Presentation Title
Responding to Client Question: Perceived Impact of Therapist Responses
Location
Fenn Tower Ballroom
Presentation Type
Poster Session
Start Date
4-11-2014 4:00 PM
End Date
4-11-2014 4:50 PM
Abstract
Responding effectively to client questions has been largely ignored in psychological literature, training, and supervision; yet clinicians consistently report feeling anxious and unsure of how to respond optimally when clients ask them questions. Based on clinical and supervisory experience, Edelstein and Waehler (2011) developed four guidelines designed to assist therapists in responding to client questions. The guidelines were: 1) receive the question respectfully, 2) promote the client’s curiosity about the question, 3) answer the question sufficiently, and 4) explore possible underlying or idiosyncratic meanings of the question. These four guidelines are intended to produce three specific therapeutic gains: 1) clients’ enhanced breadth of material explored, 2) clients’ enhanced depth of material explored, and 3) increased client-therapist connectedness. This study assessed empirically the utility of Edelstein and Waehler’s guidelines in producing their desired outcomes. Participants (N=138) rated videos of 10-minute mock therapy sessions in which a therapist responded to a client’s question in different ways: 1) using Edelstein and Waehler’s four guidelines, 2) answering the client’s question through psychoeducation, and 3) reflecting the question back to the client. Participants rated the sessions on measures of the client’s breadth of material explored, depth of material explored, client therapist connectedness, and therapist competence. Although all three of the sessions were rated positively by observers, a between-subjects, one-way MANOVA data analysis revealed non-significant results when analyzing the impact of the different therapist responses. These results are discussed at face value, in that participants may have genuinely found all three responses to the mock client’s question to be helpful in their own ways. An implication of these findings is that clinicians, who often feel pressure to respond to clients’ questions perfectly, may find peace of mind in knowing that their responses to clients’ questions may not “make or break” the therapeutic encounter. In addition, the researcher discusses how limitations in the research design may have influenced the study’s results. Finally, recommendations for future studies are discussed.
Responding to Client Question: Perceived Impact of Therapist Responses
Fenn Tower Ballroom
Responding effectively to client questions has been largely ignored in psychological literature, training, and supervision; yet clinicians consistently report feeling anxious and unsure of how to respond optimally when clients ask them questions. Based on clinical and supervisory experience, Edelstein and Waehler (2011) developed four guidelines designed to assist therapists in responding to client questions. The guidelines were: 1) receive the question respectfully, 2) promote the client’s curiosity about the question, 3) answer the question sufficiently, and 4) explore possible underlying or idiosyncratic meanings of the question. These four guidelines are intended to produce three specific therapeutic gains: 1) clients’ enhanced breadth of material explored, 2) clients’ enhanced depth of material explored, and 3) increased client-therapist connectedness. This study assessed empirically the utility of Edelstein and Waehler’s guidelines in producing their desired outcomes. Participants (N=138) rated videos of 10-minute mock therapy sessions in which a therapist responded to a client’s question in different ways: 1) using Edelstein and Waehler’s four guidelines, 2) answering the client’s question through psychoeducation, and 3) reflecting the question back to the client. Participants rated the sessions on measures of the client’s breadth of material explored, depth of material explored, client therapist connectedness, and therapist competence. Although all three of the sessions were rated positively by observers, a between-subjects, one-way MANOVA data analysis revealed non-significant results when analyzing the impact of the different therapist responses. These results are discussed at face value, in that participants may have genuinely found all three responses to the mock client’s question to be helpful in their own ways. An implication of these findings is that clinicians, who often feel pressure to respond to clients’ questions perfectly, may find peace of mind in knowing that their responses to clients’ questions may not “make or break” the therapeutic encounter. In addition, the researcher discusses how limitations in the research design may have influenced the study’s results. Finally, recommendations for future studies are discussed.
