Over the years, the fields associated with the mental wellbeing of people have gained significant momentum. Research related to psychology or mental health counseling have brought attention to the need for more in depth understanding of the constructs regarding a successful intervention or counseling relationship. Many researchers have attempted to explore the counseling relationship through different approaches, either qualitatively or quantitatively. Each approach brings about significant insight to the direction of how the counseling relationship can reap the most benefit or be best improved. As each research sought to advance our current knowledge, results will vary and may even rebut previous researches. Results may vary due to assorted differences between studies. For example, the research design, quantitative or qualitative, the sample size and selection, even the researcher’s preconceived opinion can play a role in the outcome of the research.
Some researchers may show preference over particular variables which may sway results while conducting the research. Often times the primary research hypothesis would be at odds with the results, contradicting the researcher’s original prediction. As demonstrated by the study conducted by Leibert and Dunne-Bryant (2015), their results …show more content…
Results for both research did not significantly conclude or support their hypothesis. Although there was no causal relationship, both research were able to expand the scope of knowledge through correlational or exploratory analysis. As concluded by Leibert and Dunne-Bryant (2015), the results was inconclusive on whether client or extra-therapeutic factors accounted for the most outcome variance. They were both significant predictors of change, however the results were not sufficient to support a causal
Some researchers may show preference over particular variables which may sway results while conducting the research. Often times the primary research hypothesis would be at odds with the results, contradicting the researcher’s original prediction. As demonstrated by the study conducted by Leibert and Dunne-Bryant (2015), their results …show more content…
Results for both research did not significantly conclude or support their hypothesis. Although there was no causal relationship, both research were able to expand the scope of knowledge through correlational or exploratory analysis. As concluded by Leibert and Dunne-Bryant (2015), the results was inconclusive on whether client or extra-therapeutic factors accounted for the most outcome variance. They were both significant predictors of change, however the results were not sufficient to support a causal