When the composite criteria Efficacy2 is compared with some items from the section ‘M.E. issues’, some correlations can be seen.
In these graphs a correlation can be seen. Where respondents rated exploring some items 4 or higher, their efficacy2 rating is also likely to be 4 or higher. Where respondents rated these M.E. issues 3 or less, efficacy2 is more likely to be low but is occasionally quite high. When the items in the section M.E. issues are combined, a correlation with efficacy2 can be seen.
In these graphs it can be seen that there is a trend associating how respondents rated the 'counsellor' items with efficacy2. In these graphs a low rating of a counsellor quality often corresponds with a low efficacy2 rating. A high counsellor quality rating is quite frequently associated with a higher efficacy2 rating, though this varies quite widely.
There is a correlation between how respondents rated, 'I learned more about myself' and 'I worked through painful issues' with efficacy2. The final graph in the sequence shows an overall correlation between how clients rated learning items and efficacy2.
In these charts a variable trend can be seen according to how respondents rated, ‘my counsellor understood my problems.
It is clear from the above that some who found exploration of these items useful in counselling tended not to rate ‘my counsellor understood my problems’ low. While those who rated exploration of these items low-middle gave very varied ratings for ‘my counsellor understood my problems’. This suggests that if respondents felt that their counsellor understood their problems it was influential, but only for some and only to a degree. This is a little surprising in view of how many respondents commented that they want counsellors who either have or really understand M.E. Counsellors of many approaches are ‘trained’ to understand, to strive to see problems from the client’s frame of reference. What counsellors mostly strive to understand, is not the problem itself, but the client’s thoughts and feelings and response to the problem. This does not normally require first-hand experience of the actual problem, but rather recognizing and empathizing with the client’s response, whether it be fear, anger, frustration, etc. It might be that some respondents are concerned not so much to be understood as not to be Misunderstood. A substantial number of comments suggest that many respondents either were, or fear being misunderstood. Where respondents rated this counsellor quality 3 or less, the other items were quite variable.
It can be seen in the above graphs that how respondents rated, ‘I trust my counsellor’ frequently correlates to how they rated other counsellor qualities. This is particularly noticeable in, ‘my counsellor did not judge me’ and ‘my counsellor was honest with me’.
There is a correlation with these items for a substantial portion of respondents. It appears from this graph that where respondents rated, ‘I trust my counsellor’, high, they were much more likely to rate ‘I worked through painful issues’ high.
Where respondents rated, ‘I trust my counsellor’, high, they were more likely to rate efficacy2 criteria high. Where respondents rated ‘I trust my counsellor’ low, there are varied ratings of efficacy2, showing that trusting the counsellor does not always correlate with how efficacy2 indicators were rated.
This group of charts show a close correlation between how highly respondents rated, ‘I worked through painful issues’, and how they rated other items, in particular ‘I trust my counsellor’ (as previously observed).
Back to 16/ M.E. group, variables - HOME - Next, 18/ Further analysis of the data