooks, 1981; 1 = destructive; 4 = very helpful ). Using a single-item measure is a common practice to investigate client perceptions of therapy (e.g., Fridman, 2010; Fuller & Hill, 1985; Horvath, Marx, & Kamann, 1990), with face-valid items typically yielding high levels of predictive validity (Hoyt, 2002). Single-item measures of helpfulness are also known to be stable over time, consistent between clients and therapists, and predictive of session outcome measures (Hill et al, 1994).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Following Liddle (1996), we assessed global therapist helpfulness using a single item (Brooks, 1981; 1 = destructive; 4 = very helpful ). Using a single-item measure is a common practice to investigate client perceptions of therapy (e.g., Fridman, 2010; Fuller & Hill, 1985; Horvath, Marx, & Kamann, 1990), with face-valid items typically yielding high levels of predictive validity (Hoyt, 2002). Single-item measures of helpfulness are also known to be stable over time, consistent between clients and therapists, and predictive of session outcome measures (Hill et al, 1994).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Following Liddle (1996), we assessed global therapist helpfulness using a single item (Brooks, 1981; 1 = destructive; 4 = very helpful). Using a singleitem measure is a common practice to investigate client perceptions of therapy (e.g., Fridman, 2010;Fuller & Hill, 1985;Horvath, Marx, & Kamann, 1990), with face-valid items typically yielding high levels of predictive validity (Hoyt, 2002). Single-item measures of helpfulness are also known to be stable over time, consistent between clients and therapists, and predictive of session outcome measures (Hill et al, 1994).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%