首页> 外文OA文献 >Process Group Vs. Skills Group Modalities In The Treatment Of Individuals Diagnosed With Major Depressive Disorder
【2h】

Process Group Vs. Skills Group Modalities In The Treatment Of Individuals Diagnosed With Major Depressive Disorder

机译:流程组与诊断为严重抑郁症的个体治疗中的技能组模式

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

ABSTRACTPROCESS GROUPVS.SKILLS GROUP MODALITIESIN THE TREATMENT OF INDIVIDUALS DIAGNOSED WITH MAJORDEPRESSIVE DISORDERbyKIRK DAVID DUNCANAugust 2014Advisor: Dr. George ParrisMajor: CounselingDegree: Doctor of PhilosophyThe goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of a process group vs. a cognitive behavioral skills group modality on depression while investigating the effects of facilitator bond on outcomes. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted on the BDI-II posttest scores, and pretest scores served as the covariate and the group membership as the independent variable. When observing Figure 1 there was a visual desired decrease in depression scores, but result was not statistically significant most likely due to the small sample size of the study.A series of ANCOVAs were conducted with the posttest subscales (i.e., Bond, Task, u26 Goal) as the dependent variable, the pretest subscales as the covariate, and the grouping variable being the comparison vs the experimental study condition. Another approach was to analyze the three subscales simultaneously via a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA). The multivariate analysis of analyzing all three subscales simultaneously also resulted in no statistically significant difference. However, in that analysis, it was noticed that only eight participants (comparison group = 3, experimental group = 5) completed the entire pretest and posttest on all three subscales. Hence, analyses were repeated for just those N = 8 participants, and all three subscales, individually, were statistically significant favoring the experimental group.However, in the latter analysis, the even further reduced sample size of the between groups tests for only those participants who had subscale scores for all three parts of the WAI indicated that Bond were statistically significant. This is evidence that based on this reduced sample size that the motivational interviewing process group had greater working alliance with their therapist that did those who only participated in the cognitive-behavior manualized skills group on those three subscales. Due to the small sample size it is difficult to speak to what some of these results may indicate. Future research recommendations were suggested and possible limitations were discussed.
机译:2014年8月顾问:乔治·帕里斯博士(George Parris博士)主要建议:哲学博士这项研究的目标是评估模态对团队和团队的影响。抑郁症,同时研究促进性纽带对结局的影响。对BDI-II测试后分数进行协方差分析(ANCOVA),而测试前分数作为协变量,组成员资格作为自变量。观察图1时,视觉上希望的抑郁评分有所下降,但由于该研究样本量较小,结果在统计学上最不可能出现。一系列的ANCOVA与后测子量表(即Bond,Task, u26目标)作为因变量,预测试子量表作为协变量,分组变量是比较实验研究条件的条件。另一种方法是通过协方差的多元分析(MANCOVA)同时分析三个子量表。同时分析所有三个分量表的多变量分析也没有统计学上的显着差异。但是,在该分析中,我们注意到只有八个参与者(比较组= 3,实验组= 5)完成了所有三个子量表的整个前测和后测。因此,仅对N = 8的参与者进行了重复分析,并且所有三个分量表在统计学上均对实验组有利,但是在后者的分析中,仅针对那些参与者的组间检验的样本量甚至进一步减少了在WAI的所有三个部分中得分均低于零的人表示,邦德具有统计学意义。有证据表明,基于减少的样本量,动机性面试过程组与治疗师有着更大的合作关系,而治疗师仅在这三个子量表上参与了认知行为人工技能组。由于样本量较小,很难说出其中一些结果可能表明的内容。提出了未来的研究建议,并讨论了可能的局限性。

著录项

  • 作者

    Duncan Kirk David;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2014
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号