Nevid J S, Lavi B, Primavera L H
Department of Psychology, St. John's University, Jamaica, New York 11439.
J Clin Psychol. 1987 Nov;43(6):723-9. doi: 10.1002/1097-4679(198711)43:6<723::aid-jclp2270430614>3.0.co;2-j.
A principal components analysis was conducted on a data set that consisted of ratings of therapeutic orientations reported by directors of clinical psychology training programs in 96 clinical psychology programs in the U.S. Two principal components emerged, which contrasted (1) behavioral vs. psychoanalytic approaches and (2) humanistic vs. conditioning approaches. A plotting of factor scores revealed relatively clear separation among programs primarily identified with either behavioral or psychoanalytic/humanistic approaches. The majority of training programs, however, clustered around the midpoint on both underlying factor dimensions, an indication of the adoption of multiple approaches in training.
对一个数据集进行了主成分分析，该数据集包含美国96个临床心理学项目的临床心理学培训项目主任报告的治疗取向评分。出现了两个主成分，它们形成对比：（1）行为疗法与精神分析疗法；（2）人本主义疗法与条件作用疗法。因子得分的绘图显示，主要采用行为疗法或精神分析/人本主义疗法的项目之间有相对明显的区分。然而，大多数培训项目聚集在两个潜在因子维度的中点附近，这表明在培训中采用了多种方法。
