• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/38

Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

38 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

Allegiance to manual is more related to outcomes than allegiance

Heimberg, 1998


Kazdin, 1998

Some therapies show relative efficacy over others

Shapiro & Shapiro, 1982

Absolute efficacy of therapy range .7-.85

Shapiro & Shapiro, 1982


Wampold, 2001

Absolute efficacy more important than relative efficacy

APA, 2001

Common factors/allegiance account for more variance in outcomes than type of therapy

Berman, Miller & Massman, 1985

Common factors account for 30-70% of variance

Barley, 2002


Wampold, 2001

Therapy relationship accounts for outcomes as much as any particular measure

Norcross, 2011

Client evaluation of therapeutic alliance is best predictor of outcome

Hovarth et al., 2011

Manuals have not improved outcomes since they were introduced

Lambert, 1998

ESTs may be incompatible with multicultural sensitivity

Atkinson et al., 2001

Outcomes vary as a function of treatment provider, we should study what good therapists so

Okiishi et al., 2006

Dodo bird conjecture

Rozenzweig, 1936

Individual is slightly more effective than group therapy

Dosh et al., 1983


Neitzel et al., 1987

Strong evidence that group and individual are equally effective

Smith, Glass & Miller, 1980

Group is just as good as individual as long as process principles are used in group

Burlingame, MacKenzie & Strauss, 2004

Group inclusion and exclusion criteria

Yalom, 2005

Client expectations impact therapy outcomes

Glencavage & Norcross, 1990

Therapists shape client expectations, which impacts outcomes

Thomas, 1987

Paired samples t test

Heppner et al., 2008

Chi square test

Kerlinger & Lee, 2000

Internal and external validity in different types of studies

Gelso, 1979

MAXMINCON

Kerlinger, 1986

Holland model

Holland, 1997

People pick majors/occupations congruent with Holland interests

Betz et al., 2006


Gasser, Larson & Borgen, 2007

Individuals tens to choose congruent environments

Betz, 2008

Congruence does not predict job or academic satisfaction

Tranberg et al., 1993

Holland Interests hold up across ethnic groups in the US

Day et al., 1998

Holland interests do not hold up internationally

Tracy & Rounds, 1996

Social learning theory

Bandura, 1986

SCCT

Lent et al., 1994

Self efficacy predicts interest

Rottinghaus et al., 2003


Lent et al., 2003

Interest may not relate to self efficacy

Armstrong & Vogel, 2010

Self efficacy is a more powerful predictor of occupational consideration than P-E fit

Gore & Leuwerke, 2000

Self efficacy predicts academic performance

Multon, Brown & Lent, 1991

SCCT may not apply for ethnically diverse groups

Fouad & Smith, 1996

Ethnic identity, acculturation and perceived barriers relate to self efficacy

Flores et al., 2018

Robust evidence for mediating role of self efficacy in international pops

Sheu & Borden, 2017

Interest and self efficacy separately explain a lot of career choice, together even more

Donnay & Borgen, 1999