Cited by 19Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and Disorders

Congruence between reasons for depression and motivations for specific interventions

Meyer, Björn, Garcia‐Roberts, Lilian·2007·Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice

Abstract

The reasons depressed clients report for their depression are thought to be important predictors of therapy process and outcome, but few studies have so far examined whether particular reasons are systematically associated with client motivations to engage with reason-matching interventions. We hypothesized that the congruence between reasons and interventions would predict higher levels of treatment motivation. Ninety-seven adult out-patients from the UK completed the Reasons for Depression (RFD) questionnaire (Addis, Truax, & Jacobson, 1995) and a newly developed Motivations for Interventions questionnaire that examined the extent to which patients would prefer to receive a type of therapy that targets their perceived reasons for depression. The results generally supported the reasons-interventions congruence hypothesis, but more so for certain specific reasons. For example, clients who believed that their depression was caused primarily by unresolved childhood issues or by biological predispositions were relatively specifically motivated to engage with treatments that target these domains. In general, clients who endorsed interpersonal reasons tended to be specifically motivated for interpersonally orientated interventions, and those who endorsed autonomous depression reasons tended to be specifically motivated to engage with autonomy-facilitative interventions. The study also introduces a new subscale for the RFD questionnaire - the cognitive reasons scale. Implications f…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1348/147608306x169982

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 26 · Cited by 19

Authors
Meyer, B., & Garcia‐Roberts, L.
Affiliations
  • City, University of London (GB)
  • University of Roehampton (GB)
Corresponding author
Meyer, Björn
Venue
Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-12
Volume
80
Issue
4
Pages
525-542
ISSN
  • 1476-0835 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8341
OpenAlex
W2101080511
Cited by
19
References
26
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
FWCI
0.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychology and Psychotherapy Theory Research and Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Disorders
Keywords
depression, treatment motivation, biological predispositions, treatment planning, psychotherapy
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Culture, Depressive Disorder, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Person-Centered Psychotherapy, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Patient Care Planning, Psychoanalytic Therapy, Surveys and Questionnaires, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review