<%BANNER%>

Relationship between Client Factors and Symptom Levels for Clients in Ongoing Mental Health Treatment

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0011283/00001

Material Information

Title: Relationship between Client Factors and Symptom Levels for Clients in Ongoing Mental Health Treatment
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0011283:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0011283/00001

Material Information

Title: Relationship between Client Factors and Symptom Levels for Clients in Ongoing Mental Health Treatment
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0011283:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101129_AAAABI INGEST_TIME 2010-11-30T02:43:11Z PACKAGE UFE0011283_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 7700 DFID F20101129_AAAWOD ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH leibert_t_Page_001.QC.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
a95bacfd92e12fb4afe003bed108c0c5
SHA-1
0d7d8c5d19925024ee01b69cd9ee234634efa6c5
113980 F20101129_AAAWNP leibert_t_Page_030.jp2
930a7585da06faeceafa730bf3041867
d9793f90cc1f23dc56dc1ac37679e9ffbddae6c6
6399 F20101129_AAAWOE leibert_t_Page_079thm.jpg
83f3389c96483e8429e43a47119612b4
e220b9538694bc3bf438f59e2a6d89bc069591b9
27347 F20101129_AAAWNQ leibert_t_Page_116.QC.jpg
55403952da8d375cb20c8c1ffba16ce8
b83b75c2a062a1fdb3d472ac05f1952409ffd16b
72453 F20101129_AAAWOF leibert_t_Page_034.jpg
59f10177ca2f2d785658644175d2f157
251811a93aa35b3c0cbbd0700df961e950f2ec25
73193 F20101129_AAAWNR leibert_t_Page_049.jpg
3a7ed59232eb2a590e7493c7461805e6
ece184294dee02a34d187261fa25972c5e0d2ee7
7011 F20101129_AAAWOG leibert_t_Page_060thm.jpg
d4877a24bee4601c9d981fde66515a76
9e94ce4046e03131da8546c501d8b7dcc357bd9d
133290 F20101129_AAAWNS leibert_t_Page_124.jp2
c7c1fb83869725af9814c35b954828a5
f7f0b738e8f8667dc62b000cdef0525808a65a9c
73602 F20101129_AAAWOH leibert_t_Page_022.jpg
50bb21525c892fd71ff7bb514e5ab746
d9351594e269f6d2d7dfb20fb9b9f16c34fcbd9f
7866 F20101129_AAAWNT leibert_t_Page_106.QC.jpg
f748e5168e916338d23713b19e9f1e7f
ea47d8921156307df53330fc7f13852ec45bd987
24314 F20101129_AAAWOI leibert_t_Page_088.QC.jpg
15deeff32491cc257b825e3344dbc55e
944806b57c18aa4ba5742fd646a578ae8ad4d3d9
113745 F20101129_AAAWNU leibert_t_Page_028.jp2
b8edcd1d50f5787a1579e3ceee4aca07
8e61d1245d07379b87d2c948e2b3a1e9576f6940
99657 F20101129_AAAWOJ leibert_t_Page_071.jp2
d61d3aeb115df4acd79dc51f9481fbae
d8e859e68f9d6772f5342daa855106f9f9692bc8
127361 F20101129_AAAWNV leibert_t_Page_121.jp2
4624fe5f3ea91199fddb058a6792ad3a
698bd0b4b7f3a3ba57ce82797f93299d191d90b7
1053954 F20101129_AAAWOK leibert_t_Page_074.tif
549dc0d062aaebaeb4fd019028c7559b
f0015fd8d6cd2b165ad41290bf1c8b1340b9a178
76004 F20101129_AAAWNW leibert_t_Page_033.jpg
e12cbb49b740ad52c42677f575d3da79
b6be57e70f2260114e12a41cb5de2c9fdf4d76a2
F20101129_AAAWPA leibert_t_Page_120.tif
9a9092947868a6da85c5e3e991754f5d
f170015765496e587c424e1db5a2d821f32c6f0b
20142 F20101129_AAAWOL leibert_t_Page_129.QC.jpg
e62bc5c63907b081329ea4ae0ffddf7e
073e0499d9b8bbb2fad09d4aedc9c2bb99c7dacd
5979 F20101129_AAAWNX leibert_t_Page_027thm.jpg
0b03873c10ff7ca5b3b3d1a007a3710f
35a60075b7590367eb34f58620a1098a10119cde
6439 F20101129_AAAWPB leibert_t_Page_040thm.jpg
ee8606f1ecadc894e871c6ca86587535
4ec771bb93a369d4fe89c2a75068ca038e037091
22911 F20101129_AAAWOM leibert_t_Page_079.QC.jpg
1da7e03ce9027fae510fff8b95bd567f
ad729d3d26c48983cd8459acb1eecaecf1f83b25
111639 F20101129_AAAWNY leibert_t_Page_064.jp2
dc6160dd9d1ab7acce495d289cc9f208
72798dd75492f9f745bb497cb0e460073d79fe97
22506 F20101129_AAAWPC leibert_t_Page_073.QC.jpg
b8f446abecff688dc62b156d0095133c
e971ed7635c54cbac0e8d36d02409a11fe469dc9
6706 F20101129_AAAWON leibert_t_Page_065thm.jpg
598c70b3e4e7e875e0462d5aba5ac376
c6eef716c81d7afb6fc5005c5b8ffa82c3fa4012
6071 F20101129_AAAWNZ leibert_t_Page_011thm.jpg
1f79ebe22ada73562c0d7eac0b423705
51e8e331fdf9f1ffc46a3a5b7595b8c191425af6
2281 F20101129_AAAWPD leibert_t_Page_007thm.jpg
fbea11c4d79b7d5f1f52c6f9c396c8e5
ec2c5de27f521a68d54fe9c4a8fc16b766c20902
87694 F20101129_AAAWOO leibert_t_Page_115.jpg
ef7c127ad8a12be804ef810f9a907a50
165bdd3c0d5b05ff38b45c176b882f8e50645363
23185 F20101129_AAAWOP leibert_t_Page_016.QC.jpg
cb14e7c26bd5d0727db1f9422be47c9f
af72739752877d79cc15ac24f9128467fe76446a
6367 F20101129_AAAWPE leibert_t_Page_012thm.jpg
f625fea6f7df088739c62d6a398ee914
621d48768ef588b8f832f902237cb873bb0c2906
23319 F20101129_AAAWOQ leibert_t_Page_046.QC.jpg
f8f52afb68e9b0adfb21e5962040e04c
f781f294e813302c0b9cb09cde617f06e6a00d6e
F20101129_AAAWPF leibert_t_Page_034.tif
be25e5d65ec5972c14d54d7f92b45992
6734c2d68aba86148bfa9943b4b4060311a694e5
104579 F20101129_AAAWOR leibert_t_Page_055.jp2
6db5ed60d40d97e46443b8da5d170857
3ef9c04233303de6df9aeefabc31803979202715
113193 F20101129_AAAWPG leibert_t_Page_088.jp2
d6722a1c93b3499bf8558a7c9f50aa01
3655c2d8d6590844d418dc34db4bac074c8e80f5
22269 F20101129_AAAWOS leibert_t_Page_130.jp2
900ab54fd1932d7723b83ce0153190c9
ad9ba402cd57e399350105cf095c1d8e5dedc085
7516 F20101129_AAAWPH leibert_t_Page_105.QC.jpg
14da883470cb0b533788cc81070c8c68
4631cb52d50ceea1986b848693d73f923b036a17
23907 F20101129_AAAWOT leibert_t_Page_020.QC.jpg
9ce8034d2dcbe5e4cf1b057fedc64885
d6af38fa37ede9d86f06fdb4ad90ad60ee7f5eb4
F20101129_AAAWPI leibert_t_Page_113.tif
6f9a668f2ecf3245df227e72a8442698
ab8ac00d7a3de4190038882c1b983d1343b2c493
F20101129_AAAWOU leibert_t_Page_030.tif
4369e1f14092409e04fe9ba19c7a9f54
96b3f174f0afedd542b21dcf007ac729e6aa2257
14632 F20101129_AAAWPJ leibert_t_Page_070.QC.jpg
c32aa609186629bda29ee241489eb2d7
b776bf73306badd574fcfe7b795eb2c023a2795b
110574 F20101129_AAAWOV leibert_t_Page_046.jp2
c2b7d762c7dfea674e8db07ad4c0f54f
e9ba13093b652c17b9417c884cab8527a7d1246f
24259 F20101129_AAAWPK leibert_t_Page_085.QC.jpg
58c54c36ca182cdb83dc012bd3285b4e
f9cd1ad7559dc950ac700ec91901beab74acbd9c
73153 F20101129_AAAWOW leibert_t_Page_062.jpg
69e61874cc0b9e7bb1bbbb29572baa2d
a39f3c26a85d785b7587210fcaccc9029b574c5c
7042 F20101129_AAAWPL leibert_t_Page_117thm.jpg
21778f29ba66f97317df1f1eb292f9f7
dd2c5ec276a00383b62dc7100b87abea7bc28570
5954 F20101129_AAAWOX leibert_t_Page_108thm.jpg
4a7e492187c80f80741979600bd3f5da
4795bd23eaa7f32e3f39ca31878bb711ebd1f99b
21806 F20101129_AAAWQA leibert_t_Page_061.QC.jpg
5b2a165fdead681c315ce37d2f691a59
9842b739f7b078824dbef2d050e6c9bacde8cd4a
22463 F20101129_AAAWPM leibert_t_Page_074.QC.jpg
d917bb09ef111be3c64eaab357fd6fb5
b5ba7b503797843725888cfa2994ab7ddfb096ed
6460 F20101129_AAAWOY leibert_t_Page_044thm.jpg
74ee066555c98e6e5956e96dce9a272d
38f39ebafc829842326e69d11d195383c27a0a62
110413 F20101129_AAAWQB leibert_t_Page_044.jp2
374a082b0e196c7d25151368ce6afd80
f90e18a744c923ebccd0c9660528f7864a00e19a
72867 F20101129_AAAWPN leibert_t_Page_036.jpg
469656eecc4081c2e3afef90effa1eb8
5edb5403d6464d7877f5b1f05050299e9ede5b2c
73394 F20101129_AAAWOZ leibert_t_Page_092.jpg
5a933bb1c18af1bdb1aa9226359c34f8
6ea3b970f61bf966e19c19c8a4efee726915c693
92522 F20101129_AAAWQC leibert_t_Page_003.jp2
4eeeb1a12c4fee479bc3622cafd470c4
cd2855231779bde014aeddcd5bbaf4ca0da95f27
F20101129_AAAWPO leibert_t_Page_013.tif
4a9feb239e9d1c3a51225a7d57a66a6c
9bbe90db70a24efffb0430525eafe75876324725
F20101129_AAAWQD leibert_t_Page_048.tif
96f1612f5aa57aadf2c30c0bdf6a95b0
fe045185482d3d6c80cb9948211dd1b02e9aaae5
111722 F20101129_AAAWPP leibert_t_Page_049.jp2
338ecbd1491919782ad32514907b97e3
184cd8697eb47721763646a20b68471db1053391
62070 F20101129_AAAWQE leibert_t_Page_083.jpg
035b312171f798b6cce36811f87847d3
b370fe854b88613ece1c827e7894db358289dc30
23954 F20101129_AAAWPQ leibert_t_Page_054.QC.jpg
fed3ec807f8a6c6629bbd2ebe7c6287f
25543c46b264f4c5a4a81e4370b922d25d990cbd
111826 F20101129_AAAWPR leibert_t_Page_038.jp2
4e033416e359ec12fc8283011afed6d8
80c749090daca4e2e9f485e498fd390e05a1c1eb
61872 F20101129_AAAWQF leibert_t_Page_129.jpg
d2049a9ece5ace9c48de6668ace85612
2155422bb77c533759c3e20df260b4d3aec91561
18100 F20101129_AAAWPS leibert_t_Page_009.QC.jpg
29e4e98115cab2806b482304ce33cec2
3fcb4b00c462194a7a366af234f4ff7f59d361e8
69915 F20101129_AAAWQG leibert_t_Page_079.jpg
06a23f69138eb40f7f95b79fd6a3fb83
1ff74b304798e9002076e0d677e5018351e4daaf
F20101129_AAAWPT leibert_t_Page_129.tif
d5d92ef71821faf4109ed20343898263
5ccac0925a0b944177f35225b5d9fb0b3e92ecda
13218 F20101129_AAAWQH leibert_t_Page_103.QC.jpg
09394ee18e88f488765cfd0a79b8aad1
bc0dc7c8b9ca17236520e30cb20552cc7c870d07
45359 F20101129_AAAWPU leibert_t_Page_070.jpg
cb3d2cd64284e16144bd346fd1be54f8
529281c1ffd233dbe3479107d500aba957aa0d01
111585 F20101129_AAAWQI leibert_t_Page_022.jp2
d27d9da5211cad8a18c072e1b3d03bf0
490bd23475f3ec71594a78f363794424f2f3a0ad
6536 F20101129_AAAWPV leibert_t_Page_034thm.jpg
eb213611e3525f682a5d8e6c82c1aa25
47ab59f567f3a1ece51a0390bb5e02f2326ced81
18840 F20101129_AAAWQJ leibert_t_Page_056.QC.jpg
0bd009e437694c2b9e04bbfbd73e4bc8
f41023ac09487a29babcfbbbadfc78c8b2d9fabb
F20101129_AAAWPW leibert_t_Page_122.tif
9b9588a54b4a720767ffd2ff568723b3
07624c5122d6e1c74ab6f770963da59dbe6c204b
24548 F20101129_AAAWQK leibert_t_Page_033.QC.jpg
7ec1e264bf19298baeba043e42163c84
3f2e52547f4538d818e1759ce6584af7895ab09c
23545 F20101129_AAAWPX leibert_t_Page_019.QC.jpg
5cedb88ba12dcbd2d158008555efe986
cb2f2fb681051da10927f77dd21645c86ce52ed4
96974 F20101129_AAAWRA UFE0011283_00001.mets FULL
e6d3d8b1c0bae66fb552faed58dbdd0f
615e6163dc063242054ba9049ceacf7198fadb3c
146498 F20101129_AAAWQL leibert_t_Page_114.jp2
5513be44e6896cb6a4cb65688c1003d6
d033e83e4ae70af19942b67cb779c5dd676efdbc
F20101129_AAAWPY leibert_t_Page_126.tif
3e10f85cc77925374ff0aa39f77edea6
e60dc8c7cbceeb54c70f674686e05e0166eccf5d
84050 F20101129_AAAWQM leibert_t_Page_009.jp2
b5d148d6174690e4abfdbef671ae66c6
962ed0fdd12e9f1730335357b79b92c248a86847
F20101129_AAAWPZ leibert_t_Page_067.tif
8067f8f77e46a8548e9897196051f6a9
f73ff9c3b7597b5204adc4b492428fb51038c481
23337 F20101129_AAAWQN leibert_t_Page_018.QC.jpg
b48fd73f0794b5db5f5ba94ee7a3159a
3a1c8d7950655775d62f885065844f7b00285d8e
24719 F20101129_AAAWRD leibert_t_Page_001.jpg
680424f95c50c57aa9a3e2caa1a0e9cd
a8ee8b48ba3f400b9a0a984aca881cf0c134ad87
25952 F20101129_AAAWQO leibert_t_Page_120.QC.jpg
1ac07e78629a5af67e1f4f5bc43b3827
93b38c642fa4e3bdd86a06d8832f9741641ad494
10297 F20101129_AAAWRE leibert_t_Page_002.jpg
74bd149da4cb65b82226be9797b0ecf0
e19debe3d9de5fa9b0891fdfdb06b42c7a9fae67
105445 F20101129_AAAWQP leibert_t_Page_050.jp2
4b0399d6e0bdd9a630607ee3028d09e3
f2a6519f1a56734250dd7d2bcb6395c108dbaab1
62398 F20101129_AAAWRF leibert_t_Page_003.jpg
6deab599bf3c8569db438ec88cc54010
82ff1b1918be482984a45356532b8a94e42f2862
F20101129_AAAWQQ leibert_t_Page_099.tif
10b918256bb7467f326fd69350d6a281
5857dac945e62ef73f7d3ca00e9b3e2b713c33fa
109321 F20101129_AAAWQR leibert_t_Page_018.jp2
17a1230db250f1b3c5339251f3577a6f
22e951bd60f79fb94092e0ce0dd1b6a7404b18de
65562 F20101129_AAAWRG leibert_t_Page_005.jpg
0f332587cc5b95983e6473fc3f57d200
c2138f54db4d126fee9771cfce94137a7efff5cb
69197 F20101129_AAAWQS leibert_t_Page_050.jpg
13dac7669cee5e18e423efcd0149cf83
4f46f08e6537db4a4f115a663c16a952a0423677
89575 F20101129_AAAWRH leibert_t_Page_006.jpg
8ed3b1049a1ba8efb0c86b9596895ca2
dd90ef535cf146b7ac18c4468b1fd7ea96a79799
25537 F20101129_AAAWQT leibert_t_Page_121.QC.jpg
57542d3562869d6247542e2c525974cc
ecba0ff7b4bc2c409633a55bf5e71c1459ee147e
23396 F20101129_AAAWRI leibert_t_Page_007.jpg
791a6964fbace4a77720cb866d1f8756
e7d50befb70dba1e2a77a6848bac491bf10e7e76
6559 F20101129_AAAWQU leibert_t_Page_086thm.jpg
e2d6dc8f5736578e21539e0b98c53f90
5666dc361a0d90041a7e45413308d162da2892f6
33040 F20101129_AAAWRJ leibert_t_Page_008.jpg
85fe85237209b103547c5b4204b20ac8
080f469b0760f515003132c298ceea83abc0b175
6551 F20101129_AAAWQV leibert_t_Page_019thm.jpg
bc212852429c4c063263057963b061fa
80da1727fd5f55fada28a1aa4e8d7c5e6bc05a37
57781 F20101129_AAAWRK leibert_t_Page_009.jpg
bb163e94cbd8d84d1f5041ce10ccc696
1ed383f61eea93f684897e6d89b612cdcfaf43f8
F20101129_AAAWQW leibert_t_Page_111.tif
ff08f289f6b53753c0269088e3e4e1ac
3ef4499cc5acc2e9ebaf0d36a9cc0043cb0c6f93
53656 F20101129_AAAWRL leibert_t_Page_010.jpg
e842b1cf878625b090b7580de545f3b2
85f57300d987a8f51ef1456b626a1cb3f2ae7154
6523 F20101129_AAAWQX leibert_t_Page_121thm.jpg
525c2caea4cfb355846720b09596213a
3a79f95cc0d89eff2b1bdf3b5be6d5ab360477ff
74073 F20101129_AAAWSA leibert_t_Page_029.jpg
3ea48792865033dfe265c51bef72a49d
6d55bd9499da9d6ede119a446ed422e9e3e18093
71724 F20101129_AAAWRM leibert_t_Page_012.jpg
1c8953f0dfc821a21d69fbf0a8103a3b
f105a9f0a6633dd1201c78be814f16d04873231d
74500 F20101129_AAAWQY leibert_t_Page_090.jpg
6707f0af277b7783a56c851e281644db
6590d81a35c9ebaface48f27d8ec97104ed8e9a5
74775 F20101129_AAAWSB leibert_t_Page_030.jpg
fd18cb5d9f429df503d7c2a5c1df3c8b
e85076916ef126fb0f05b6befd3adf4ef94c67eb
74488 F20101129_AAAWRN leibert_t_Page_013.jpg
46141d36b02149bf85bc43123fbe3a59
2437f1a6f2d515867aa4fabdce33a08c5f89287d
6389 F20101129_AAAWQZ leibert_t_Page_130.QC.jpg
52b714ccc878b578c89f2ee86ad4ab54
e61ce3c1ed0adac47a724aa3b4de3d5552801a10
71771 F20101129_AAAWSC leibert_t_Page_032.jpg
8f43632496866cc942a7ede19e1bbb2c
e960ff5a3e00c1dcaec10b4d4511610f018e65e8
71729 F20101129_AAAWRO leibert_t_Page_014.jpg
5fe6a5562c32bbaa95bed9d0b33abbfe
e4c6721110d569d7f93fe0aafa694c1f12653d1c
67887 F20101129_AAAWSD leibert_t_Page_035.jpg
91fd43a60095f27c4061c30961638883
d2706eeb072b76fe8b600e9c46e9fee1dd62e1d9
70622 F20101129_AAAWRP leibert_t_Page_015.jpg
cd4fa2184fe9c17aa99064e34559c2c1
cea24f9391e7dda6ff4d5bada56526ae93d4c868
72560 F20101129_AAAWSE leibert_t_Page_037.jpg
c58003b3a56706b9126aab4526376fa9
b5711e7f313748113bdeec79a5d3110c7cf129c1
71657 F20101129_AAAWRQ leibert_t_Page_016.jpg
a3bf1fcc0a82530e7ff7cda773d94fd7
c173f6c08fb7305aedef41c1d642221fe0958321
72177 F20101129_AAAWSF leibert_t_Page_038.jpg
19d08bf585ddc02d0c280ac3409687da
b94bbd5701202f0e4fd4d65b1d183070eb5b226a
72764 F20101129_AAAWRR leibert_t_Page_019.jpg
b63d4ad5294ac2d0d2d2201a52b2f692
d828b09d01401719b212b38ce343caf81871b9b7
70209 F20101129_AAAWSG leibert_t_Page_040.jpg
1e1b388f689ef7f157694fcf22bd72a3
51e6833908317053d179d69be4e2f702d2b6380e
73092 F20101129_AAAWRS leibert_t_Page_020.jpg
a938ffb63b25cb6ac74dba93701de960
3d9026cd7d2d53776c85f6f4a839656b1be32598
74320 F20101129_AAAWRT leibert_t_Page_021.jpg
32cc8d3a0e25a6da356195447f7c75f0
2757f2a10493e91e9344723330ecc5d11eeb0d57
71786 F20101129_AAAWSH leibert_t_Page_041.jpg
e02f0c02b65dd3ca68e667d337b985d0
5e727a14193c1bcf92992229bce2a1cb54cac84e
66350 F20101129_AAAWRU leibert_t_Page_023.jpg
78ba8e886a68202bccd2293b61f4dee8
ec54b77a24f4782531a93626141ebe858c1b2507
70328 F20101129_AAAWSI leibert_t_Page_042.jpg
01563c02373b4f906b545a4c2d778bc1
112e7621c578d1d0bbb8b2ee851869cbbf0ef4a3
58323 F20101129_AAAWRV leibert_t_Page_024.jpg
f6b2acb12861e424578a8bbcf1f3eab1
5dccd5d89bd15a49a67815b2e9e51bd91fd46b6d
72308 F20101129_AAAWSJ leibert_t_Page_044.jpg
e56372c26eb8704deaee9957548ab12a
438a8f85c82463f1ae71c0335737bb10dfa70383
68267 F20101129_AAAWRW leibert_t_Page_025.jpg
916ebb8ce1947cb26abe739abe795557
3f50e9dccc0468272d6ac3758968a516c5208320
71234 F20101129_AAAWSK leibert_t_Page_045.jpg
ad279690ed2202317d4cab83d41e776a
cef3e3c46d2b14a717822dc6d064f4780f1466f9
15377 F20101129_AAAWRX leibert_t_Page_026.jpg
3f1086acbdef7e60fe90c16f0b0f81da
0561628c590eda7bf5b81e8c3878e42349a0a71c
72833 F20101129_AAAWTA leibert_t_Page_064.jpg
921e7d998f77ea4550f58b30fdbfbe49
e0667fa61f505222e97f0c9e79afc8cffd2ddb6e
71541 F20101129_AAAWSL leibert_t_Page_046.jpg
0f37f238ba9e28539e2ec290a0471130
9a86e6481807bb35f3f2bf5efaead427488b222b
65380 F20101129_AAAWRY leibert_t_Page_027.jpg
003057cb6254979547b8aa0775700f67
579d0a9301d66cb3bda1fa96a7ea2795175bd1aa
72543 F20101129_AAAWTB leibert_t_Page_065.jpg
010cbaecff5e40caed13cc6d38793e19
d98f2a7f102ad15ed95130359ebc2d05e04058ff
73956 F20101129_AAAWSM leibert_t_Page_047.jpg
5c621b1a4d7a86c83b547ee561979367
1ecb87abbd23139367ffe8688c0e9d9356a3a777
74475 F20101129_AAAWRZ leibert_t_Page_028.jpg
45456b82d561f9e7b87ae909ea8bccee
b10225f6394d72b99dba0726335258231449b820
71479 F20101129_AAAWTC leibert_t_Page_066.jpg
e663ec97d44e075726d1c74a8e81e34a
75af2db18f624a102f8552d06b017d2f23e3a61e
72999 F20101129_AAAWSN leibert_t_Page_048.jpg
77a4dd81da63dc2a48770dbf860da2c5
b4124cfd52162a986403caead4acc65dc4aa241a
66643 F20101129_AAAWTD leibert_t_Page_067.jpg
e4f2f20c55269a7efe45059a04781f3c
b2433597248fef18676caa091fe1f980729924c8
75310 F20101129_AAAWSO leibert_t_Page_051.jpg
2cd5fcfd260b1fa74d9a4b2f196a38e0
2a462c30771688eb10f23857cfe6dc2b45f82b58
53869 F20101129_AAAWTE leibert_t_Page_068.jpg
15be88b0f1bfa81460e53788509737f8
769ea73d5578148ffbe2f32c5cfd1169c9e9430e
70410 F20101129_AAAWSP leibert_t_Page_052.jpg
424cabb6c2fed6c7e3c8799d10de11eb
0e4febf93cddd3fe14de43ce2c00148d6bffabfb
59296 F20101129_AAAWTF leibert_t_Page_069.jpg
65d4391ee958658cddd37b2929f859b1
78ba193e98e5d1ef1009befdc5758dbd94541b2b
71177 F20101129_AAAWSQ leibert_t_Page_053.jpg
41b82e0ca0319afa4fb6dd48e7324aa4
74c22354884ea0e1bdb63a9f8dd35e08d7c29b49
67842 F20101129_AAAWTG leibert_t_Page_071.jpg
ad5636e1812a6f2105a6ad19db0a55e2
f7d55770d82d640a71a586cbff9112443ef8c6bc
74542 F20101129_AAAWSR leibert_t_Page_054.jpg
87cf92ab3620908e59654be341548af3
be8b924c1c199195c87022e4e27a3cce2127c0fb
57828 F20101129_AAAWTH leibert_t_Page_072.jpg
b61c677709ff6e35b5c5ab8624c84650
59008ce140b10c21e81cb0c06662a85620e62ff8
68494 F20101129_AAAWSS leibert_t_Page_055.jpg
ea61365824014edd2856d9ddcbb4cd54
5d2acdd3c5e51b1c2d9caef4ed8b048c5655d792
58626 F20101129_AAAWST leibert_t_Page_056.jpg
e31429a5441b688336a657aba2293c44
8b62e90aa36f98d784f4c45552c16172acb62396
70208 F20101129_AAAWTI leibert_t_Page_073.jpg
eca9112c38ebf29fce86d38b6e856840
ae583b886ea61833e29fd75381ae7f591483ae50
69108 F20101129_AAAWSU leibert_t_Page_057.jpg
09c668032a39c24f169f31cde6735b0e
aa84786e057c43fa51f1a2b7807ab1b6661d784c
69390 F20101129_AAAWTJ leibert_t_Page_074.jpg
b01ca777519eb6cd2b057a6cadf439b4
f3a8450fdcac3ac543c02a7fca75f169493328f8
67454 F20101129_AAAWSV leibert_t_Page_058.jpg
755e91c359a4563984e9e529a9bc76eb
7aa126b7fcd0a1a5a868c589f636245438015620
73874 F20101129_AAAWTK leibert_t_Page_075.jpg
3c830618e2c8933a5f4bdd63d48a362b
16b56da253e14ad3453319095cdc87514820e609
79457 F20101129_AAAWSW leibert_t_Page_059.jpg
1c0fd164805d9ee634b774d474703e16
87caa213b082875b21d1eede4cdfd1022e09049e
72736 F20101129_AAAWUA leibert_t_Page_098.jpg
21fe281efbf432ef63af7445b0bfc642
cbcf48304f0af4ca8904ca8bf9e45a5af810481b
60492 F20101129_AAAWTL leibert_t_Page_076.jpg
a76be319403769ef83d0a361ab5c8bf5
2324e021a84878eb871af07c0a402d558cdf1041
79168 F20101129_AAAWSX leibert_t_Page_060.jpg
0210a23ea6f1d1b61ddf1b6d227006d2
8b4b0e59f79d8c7e37f769418e3f74796a49e151
72816 F20101129_AAAWUB leibert_t_Page_099.jpg
b16a1d512adbe7f06ce164aa8d3b3b89
2866b1546b4009c8534f5bf2c3fa18d3441fe3ab
69349 F20101129_AAAWTM leibert_t_Page_077.jpg
31ceb12be0e843ea21b8e858c3df79ee
3f12c5fe05d5c30c5fbcb3f40649d9e7201d5897
67182 F20101129_AAAWSY leibert_t_Page_061.jpg
582816cbae03415033dedbc039d7457d
26d29eb218597fd8bb254512ea26ee0049f48aac
26440 F20101129_AAAWUC leibert_t_Page_100.jpg
6508d9d5dffaf18352509348f151525c
87ff5ee9c078bae7b73e9eed686cd436d5982a6c
61220 F20101129_AAAWTN leibert_t_Page_080.jpg
56675cfca84e1b5b81b6d4d2baeaf490
2e6e714bca0c6849827fe8e18af2a51f4c6f9457
71900 F20101129_AAAWSZ leibert_t_Page_063.jpg
8af2d25bb2958d1f3faef1b4982fa2e9
a77e3ca62209361ccaa034bd5fd62fd460838ca2
61358 F20101129_AAAWUD leibert_t_Page_101.jpg
de396ccbfe3cab589fa6b2c3cc03984f
b24596b49c72c8b9b138f944c0acdeb6c8736370
65131 F20101129_AAAWTO leibert_t_Page_081.jpg
b342198b98c6ffdec6b7cb915c4379e4
79b54e742e13b66d71be58dbfa8cb75063d6b340
43737 F20101129_AAAWUE leibert_t_Page_103.jpg
9805345e913fa84a43590547a3ac4da3
a1f8da951ce7f342f2e6590cb4c4f7bcd9ab76c2
13571 F20101129_AAAWTP leibert_t_Page_082.jpg
ab4e44ff2434b156ec925cb74d7990c0
dd824ed1ae5aec65663b682f1d60cae3b91b65e9
39257 F20101129_AAAWUF leibert_t_Page_104.jpg
6a9e64b6cd1ce8296f045970ed331953
ca96d60ac6fa2b8986f5f319e0b951e2324a3cd1
73892 F20101129_AAAWTQ leibert_t_Page_084.jpg
2dd509b0daba935d506de13cbdf7b30e
a5cf00cded9d7cd0cd820faffc7ba10d1b5c0186
22347 F20101129_AAAWUG leibert_t_Page_105.jpg
4a924a1ec2596be6c204477ce7e98a78
77eda7876cc95611a8c30c53d36b3f9af1dbb569
73746 F20101129_AAAWTR leibert_t_Page_085.jpg
32dd457dae8a334e7575eb2943f0737e
5e6e7e64a8c01171e75a99c2c29065a1ff208525
F20101129_AAAXAA leibert_t_Page_031.tif
7df717e573af5d4e09ace485fdabc7fb
28c3064fe24b651d3add1937d108c50ac2cd88f2
25062 F20101129_AAAWUH leibert_t_Page_106.jpg
3923eff82655a6e8e85c0266730b200e
3278feb148eb6013768fd88b6f1743f5021bdfd7
72460 F20101129_AAAWTS leibert_t_Page_086.jpg
69606af7d0ee7a0d00ffc8b09bcb2c46
04d9231953e978b058ad5ad29406328783d5d26a
F20101129_AAAXAB leibert_t_Page_032.tif
639aee3ca08bc89baf353c63c36539e5
97e877224301c4d79923e7b57bdbc05f059a417b
20949 F20101129_AAAWUI leibert_t_Page_107.jpg
fdd3fde1dd23ae2050ac653502eed7b0
6f8669e37718cef784f9215d0881003c193f6c2a
74845 F20101129_AAAWTT leibert_t_Page_088.jpg
04173986afa60a8a300bc45f8d1fb6de
3b3cb18ef6ca27a5a4ed27d9e029e195014b31c6
F20101129_AAAXAC leibert_t_Page_033.tif
1ee1c3ab17f1abefce98140d4f90c0ce
18eda9ee77758a1198c17584c1aab54d82703034
69993 F20101129_AAAWTU leibert_t_Page_089.jpg
23f05380e946a01f0e21c59e0e38841c
cb544a2640f09d2971e3f31ba0057ec1433e2d69
F20101129_AAAXAD leibert_t_Page_035.tif
c90c2c402927efaeb974c0979c405c40
7fe7d1c7d0de889d8fea2bb381b5557317fd8bb1
69575 F20101129_AAAWUJ leibert_t_Page_108.jpg
6716de468856bfe5eed2582e7d5923dd
14ffb64dc36687cefe626668308f0c53ddd89e26
72831 F20101129_AAAWTV leibert_t_Page_091.jpg
89f0211cf3585661563b105fdac0bbd3
8519855865f19e6da9258c9922d88b352c2601d4
F20101129_AAAXAE leibert_t_Page_037.tif
f85883659348f934fa38f80d91df9c90
0cac7f7e778a90c6b05a6f4b2b4e87c898781478
53146 F20101129_AAAWUK leibert_t_Page_109.jpg
2c3f29add11bfcd27f281b2c6897472b
b6ce0370c49bb3aa57b3af5045f818cd55734c35
71987 F20101129_AAAWTW leibert_t_Page_093.jpg
e467854729c091a41ff0e6da6cd9a244
f2f47a3ff6a5d3470d4d1e2249be1d0c8a8679b9
F20101129_AAAXAF leibert_t_Page_038.tif
bcbdc89a230dcc05d8a80db7b24fa77f
0601b4a965ffb4694c4ca726f156cad12a1d65b2
36634 F20101129_AAAWUL leibert_t_Page_110.jpg
d2d68910a3e46c2da2988acaace3a069
c3865070edc4f4a2e180aa02590b4510c500cbe2
74155 F20101129_AAAWTX leibert_t_Page_094.jpg
d3b4ebd41eccdbdf2f8e0c6d645a64bb
f7e7ea413e3979f182cf0555d789ec0754f74802
F20101129_AAAXAG leibert_t_Page_040.tif
8307be86050372ea94d254ed28ee23ea
e0ff9fd5c797bda4005a39cc19d183e2610d7c2d
17160 F20101129_AAAWVA leibert_t_Page_128.jpg
dde011aec6e8f288c6e369f120ce6208
30f48671f83b102461b407b318514b3f3e88ba2b
27851 F20101129_AAAWUM leibert_t_Page_111.jpg
ea60bfaa7f05b6e6821dbb9c69703cf3
d24d95110f5f59309750f34e1c25c6f4a037ad15
74538 F20101129_AAAWTY leibert_t_Page_095.jpg
6fd67d4af97577097f088405553e830d
e20d2076e44f07acf259fd158df014e60a4bc94f
F20101129_AAAXAH leibert_t_Page_041.tif
0341e2bcc333464f1356d8a91b6bde0f
0c4d96487fd9169be1beb42e52db6d848cbd4ea5
19585 F20101129_AAAWVB leibert_t_Page_130.jpg
2bc6c0ddb64d3c2fb83c22050e5270ac
59540b8832f2f710de059fae62220b29fc045697
79420 F20101129_AAAWUN leibert_t_Page_112.jpg
0347d97459c5ad7038a8c2969d098d11
864e84bd144cc45e00d8c26d3573ff3148f6f299
69888 F20101129_AAAWTZ leibert_t_Page_096.jpg
9b458509e9200c8863344e10334a56f2
1e49e9d06c3b4bc9bcdcd2161a700a080e154498
F20101129_AAAXAI leibert_t_Page_042.tif
f6ea972c998d35779973e31ec44170db
4fb3560601b1a6ba7296e56d55b6fc378d8dc6e2
25294 F20101129_AAAWVC leibert_t_Page_001.jp2
1678f292e1cb1c38a5101155ef04e529
7be79cc74168944775a33b30ab022e986b6197e0
94140 F20101129_AAAWUO leibert_t_Page_114.jpg
ba9367e85e7445c2936d91503d5f4382
aec66efca4c7ff6d9bc743e744a56462426fff64
F20101129_AAAXAJ leibert_t_Page_043.tif
6358e7cbb58b5022b23b93aeaa6845dc
923c439027c05689a0414b5c53a2cafa1b666d73
5550 F20101129_AAAWVD leibert_t_Page_002.jp2
1e5404f585d2a98680e77867964b890c
22f0c12da2e55c237d39bac1d2c841a1411d9ff1
101302 F20101129_AAAWUP leibert_t_Page_116.jpg
678c87d4d6c15cc4662fe7e3689f2b60
6705a0cf6960d0088b7a565b0860e1a1215ae32b
F20101129_AAAXAK leibert_t_Page_044.tif
2f15776f10d1a128df32c031892c3b35
6831cde5e23e9a8894b263af507dde9b47721c3d
33725 F20101129_AAAWVE leibert_t_Page_004.jp2
ab4a3b3b0b6885fc5b8685bf698ea8f2
d01381c9d26183307718a8e4da80247020ad48d0
87790 F20101129_AAAWUQ leibert_t_Page_117.jpg
896f8f03948c38c39ba82dea4bc07c93
a8658aa5428d3e4dde9abab0b55b442748d2f438
F20101129_AAAXAL leibert_t_Page_045.tif
e251693e164ee572dd8915eeebcb9660
6501da1b841b2c44a28790cf6b1cfb9b3c68a21f
1051976 F20101129_AAAWVF leibert_t_Page_005.jp2
0caf52bc7025e28403e34b7dbe680896
404e7d0edee8d3638bd82656eb3714d2b956acc6
87931 F20101129_AAAWUR leibert_t_Page_118.jpg
01d653bc05c87b5fb5131bc9da039e5e
697f5959bce317f9a261bfa904e0b898e434d549
F20101129_AAAXBA leibert_t_Page_061.tif
f82c5cc3b978cb47ab19963502bb4554
10daa1863858969db3095883d4d8fb94298b711d
F20101129_AAAXAM leibert_t_Page_046.tif
333e6d6c9843a8b0528eebb7a0a7d7d9
ecd2395c0beb16dc6029e59f9ad24677d73e87dc
1051956 F20101129_AAAWVG leibert_t_Page_006.jp2
b9b57c1e7351bc2cc49ebe7682e68263
975707b5ec6d5da52f4c5407a52ae70449e1e671
81670 F20101129_AAAWUS leibert_t_Page_119.jpg
b7834b728025a548b533920889dbc5db
e4e24eee2036f91eb3d6ab30073caa8a31946db5
F20101129_AAAXBB leibert_t_Page_062.tif
9ec2b83f1f25b3f998e12e5b4840565d
0fae8e51d975a04c1500d9ca32b1e1e23bcbe8a5
F20101129_AAAXAN leibert_t_Page_047.tif
dead5f9a2fa6d9dc6843d7b4cf04bda6
ba60d265e31f561c21774c167c061cb33664229c
423096 F20101129_AAAWVH leibert_t_Page_007.jp2
c87af71f3183d29c5f7fd6c07338e772
7cd30dd5de9ec1dd4863b8d7d5a16990821952ad
90838 F20101129_AAAWUT leibert_t_Page_120.jpg
5774dbde0bc155b45a263bfc90feef9d
d9a5d768375e13eb529155229a5d37844592f642
F20101129_AAAXBC leibert_t_Page_063.tif
5b646c89c0c0ce4c76ffd02b4aaf46ce
5a8ea2f72b0660bdb60f6dd75da6ec62a3985d22
F20101129_AAAXAO leibert_t_Page_049.tif
09fd4391db7b578bc3ac25f9ac884416
754c6bca4da671c9d912b5a1271607d1c833aa2f
750901 F20101129_AAAWVI leibert_t_Page_008.jp2
ddd4b10524958584901dab609936b93c
2ab06070cb7812d4012c8b7f0965772b00eb7101
89554 F20101129_AAAWUU leibert_t_Page_121.jpg
1b5e40e7139bfa60ded9793d5aff0c39
edf2d88a94898577d1561bef9e1477f9907c3e4f
F20101129_AAAXBD leibert_t_Page_064.tif
e0b6315195fec063c6e17a5592224f7e
05063e63d122e8ef0eb637d6da0ca6737d371b6c
F20101129_AAAXAP leibert_t_Page_050.tif
aac7e0600b913cca9ef2e0e656366b01
5eb1b6f6636a01fda9249de29fe7ec4b6021bc92
80841 F20101129_AAAWVJ leibert_t_Page_010.jp2
bac26b2bd307589d9d7c5bdffb07955a
f6c26a0d7fd3dc6cd35c723dca8798af895780ed
89867 F20101129_AAAWUV leibert_t_Page_123.jpg
6e774a3533c1ea353d0a6d285f1d514d
57a181b00e82335a531141b5dcc3b2e64ec9a64e
F20101129_AAAXBE leibert_t_Page_065.tif
919b4b86a0227eb5bbc6db178277753e
27b7c88fee3babfab1e71e7fdb03a5aadbeb059c
F20101129_AAAXAQ leibert_t_Page_051.tif
020c349de400568560d163f39cb28d59
2da9c6db0f869cd1ef7d0f3c72a3aef2de02075c
90886 F20101129_AAAWUW leibert_t_Page_124.jpg
a4369dbe282bd8b2d07aee5dde95aa5d
844eb238236ee8583f73ad2f2db8bc2972b9f113
F20101129_AAAXBF leibert_t_Page_066.tif
fb278ecdbe813d37e1348c43e1c942c4
f6380c730c2941f1b1ce4e758ba2b06491f3fa5f
F20101129_AAAXAR leibert_t_Page_052.tif
ec1d73f23965eb952ae9ad76fcc59dbb
8981763545a143b142867d7c1217815b86cdec73
101532 F20101129_AAAWVK leibert_t_Page_011.jp2
d5fd6e40f8d4b1f1709b0c1c1123ff2d
8d5bf3f7fdbdc20c341e2e91b2eae23df6ab09f8
95116 F20101129_AAAWUX leibert_t_Page_125.jpg
297dbf49a2b9bd4b11ac190ea6222dda
d871d71d42b0d4d390bb1ecd5543a929a1054a72
F20101129_AAAXBG leibert_t_Page_068.tif
1fae2c747a7da6836f7df33262686eb4
44fd25e55879282b9ca24d6bd91393a440419c57
109092 F20101129_AAAWWA leibert_t_Page_032.jp2
73ce8eb7dee472fdd12ab09ddeb7119a
8ab8c0a9326a9032fb9ab82192ed784fb891b13e
F20101129_AAAXAS leibert_t_Page_053.tif
3336044e0fe7202a7538aec94b0890b5
e96d1b2789d061dc66b888c01bf15a4269014514
110165 F20101129_AAAWVL leibert_t_Page_012.jp2
c909149fca0d1a3dab1649895b40e181
2bf0ceddddc6a8036a1c2effa0c2a7fc5235a023
F20101129_AAAXBH leibert_t_Page_070.tif
ac763a1b6f60f997b43a5329c1585ba1
9d7788be9974b5b9eb57a52b27949649c4c167a9
116310 F20101129_AAAWWB leibert_t_Page_033.jp2
d9544a49533a4c5e0909623ae331afe0
42f4a848ba81ce9f3870c49b12ca25834f07dca5
F20101129_AAAXAT leibert_t_Page_054.tif
3c17d53c8cdee05199ca82118aeb0a7b
20298d050886e914398b4395b1cec71fff6c1a4c
113516 F20101129_AAAWVM leibert_t_Page_013.jp2
4ba3ff02723e15bce1807430db161058
c56f4952090a10eb7780000d80ba0286c900f7c7
88929 F20101129_AAAWUY leibert_t_Page_126.jpg
05d44164fb814f0576be768ebba49f69
1913fb99531d1418103fa35f6c3e860e7daedc70
F20101129_AAAXBI leibert_t_Page_071.tif
136663c5f31d86a841dcd5af0741a50c
b4ea474ac8b1ff8b132924dcc3d7af8b4d5d3171
111193 F20101129_AAAWWC leibert_t_Page_034.jp2
2ecdfd6e46e970dee2b6ece5dae5f825
52b3f00535656f94a5d6cd4c88aea8eec09922f9
109709 F20101129_AAAWVN leibert_t_Page_014.jp2
bb4d7f3b59c4eb4e9987383209f629c3
3d31f2f1c510a0807bcb5b44d501d24ae6864627
103256 F20101129_AAAWUZ leibert_t_Page_127.jpg
9faa890d181bfbc9c626fec564a7da51
41010e5fb6400be32e18ff4ab36f4bfe411e08a7
F20101129_AAAXBJ leibert_t_Page_072.tif
db9648919b324a01e81a89f05fc8de6e
ba51646ff4d6fb3d9ce2e5eab5f34ee0a2a6331b
112817 F20101129_AAAWWD leibert_t_Page_036.jp2
4c74757f7c75805ad3c25ea0d48257fe
54a2678f467010466fc5b31ef848755099559759
F20101129_AAAXAU leibert_t_Page_055.tif
384fa4e4c18656fc32272622be1cc875
c84b0a868a13d8f69de5134161968880cbee4909
107707 F20101129_AAAWVO leibert_t_Page_015.jp2
47101f23fe7ce86c8ba22ee2a6c30cc7
d94cc7caecfc087499cda87a75a955b11a9dd069
F20101129_AAAXBK leibert_t_Page_073.tif
5061a415343a49edb868f7a538d4eb34
f0c7a3987018ddc35b8fc4fa0983881066e3249d
112881 F20101129_AAAWWE leibert_t_Page_037.jp2
4c7f87e0afb0817f2a792fbb5e536ffc
23303099c223a1464427fd3609161c4ea23d47bc
F20101129_AAAXAV leibert_t_Page_056.tif
06575a80ee5b9b54a7b805a2f401cdfe
38833936aa9714321f711fe3d2b4773fcfc7a24d
110512 F20101129_AAAWVP leibert_t_Page_016.jp2
4b776ade53d5c0e4647d1cfc57247b73
ed318fca40067c91fda28500da31692a256c9a62
F20101129_AAAXBL leibert_t_Page_075.tif
00b92d51983636c8ce0d8c34705a62d0
737f6acacd4bfec5b5f126078613b149d691c548
108609 F20101129_AAAWWF leibert_t_Page_039.jp2
204aba0ada4bda2bc652f2588b1d7867
80dce70715c435ed4f444bad53f0135ee1f54147
F20101129_AAAXAW leibert_t_Page_057.tif
d1866beff9230be87085b389f22a0a7c
0759d0655286c65f64fdcf5396f7172ae5f4385d
109481 F20101129_AAAWVQ leibert_t_Page_017.jp2
8d7b549f9f9294db74e71138a63c09a5
81f955534248896219a5b7ebd530b0d389e4c96e
F20101129_AAAXBM leibert_t_Page_077.tif
3b2431982b4510802a093fb604a74073
e32fd707aa50a80ae1863c9645407da439c17e2c
108162 F20101129_AAAWWG leibert_t_Page_040.jp2
10d38697b81b9832c9d88bbde75d1014
d36cedf93c44d1bbd528bacfbba4fb1c8620d33f
F20101129_AAAXAX leibert_t_Page_058.tif
ed358f0d05bd698a8ba29e8c064ad4d2
2f0f4b18f1c209fb69b23961f602ee1cd38ad1dd
110857 F20101129_AAAWVR leibert_t_Page_019.jp2
b969e4f3c6e2daa8a7ef8e3180e6fb91
a852c86f6544e67ecdcf577a5196d5d722326090
F20101129_AAAXCA leibert_t_Page_092.tif
1ff111a3fa8729d8facbc67165403788
5b0820d4d87ba16b1e27c034ee70964bc23fd659
F20101129_AAAXBN leibert_t_Page_078.tif
bec5e7e5a0433d98a63938ebd25744a1
21438ad388b55033adad9167a2425c49a1fef37b
109537 F20101129_AAAWWH leibert_t_Page_041.jp2
f304e91038e2061bc6611b5a0043a3ba
f609a5d2da7df8b39ec05e26dffc108e722eeb6d
25271604 F20101129_AAAXAY leibert_t_Page_059.tif
eb283de0c8b106f76ef9479e83ec961d
6078a548062853c24ddbcc9cc75bd867d9758be4
112174 F20101129_AAAWVS leibert_t_Page_020.jp2
b640c743716c4dedff74519082c60c17
fdd3883ec64499d29c6d994fec54e2d8462c455e
F20101129_AAAXCB leibert_t_Page_093.tif
ab223531835fe5ec2a3be3af74432af1
e660ddd21a8de3ddce12406989f3c9721cca773f
F20101129_AAAXBO leibert_t_Page_079.tif
d64195112c27039f62152542b8e179b1
190fc8327b37d6a496e212c42bf0ea61ab78c226
107901 F20101129_AAAWWI leibert_t_Page_042.jp2
0d2a2c247430eacbe9e2191c77c68fff
d139caca33c12a67822a51214105e51134b4e300
F20101129_AAAXAZ leibert_t_Page_060.tif
55222bf72262abb7587bc3646607d221
bf6cca74f9bf10e8123512b59b8cc7e88d6d1384
114193 F20101129_AAAWVT leibert_t_Page_021.jp2
ff74d1639062091986f18a122c31cdbf
cebc65dbf0fae4249ccfd2fd41f649f1298e59f2
F20101129_AAAXCC leibert_t_Page_094.tif
14f466da55cf8b99cf3dd0697ab1f210
fefaec2ab04cb2365ccba369c1ec8b283f419451
F20101129_AAAXBP leibert_t_Page_080.tif
9a9a06d02d47962c384613a8c4daae8a
e71c910ec4b13a034280d571cd6a2ab1dfd1046f
109245 F20101129_AAAWWJ leibert_t_Page_043.jp2
a2aadd97f80276a628e67f20f0868625
cea29302eea60bcc18baac0a3ff5ea2b6bc83933
99031 F20101129_AAAWVU leibert_t_Page_023.jp2
59632933c31492a91d001f4bbb10d7a8
8b218f246984014a658ba8531a4d458e110d0bf4
F20101129_AAAXCD leibert_t_Page_095.tif
f602dcd89575dbf107149be11c798a81
043918d5d806a7970f5568fb46b3514c6298157d
F20101129_AAAXBQ leibert_t_Page_081.tif
32f086a31bb3edcac1d00375a5ce0f38
4978c5b2b3c4c02d194b165cffc5b92cdb8b0217
109304 F20101129_AAAWWK leibert_t_Page_045.jp2
a6af19eab48545e9bbad419a3da72d0c
c7956f620584fc7c0ca8281763c711b0370a55cc
88761 F20101129_AAAWVV leibert_t_Page_024.jp2
880f6cb0aaef4cff181a60b3e37b4763
d9a5d8805b86693aa8252097ad000ea607dd3fdb
F20101129_AAAXCE leibert_t_Page_096.tif
7d160fe6efbd63796653eaded2bf33b1
15a55e3e18697e8ebb9f76adee3e838a7cdc8b89
F20101129_AAAXBR leibert_t_Page_082.tif
d153a877b8b7c940aa2de96b831cb216
58509293494464a30d21489b0513ac4a25986175
104004 F20101129_AAAWVW leibert_t_Page_025.jp2
75537ebecddf431ed99ee175b8833de8
e9d7403df4322ffcaa31305ba22517dfc4ffce3a
F20101129_AAAXCF leibert_t_Page_097.tif
558b3b16f720510a5bd3ed4259d737f3
ea949bfbbf8bc073aaa122e2bec27adcf194f725
F20101129_AAAXBS leibert_t_Page_084.tif
af16f61f86e6b4cf049e95dae1be7312
300b6d176f93e29ca16c32d3e5e8501f0ded1e40
112376 F20101129_AAAWWL leibert_t_Page_047.jp2
08d47391753abf339f0b1b1a91a60ee3
9a310e3d72a9db8223eea67924c65aef13033e08
15431 F20101129_AAAWVX leibert_t_Page_026.jp2
b45f5904d555db7b67af967c3d53cf26
a464751db2256a0b4a84118667378873fb539273
F20101129_AAAXCG leibert_t_Page_098.tif
f39980eb3858c258d30173fcaf913fda
e57e1287c35b45b7191135526467ca8b2ab91fde
101306 F20101129_AAAWXA leibert_t_Page_067.jp2
39f95fcb8b6606cb2beca755c827ce8e
82595f1234337f145a9048cacec92d35ab231611
F20101129_AAAXBT leibert_t_Page_085.tif
bc65749b7cd95feaf2f878152b0e5871
7eeba02a5fa15e66a9accefc8de7eb629428df50
111629 F20101129_AAAWWM leibert_t_Page_048.jp2
c082f5d24f01f68ed36f71c7527d1e34
f63250e99607295b403ab6a80def52d7e2716dc5
99071 F20101129_AAAWVY leibert_t_Page_027.jp2
40afaac89e0121f8ca6efb4f40f5a9bc
9d53c80b503cd4d2786847888701dbf9192eec37
F20101129_AAAXCH leibert_t_Page_100.tif
357afbe66d54c73ad36abd8f6bb2fd9a
20a87f8cad387d6ccc1693980242eecd952d36cc
80069 F20101129_AAAWXB leibert_t_Page_068.jp2
708b2b1eb4e3e6bfad007a03ca171d9d
39945e143f959fb25a1835946c21969590273d43
F20101129_AAAXBU leibert_t_Page_086.tif
cb444bc3e8664966010cccb5c50aa5c1
80c85cbaa5eb6d7f67d1edff25406d6b5b5aae7c
116172 F20101129_AAAWWN leibert_t_Page_051.jp2
c981a031c2ef75a8db2015d9a3cef724
8a240e49511e59927a0e196ce2ae73159d4b2d94
113588 F20101129_AAAWVZ leibert_t_Page_029.jp2
31a5394f8ccb0471b483bdae066d5223
c3633c0d8f6f1a2f0a55af7349bb4c56e96eac93
F20101129_AAAXCI leibert_t_Page_101.tif
c6675dc5be8b51b5dcbe2c866ae71610
45bd619ccd470c0fabb42f74fc86a953a3fd7dca
89774 F20101129_AAAWXC leibert_t_Page_069.jp2
3bff2e5274fab370d424655db87968d7
8f8493a17c8ab2292f7a468457653d54f1edbe8a
106135 F20101129_AAAWWO leibert_t_Page_052.jp2
a1f27706fc178a12b0986358d53f2d23
057dd277faba3280cfbe48dbf8e1aee63c157bc7
F20101129_AAAXCJ leibert_t_Page_102.tif
39424fcdfa9ed2be973e5f01573bb682
15bace032747e1ffc68ccad9c260eba70ce58522
65055 F20101129_AAAWXD leibert_t_Page_070.jp2
01f5eabe9c8487e5d76e4465e0f776d5
4fce740798cbf780e7a006a2fc07001eedacfd8d
115316 F20101129_AAAWWP leibert_t_Page_054.jp2
dd8eb559161c11765c36be19dd62438a
626edcffed82b2f3c6604ff59c172e8710480e54
F20101129_AAAXCK leibert_t_Page_103.tif
92851894515b651092d86f11a4c36b60
6d3b825322b5dff40bf198618d4e9494b833e06e
84239 F20101129_AAAWXE leibert_t_Page_072.jp2
76e860b9dfc398458d2251e53566fb7a
8acafef5cdf0c36d0bc8d904d2562996df388a18
F20101129_AAAXBV leibert_t_Page_087.tif
a3cf9dec1b76abdff4cac71a76125433
b222cb1111d47b0e631d849f8c032ef24622e2c0
87759 F20101129_AAAWWQ leibert_t_Page_056.jp2
b6ad9aca70a6ae76cd5584fb8565f4eb
6997f903a8ffa04a4f9fe731ec0ab71e8d07d01a
F20101129_AAAXCL leibert_t_Page_104.tif
f0d9cf009129989190f51ad17df9a2cf
b6bb15beb0a82e5f497c571ce5f67228e8e0e3e6
105239 F20101129_AAAWXF leibert_t_Page_073.jp2
9997626aa7b15fb1b082baff2deddd7f
550804ea8194d3ef5874771924285afb2319e804
F20101129_AAAXBW leibert_t_Page_088.tif
89a883213ccc8de7fc2bf5c46569b23c
0fa960d8aa54011ce4995edda40601bbbb461e4a
101862 F20101129_AAAWWR leibert_t_Page_057.jp2
702752202ec7fef71f99061de37239d7
61f221033f9529bbba4dbc0d791136584fc658df
F20101129_AAAXDA leibert_t_Page_127.tif
9258823004195483eca7d6767a13509c
5f84d724c41a6e107b45c46913b83103bd00e367
F20101129_AAAXCM leibert_t_Page_105.tif
af95c89a889b9716389955ae38ede6a8
163deced6623fe7fd6a6586a76884aec53eaa2f3
103488 F20101129_AAAWXG leibert_t_Page_074.jp2
0b70cd6a2852c09535ca5763cdca8808
8f869813ce6e190f31fe47248308e4eb896c4a02
F20101129_AAAXBX leibert_t_Page_089.tif
ebc9fca180f96646a2d82e1b5333f13c
6cce738eef758f9a6a2cdb0745dd4af5ea487a2b
104636 F20101129_AAAWWS leibert_t_Page_058.jp2
700100ae99c783051edb15292c213ea9
ca490b6eb0e0eaeba63a11d16877d91aa4e4212b
F20101129_AAAXDB leibert_t_Page_128.tif
fcdc7cd664f72637aba743e763b2f2e6
7e920dead5910b0c46c95c1c7f84869364615bc3
F20101129_AAAXCN leibert_t_Page_106.tif
b6e4c038a12b8a577ad14b5b97d34e7b
3a451a450adfc85271ba26e008fdfeeb398083f8
111251 F20101129_AAAWXH leibert_t_Page_075.jp2
1317c6a62df80e4e0b7f8191c498fc6f
bb12ecccdde55b204fcef76c103bd987bd18c955
F20101129_AAAXBY leibert_t_Page_090.tif
8edfe5f65158ef62511ce10ff00e9d64
6d6a88a63f5cb1c0142bcd61377a5985b09fa926
1051903 F20101129_AAAWWT leibert_t_Page_059.jp2
3aaa8e328d0626ebd20284500624539e
92061b26f778b234a0e06586b4f08b9bafdadcbb
F20101129_AAAXDC leibert_t_Page_130.tif
ce846364fa77f0a58cb09767bac0eb27
39a22bce5439d8bf134db408a93aa47c3a57d627
F20101129_AAAXCO leibert_t_Page_107.tif
4630244a08e121019408e497032ac49d
379152c0ebe4332f34d5d116bb0850d23737e8be
87407 F20101129_AAAWXI leibert_t_Page_076.jp2
5becc2109040eb5fb625de2f1e487c36
cd4da3c4a90bf0648b483a52d2155d462fce683b
F20101129_AAAXBZ leibert_t_Page_091.tif
c1482f0005cf33da7147dc62b447208c
9616860a87cb234ce76b01eba811c4d2a5519373
1051985 F20101129_AAAWWU leibert_t_Page_060.jp2
9a3acf904e3a39e758a8fea1ac86f79b
38525990bed6c686ec9ee249786fa564f6d8a989
2492 F20101129_AAAXDD leibert_t_Page_001thm.jpg
4952b3b00e11ddc63b76333dff051e01
de1a360677365a5ffbaa8311d5c3341948e4281a
F20101129_AAAXCP leibert_t_Page_108.tif
b27aa13bf1f2062643580391cbef64ee
3fb92a19100dcfb523870e86b51d7aad44f71568
102297 F20101129_AAAWXJ leibert_t_Page_077.jp2
f5b03067285cbd767b5b99cde76591bc
3d9f2d7dbf5f9b2e7d96f44836797b11844f1556
102306 F20101129_AAAWWV leibert_t_Page_061.jp2
ef12f7a275778dd0e4c09361312225e1
804bbdee5d643f0310ece4ba9c381835631a5e31
497499 F20101129_AAAXDE leibert_t.pdf
f892a13eb1a827b6149e4467cf0cb89e
caf74608116eb3c5020c8d34b1b0701162c8fd4e
F20101129_AAAXCQ leibert_t_Page_109.tif
26b1323a4f6caec2c46c677c265e1a0a
37177a1a5da51e990746901219a6221756ede5c8
91643 F20101129_AAAWXK leibert_t_Page_078.jp2
f5991e97851a81c14a7273e42b152264
4fcbc2446ef37004e68ad7caba43801390bd4e65
111149 F20101129_AAAWWW leibert_t_Page_062.jp2
26385c8005b4b4a61c23476b4f533636
524c0936ef84692d04986f53163bcfb0e0412529
6587 F20101129_AAAXDF leibert_t_Page_030thm.jpg
427cbf9d7a5a9addbe3df88628702f91
b17ab48635bf990e236a5ab128075060888c9885
F20101129_AAAXCR leibert_t_Page_110.tif
0ca361b406792eb604b794daa0321621
bdf1bdfe1960a29019a825f1cba7dc04366a76b2
107205 F20101129_AAAWXL leibert_t_Page_079.jp2
f4cd0eab26d19ba5b29401480ff0ac34
2e466a2f758943d500a6ec53ea7a780ce7d6eec8
110779 F20101129_AAAWWX leibert_t_Page_063.jp2
e464acf1c1441dca3e974d06bd23b7c6
1d541196d13becfbbf4f0a6ff9bb4aa50144548f
26499 F20101129_AAAXDG leibert_t_Page_125.QC.jpg
94af36c897aeaba9f73fed04f1604380
3287db3ee8619fe04ccb6c5135852ca02c31961b
107892 F20101129_AAAWYA leibert_t_Page_096.jp2
103eedf94688ce07efb3a9d32ef9f355
4e42eb75e518e4fdf226a91af5535b6b9c1fcaaf
F20101129_AAAXCS leibert_t_Page_112.tif
f389fb34522e673361c3a07f47f498c6
8d3d9fdaf5964bde3910c2c4d5554c55ca45f7d3
111150 F20101129_AAAWWY leibert_t_Page_065.jp2
7bdba8cbc10a9ec1063887afef4d7337
a31d901fe6b7c2b8e86e4b49cbda3d0cccc31648
5311 F20101129_AAAXDH leibert_t_Page_056thm.jpg
8b61fdafe912c87f88ab0069084c00f6
85e53ba346d21211b2da161a249ca2ba0c5ac164
103649 F20101129_AAAWYB leibert_t_Page_097.jp2
53de46b542e3295348dfb8040a6735c2
f5ef04dad077f437933a0408645a14ebd776cf0b
F20101129_AAAXCT leibert_t_Page_114.tif
e829b17e166d64d6e7621825256fcfaf
6332ca82df7cc0e272eb450f155f6304b64a5bd6
91780 F20101129_AAAWXM leibert_t_Page_080.jp2
feff223bc0142a6e7ff33bf232ecb47f
088ebef84caf8acd5b73bb1f76819aa13a8fa755
107743 F20101129_AAAWWZ leibert_t_Page_066.jp2
531aa47e796633c7c39be065184615b6
976e1ece4de97689b6a2e7d217f64ce7b4a3db1e
22884 F20101129_AAAXDI leibert_t_Page_042.QC.jpg
3ccf41fa370845fb24defa34869e1ffa
f4e96806ceefc3df77052da5bda914c1577299f5
111334 F20101129_AAAWYC leibert_t_Page_098.jp2
d3e4549f8fdc111330794a3dbf560aaa
6164a54c86593e0cf8ac61d149912623a3d1c4aa
F20101129_AAAXCU leibert_t_Page_116.tif
07d9673a751b176dce361d6b5871fab3
0c7d2cef32bee24d04ad2c9825d50feeecf27a90
99643 F20101129_AAAWXN leibert_t_Page_081.jp2
522202e7425a8224bf03851e68c4a931
de7313a60ce0bd5e0d2ee0b3b443c14eb99d9c77
23150 F20101129_AAAXDJ leibert_t_Page_045.QC.jpg
83bab5327f934ac41fd30fbf879b147b
b59ff5af662d3f7c1cf4ae045c67ff571f64431f
111279 F20101129_AAAWYD leibert_t_Page_099.jp2
b3d5a6c775cc934b42220c6271b8cad1
98244fa12789005ff3a7710932974ab501e7bce6
F20101129_AAAXCV leibert_t_Page_117.tif
769656372d6330d900dc7ad6deed1555
f8b2c4ba27a86bf66e8926b4bb3d5f426e9cc8da
11900 F20101129_AAAWXO leibert_t_Page_082.jp2
b32b7b71aa7b665bfc50bb1c62e5975b
8ccfdb69f7be71b1642b673ef4939516eabcb28c
5775 F20101129_AAAXDK leibert_t_Page_129thm.jpg
d5a8936b20896ee9da4128187666451e
4666cdcdfa81f4c383dcd0bb24ed85895949e1e7
34766 F20101129_AAAWYE leibert_t_Page_100.jp2
d33e2da748fdd148815d1af4179f33d6
181a4f97091c83948d705c3a35a0799cebb64e2b
92210 F20101129_AAAWXP leibert_t_Page_083.jp2
4e90a7aaa017b607ca8626af25f3de8c
b305b1ff4e2feffd41a1fe90a790a41fcfa9cbd3
18681 F20101129_AAAXDL leibert_t_Page_072.QC.jpg
e11e7744061cfd35bbd753b385c908f8
11152d5b66b22e752f563a294b6b5d3532a2b675
884229 F20101129_AAAWYF leibert_t_Page_101.jp2
3673a035e85e1f20de4d1225ff6a4fa5
d9013a4d46460d3e79ad90d723872d623e7d6730
F20101129_AAAXCW leibert_t_Page_119.tif
e6281f6a7180414df28858ef6ca52364
81873bd5349b5e74c217b57e0a58127b1f7b806e
111774 F20101129_AAAWXQ leibert_t_Page_084.jp2
3a9abc50617a0c428ceef35f9234dc92
e76de0f2ad935fd1f1f4d87c9ec65b94e676f0ce
2772 F20101129_AAAXDM leibert_t_Page_100thm.jpg
c9b3f094735b93e8c6b5de8a2f036b05
d2badab0cfd30306b63fa018ab9c88091c217fb8
1051983 F20101129_AAAWYG leibert_t_Page_102.jp2
9e07957be9569ef1dd99e9e3c4f2be41
d9c3cc3a65fdb5d3456bfdbcd80c9def9a0f0ea1
F20101129_AAAXCX leibert_t_Page_121.tif
3c197a34f758423320c278b15027cdc1
f1a4422ed208770aa13bc549452f0fa5f65b8c64
113372 F20101129_AAAWXR leibert_t_Page_085.jp2
1924739d5a23efa1435990a649743fa6
56b2249a9619f2dbc51b50297163bbd3b8c999c7
5341 F20101129_AAAXEA leibert_t_Page_101thm.jpg
1d24ccda4dfd77dd040673dc6ab0f105
d5fb30663e28c3f75bcd974a94c0fead80e797de
6652 F20101129_AAAXDN leibert_t_Page_122thm.jpg
adc6460a5bf767ab130be1eedddcafee
e81e90b07289557ff841eec4664b1bba54559260
61125 F20101129_AAAWYH leibert_t_Page_103.jp2
3e4dc1c659e0611d64ac301da7a5947a
6fdecc3482123ea4ca91d1f58606501ea7dd4d6b
F20101129_AAAXCY leibert_t_Page_123.tif
0ebf23634307a28e2ac3e198be5f71d0
f187b9218e60ab523be8f189da220af7d15a8ce7
108644 F20101129_AAAWXS leibert_t_Page_087.jp2
a8d0c6c5b3fbee58714a8a4f903303fa
aab0335c3d75fe463994de18e5cfb691f9394302
6120 F20101129_AAAXEB leibert_t_Page_071thm.jpg
b91c71e00c20fb3a8cd78548971bae83
0a2cecf0967f39aa8107edb371e5c3fbd566b867
6550 F20101129_AAAXDO leibert_t_Page_090thm.jpg
c4e885210e3255c066ed3a7e15125607
ff3e7f19ca3743dbf5addd7a2ad45bdf7329aa63
53204 F20101129_AAAWYI leibert_t_Page_104.jp2
3f858004b697d305e47792a6aa804f02
ee26c17aa9214ae8b65ebc8a966cf39ed0717d87
F20101129_AAAXCZ leibert_t_Page_124.tif
44fd2b2cb00ff8b4b96c3053f066b22d
7e84a22517a603c86ae941eba24396cc8b815c8d
105998 F20101129_AAAWXT leibert_t_Page_089.jp2
1c44b81d900f87aa27f57f5bf7f74152
465a07f4456e3c0caf3a63ab11d22d0be0c94b8e
23597 F20101129_AAAXEC leibert_t_Page_044.QC.jpg
bec94e5f66c5357da3c2c55711cd5d2f
9e46e54b42b241ab8bb7dcf92f536ab9670ee2aa
23820 F20101129_AAAXDP leibert_t_Page_066.QC.jpg
9d2aec8257d8c25d1c116e925a3c09ce
b9546af379380b8239018ce99e7ea80a893400db
23673 F20101129_AAAWYJ leibert_t_Page_105.jp2
41bcd4bdc7cda0fc299d58631de6b82c
0f615bd61bbd5fd278c5dd9bb6a20a42e6dc5165
112495 F20101129_AAAWXU leibert_t_Page_090.jp2
1e161e9505ea6812ded744b63ddc62eb
36d1d345d440ba637d59cdb75e83812f94717ead
23836 F20101129_AAAXED leibert_t_Page_047.QC.jpg
9b7a26e6c4fbd0b34d3b8086f9088115
c2c5a21ee7bcdb7a0a0c74827da04027ea363953
6687 F20101129_AAAXDQ leibert_t_Page_033thm.jpg
85943e0cbb3260b3ce055cbc1622aaae
7f9f5978ec328b79390956d9f336f70e17e464ce
30240 F20101129_AAAWYK leibert_t_Page_106.jp2
ca606c9d22efc6befcc7c81cf55253fc
ed170c95363e69c2db55b10346a3df48566c4120
110843 F20101129_AAAWXV leibert_t_Page_091.jp2
5bdd11105748e5461a6ab4bd653ec614
325ce84ce37c583c60513dfc30a7c26ca01b0e3e
7656 F20101129_AAAXEE leibert_t_Page_111.QC.jpg
a3edfaa7885d65e4aeb65315d070529a
601ab2d6a426d0fbd37848eb11cf3bea817f94d8
23797 F20101129_AAAXDR leibert_t_Page_029.QC.jpg
e53b12eebb8b04ab7ec9645cd68c50b8
845224e544fca1d986d2dcacaf34a6b21032abb3
952052 F20101129_AAAWYL leibert_t_Page_108.jp2
372a7fa6527b94c71439a0e45dfd84f6
9e6b2e6e2c56f808f1b61898506a507352fa84b4
111411 F20101129_AAAWXW leibert_t_Page_092.jp2
2f232555aae16c7154263f76bda4ab0d
1a8fda8b5612c9d146d13c8a887b515afea434f0
5949 F20101129_AAAXEF leibert_t_Page_006thm.jpg
84e62046acca2fe998d6c5285e28286e
0bc8e0352d15d5a176c798e506647d536550b375
16466 F20101129_AAAWZA leibert_t_Page_128.jp2
9d9b6eebf5bec0ded76c8e96e0dfab29
d1f838b7f43a9574d2113f98d6363e835e515d09
21412 F20101129_AAAXDS leibert_t_Page_081.QC.jpg
46450b2815dbfabd2c3039b6ab0e72d9
f8f221d2d3f5e96f0b97031e322a48d61753280d
710577 F20101129_AAAWYM leibert_t_Page_109.jp2
7c56bd8f667d2a46491fa46b93839cbb
352c5b79d82b8cccd7f31e9c2b9518bde2d2568b
109574 F20101129_AAAWXX leibert_t_Page_093.jp2
f8e9620869b8531671fa887dea442565
2178471dbb5d5908213f9c1b69151a5e23536698
6179 F20101129_AAAXEG leibert_t_Page_097thm.jpg
945234dcdd2899320ea9be92b881722b
76af3e9e8160d25f935ca93214d06c3993b299c5
90093 F20101129_AAAWZB leibert_t_Page_129.jp2
c66835099b1477405757d7ed534e1e34
6416a13d02e5721222f543f718c33c42ea9f6dd3
24520 F20101129_AAAXDT leibert_t_Page_060.QC.jpg
458012f48fe1bf77b7cf70c215c37387
d568c90f1cc40bafe8b3a61155055270c7f95001
112708 F20101129_AAAWXY leibert_t_Page_094.jp2
0f6255f50440ea6db794b2c3eae74dc8
2333a754c85028ad0e16daf0f2d882ed85cb7f90
6611 F20101129_AAAXEH leibert_t_Page_029thm.jpg
a21ead1edc08a75f8a0b48fa2d018694
deb87ad870de8c21b760c20abc27ca33f99404d9
F20101129_AAAWZC leibert_t_Page_001.tif
86507297df8ace2f4201a52ac34e6909
e782b409f4ba1d89b96ff9b0f967992bc982b80f
6554 F20101129_AAAXDU leibert_t_Page_013thm.jpg
1cb119c3629af0867efce84101fa288e
f66597ca194bef14639e6e08e76def0b5b70bd1f
48116 F20101129_AAAWYN leibert_t_Page_110.jp2
bc1e3891ba0c65639448965575f6fa83
3b41a8f8947b02cb04a0c476527c5fc022deecda
113887 F20101129_AAAWXZ leibert_t_Page_095.jp2
e996081b7a0874139642fdd2aa29c147
8a3509b82b5ea7feee6352fdc02477a74a89b4a1
6344 F20101129_AAAXEI leibert_t_Page_046thm.jpg
bcddfcc7342b75d807af8a1b55a56ed5
767ea7a3dfd0172b16530d55dac6c3bd7e0e9874
F20101129_AAAWZD leibert_t_Page_002.tif
c6c6a9299c3a621e97ea9512432c6f2e
5609b6ace0ca797fef766282959e594a2d54cedb
24242 F20101129_AAAXDV leibert_t_Page_030.QC.jpg
41f4fb3db304048bac64ac0b19decfaf
6f9bab2e7b9ebfa194d33dd747639caecabd3abe
33715 F20101129_AAAWYO leibert_t_Page_111.jp2
21b3063946bc079762c771134f3e49e9
58cec0b9ce758fa96d1f2fa1f3b9b893c95fddb0
6676 F20101129_AAAXEJ leibert_t_Page_049thm.jpg
3c50fdbf036a4f0d62434d008d457f76
9b6b2f1659857d37602c0da84e4e6c5f39cde6be
F20101129_AAAWZE leibert_t_Page_003.tif
240e126299981b2ebb89c3f9de143f79
2dcb0cdcdf57e902ef02e22fdd1c2dda0109d65e
5801 F20101129_AAAXDW leibert_t_Page_080thm.jpg
afcd98b839690ca4461d4e4c67ccd183
77130636399737a8718b0201d9fadb9195e40026
117248 F20101129_AAAWYP leibert_t_Page_112.jp2
7209e7c5cb3b74d17e4800b16c4ad6ed
b0620fb7f3c94fdf84614df7e403cd5705268c70
21471 F20101129_AAAXEK leibert_t_Page_011.QC.jpg
653494f03aa15974b148ed0cd212e5fa
b85069720c5d064b165d3e79a4d81f585b320150
F20101129_AAAWZF leibert_t_Page_005.tif
eaf5d8f32c3256742aa5bc3b92284dcd
b874e2264b6e798c1fd2207524b7814ad029cfe1
136296 F20101129_AAAWYQ leibert_t_Page_113.jp2
23e97b8fac0504adff836420827b45e8
35ffe6379e2d7d80484f59c8ea4abb96253eb994
6437 F20101129_AAAXEL leibert_t_Page_038thm.jpg
7f142be9ee3dde0012dc26bb1b06a28c
7b022d7f3e8f5bcfcdc5a31c6132b02dacc38a24
F20101129_AAAWZG leibert_t_Page_006.tif
0bb5a69f1d08a1cd81fefac4565ec14a
3047e00becfc4115ba9b86e834bca96c176eeac4
1896 F20101129_AAAXDX leibert_t_Page_026thm.jpg
52cb336466d018fdd4fc556cbb961293
b4e63347f5a3a437cd88fddc52f0aea78925cdb9
132466 F20101129_AAAWYR leibert_t_Page_115.jp2
3287712d1857ca4c7f04ab96258eb0e8
1b591b2859f6e0928fab627baacce6fb7fc594c5
23436 F20101129_AAAXFA leibert_t_Page_049.QC.jpg
4bc24bdc19e9e1c4cb46163c1aebeb54
829cf39d867bfe4dacf9ca098311cd58f8979c54
5108 F20101129_AAAXEM leibert_t_Page_010thm.jpg
5bff45d0cf32d58d40b1ed308bca2ddd
23b004c7019c6d959af71d04bfb273ea9d6b52f2
F20101129_AAAWZH leibert_t_Page_007.tif
ae0b47e80d9691b86afc3784308ac640
d1264b4138ff3eecc137e5a6a040ea7497ad8155
6801 F20101129_AAAXDY leibert_t_Page_118thm.jpg
18eaa7b7118ff20461f79a5cb2da5169
64dc37823e66eed4416f177bbec5dd0bf460fedc
1051959 F20101129_AAAWYS leibert_t_Page_116.jp2
5d2d5ca54ffa19a6b72fcf22dbf77747
dad48ab80fe67e2d01a643dab83b11fe7555849e
22620 F20101129_AAAXFB leibert_t_Page_112.QC.jpg
bba4a59c1fb0d6a8b92d089c78a32912
9764a6c22d482edcd57cca0c9cbd456124bde870
6462 F20101129_AAAXEN leibert_t_Page_017thm.jpg
2888482685b82f415b23a6cda3510ea8
f5198c6b08a0ed0c36f3bbbb65bb82625bba8016
F20101129_AAAWZI leibert_t_Page_008.tif
c8cac18f3f6a1fe46c6e31d8217b3995
d1979834f43b73b18e41370dbd190351a2f77941
6178 F20101129_AAAXDZ leibert_t_Page_023thm.jpg
764c940b8575185b3a539b6a5a8458e6
199d1b23435918bf053aee78955b2ed10f11e18c
133905 F20101129_AAAWYT leibert_t_Page_117.jp2
f3a3f836ae25bb9ec210a44e094ac0cb
3761723fdd0890fefdc3fb9cc8ad721bb2fff089
F20101129_AAAXFC leibert_t_Page_043.QC.jpg
6d908d2ccc2c0ca0cb06c99e87a17846
574dea69c437fcc7318ddec9f01849b2533c6e66
23850 F20101129_AAAXEO leibert_t_Page_022.QC.jpg
01eb9fb90bf608dc4aa947d553ae6422
aa00451d4afb9cdd880caa476a72765a716d2c44
F20101129_AAAWZJ leibert_t_Page_009.tif
81601e81bb6706e14ef94f93921fd28e
b2e5c570f6f4daa88d42bd09c683b0ad96c06711
132757 F20101129_AAAWYU leibert_t_Page_118.jp2
e950a6b97e70dff91719f3ab7d6bd498
f9d4484447e7a2b3665eac301a3e11aff2fbe494
6407 F20101129_AAAXFD leibert_t_Page_063thm.jpg
2dda5cfbd4869f2d3f16176c39db4609
2747915b839da5a79fb404f2498a6b3839d142d1
11639 F20101129_AAAXEP leibert_t_Page_104.QC.jpg
6fe2fdfe7a59948931e1ae29fd653380
11a70e073cd4098a6f4df5a5a17b93280e8a540a
F20101129_AAAWZK leibert_t_Page_010.tif
04bf4f2b037bb049a39e2236c7aad782
87b6dd8bb398f6f21288ab6541acc5d1b5c3414b
138414 F20101129_AAAWYV leibert_t_Page_120.jp2
1fbbdfedc0fca1aa0780ffcb5637080d
40f71300ddf9aab0410c0c58bfc039a3e0c2fd5e
6101 F20101129_AAAXFE leibert_t_Page_077thm.jpg
c6bd2f5b20b7a304385f458e75488681
f7a9cd176c8597b8cd6b8076b013327f7c80a0af
7439 F20101129_AAAXEQ leibert_t_Page_127thm.jpg
b50e21d57de8bb7b44a734875d5330fd
dbdfb09cc00868610df024b721629bf9c6cf41dd
F20101129_AAAWZL leibert_t_Page_011.tif
ef1dfc85e201b50c629ea4e67c03ad72
c6ca0a84575569f9a608e515b48b40d350a85e3a
120140 F20101129_AAAWYW leibert_t_Page_122.jp2
8c458b8cd1aeafa5fce7c580a03bb277
3eb8c164fbf17c20f9edccf6b1c9e16112d758d7
6470 F20101129_AAAXFF leibert_t_Page_015thm.jpg
7b365a6056fc12e47b6756b8d4d947eb
4eb0068beae09ef404e26703aed331831c901217
6446 F20101129_AAAXER leibert_t_Page_098thm.jpg
14e6ffb5793adb5a886e6d6dac948353
410ea25251d4956ae5df7e3009cd0aab1acefe57
F20101129_AAAWZM leibert_t_Page_012.tif
c379bd6aa38fffafad335a731894ad7c
8c18b4b9bd23f193c086f33bb807e86f645a47b8
143611 F20101129_AAAWYX leibert_t_Page_125.jp2
7776d5eaea913ad6773d48b956538527
6185187e9aed920f297d8dd71e771d008dc09531
24183 F20101129_AAAXFG leibert_t_Page_064.QC.jpg
f8e6fa9e93a54cbfc42cb74d75bef3c2
1a208c145ffd4e49dc1ddff8bb5b134c31fecc52
6704 F20101129_AAAXES leibert_t_Page_022thm.jpg
16c06d7c74a50e14f48892c01a4211c9
cdac4073acf6185a451509e6d3dccec9407fd417
F20101129_AAAWZN leibert_t_Page_014.tif
b6a93eb4a117dbf22d7cc87dce67be6d
b8920a71f557a74f2fafde36afa100f3190e9f95
131526 F20101129_AAAWYY leibert_t_Page_126.jp2
7822902133b65c13862173087797e149
a860e1574081793eeccf1d343fd698dc013daaf7
23407 F20101129_AAAXFH leibert_t_Page_086.QC.jpg
d32aaecbda7382e2f56aaf1661369169
b9b001e149d087dc2bed402c139d941abafc58e1
6549 F20101129_AAAXET leibert_t_Page_032thm.jpg
fa6e63fe14e83ae2ce5e71e797eab90c
8174b8b07ac986b3e5ab52d98738c2ceb82cce41
1051949 F20101129_AAAWYZ leibert_t_Page_127.jp2
14b8da98ac933b544364bc12c684ca34
5b02c15a57a0e4a5c59e20039e7f21c6760aa2b8
6397 F20101129_AAAXFI leibert_t_Page_041thm.jpg
5e2354974136dca4f5087508e21af2bd
a4f01bfd8c302a2a807b9a375f0f26421b5a5633
6592 F20101129_AAAXEU leibert_t_Page_043thm.jpg
ab38961542c4687c40192af7c2fa9339
cfdfd4d037ac50d4297be3b1717ad9c700fc8676
F20101129_AAAWZO leibert_t_Page_015.tif
de902e350763ee61e526505ce1565d75
2555b8a750f36d732483065952a3005da5888e50
4564 F20101129_AAAXFJ leibert_t_Page_070thm.jpg
67cd72bdd0a71a6501312ca0c48e3126
2ae564f81cb2c0b2e5b01a1bb30af2d4b196704b
6323 F20101129_AAAXEV leibert_t_Page_058thm.jpg
e20de881947741279cde127250db7f06
f19ce0e0fd82306d6fadb2af742c53e1fc2ac3dc
F20101129_AAAWZP leibert_t_Page_016.tif
c5a5ef8bc91aceb8b61526e5772f46aa
de7f2a96c6ae76a09f096c1de40a4472ce3fe072
23610 F20101129_AAAXFK leibert_t_Page_038.QC.jpg
29ccb230a149ad4f5c57171c5e0fc5cb
c75a99ca29bdc98f2877ed522f18e829876bc754
1816 F20101129_AAAXEW leibert_t_Page_128thm.jpg
a86083d2efaf0f97344eae3829317afa
4d063339719af0b2a3990aaf8afae9551a558343
F20101129_AAAWZQ leibert_t_Page_018.tif
0746e3b65def6237616944efdc45e578
4897a7bfa6c044ae91bb9bb714b7dcf3a44ca68e
22139 F20101129_AAAXFL leibert_t_Page_050.QC.jpg
006357f6bf44f65b7745e3ac10dd6555
0967fda6b080e582443c787f307c4b40d2c48b81
6427 F20101129_AAAXEX leibert_t_Page_047thm.jpg
3071b4dcfb11e32a3874a82820572984
d9b8327aa76c2352606c56f48d76ba3c459230c7
F20101129_AAAWZR leibert_t_Page_019.tif
48f98db667278600196717c4875a13c9
bcd1d00444c053555adb6ed32edec84dd008ea4b
3128 F20101129_AAAXGA leibert_t_Page_008thm.jpg
bed17f20095b9791d04c9dbdfa195055
510126d0000b22e1beaf16b319d405799e902f20
6279 F20101129_AAAXFM leibert_t_Page_096thm.jpg
466f94be56dd2089dc769c0509969992
34dae5d5f270fae2ae7c73393b6871196b59fcd3
F20101129_AAAWZS leibert_t_Page_021.tif
26250233e3d7c95c58b63e77deee34e8
c7b68a4eb9ba1d1ae31de68676a5ceb8f68f293f
5084 F20101129_AAAXGB leibert_t_Page_009thm.jpg
7fa22d16c76a510290f0db73b24cce79
af1b468434bf8c27e0d7da1a2f2491c29509f31a
6697 F20101129_AAAXFN leibert_t_Page_051thm.jpg
3ce890a6943107d55bfd98f9b8acd9a5
48813c6d86cedc0e4dbaf30e83deb613d06051b4
6675 F20101129_AAAXEY leibert_t_Page_119thm.jpg
658db10abb134ddf2a4e72b4be842234
bed6fd829c1282d1c46e4d509d88859044cfc6e9
F20101129_AAAWZT leibert_t_Page_022.tif
3a0675c26f7be2299b3e0f7b4b5a05c6
871d6ce47c22144af824cf2bdb0adbdb9ea761ee
17775 F20101129_AAAXGC leibert_t_Page_010.QC.jpg
7e0b640c7dfef446a303dfbb68c49906
0134a6c20c02e23fc68baf1778d9132d86b84cfe
141562 F20101129_AAAXFO UFE0011283_00001.xml
92fe0689542d956641f34f7bd876f70f
87c26f23497333e3a5e063bd3e0d244d41a9b9cb
6878 F20101129_AAAXEZ leibert_t_Page_126thm.jpg
e2db5187170e9dd62e02d0f73a887b60
a5279118727f7a76d37372066fdf58d257056cd5
F20101129_AAAWZU leibert_t_Page_024.tif
48c495e5d3e011eeb1c83d1cbdacffca
4d226ea1012065bcbe86f5d0307b3676c0322904
23142 F20101129_AAAXGD leibert_t_Page_012.QC.jpg
852591a734849f8c33e59d1a0b268177
5b01e0c430eeeb01f7ba692bedda1e71d0e3a1ab
3314 F20101129_AAAXFP leibert_t_Page_002.QC.jpg
bd1e95263b7673a2d10d80f7d8ce7fd8
9a1b41d6e75093b63cf204b009bd06fad6bfeff0
24335 F20101129_AAAXGE leibert_t_Page_013.QC.jpg
d6df199448599d867d825d0d9c7c6769
88931ad851d11530f3d341f5d5e8a803ae5113a7
1382 F20101129_AAAXFQ leibert_t_Page_002thm.jpg
1cd8bcd0bd3832d9b4a4ffbc9b5570ff
66990d0fd08aa990923695d9ad3a7bcd2771a5ff
F20101129_AAAWZV leibert_t_Page_025.tif
72f93c0218b929216dbfefceba99c168
78b95bb26cd4eebf538fea0104885833e4a01b59
22495 F20101129_AAAXGF leibert_t_Page_015.QC.jpg
1d86b9dbeeda4db0a1886d11464eb30e
563efc433bb8a61472f804be33cf14ecbc598ae2
20463 F20101129_AAAXFR leibert_t_Page_003.QC.jpg
6d23214c9d8467d131729220f505f525
d432ebdb38d04c8d6579e731226b6830626b21b5
F20101129_AAAWZW leibert_t_Page_026.tif
8d8e1534a799e339a1788388fbbe6677
ec26ead3d7ee88a2e181f7756721de3c3f0d1802
6403 F20101129_AAAXGG leibert_t_Page_016thm.jpg
b2683d4c6b2dd757987cbaa4694049f5
41237f231af7cf61f193da238b87da7e26e9f663
5888 F20101129_AAAXFS leibert_t_Page_003thm.jpg
1db7231fa526efca80a44daf9bcfc174
e778f3f2e6f8cdc0891f7871ebca70afd333234b
F20101129_AAAWZX leibert_t_Page_027.tif
3502dc865f3d601d998c87b43b126792
137e1916517d751e044d54ba3ffd6f45a4cb2bdd
22761 F20101129_AAAXGH leibert_t_Page_017.QC.jpg
4bccd986bf9f65630a28197d626404cd
c6078a0ab3053b9fe11c24e422c78735b98245df
8944 F20101129_AAAXFT leibert_t_Page_004.QC.jpg
e54dea706062eb80421192b2107e56b7
69d340013229c8cf24bbd40972f45141c9726f84
F20101129_AAAWZY leibert_t_Page_028.tif
e2eac7c71b362990567ce9db2efc9fa1
45b8d9c0ed9b2fde063712546f833c4197308067
6511 F20101129_AAAXGI leibert_t_Page_018thm.jpg
5b8793fbe2a0184c5ee0690f58da4439
20d3062ff0e0ea9b65bbf8f1ae86ae5eebe7550b
2717 F20101129_AAAXFU leibert_t_Page_004thm.jpg
35dbe91620cd798afb3287fb4d4c72dc
fe61a7b43bac4bf99261241e6e1a6e72a2e09dc5
F20101129_AAAWZZ leibert_t_Page_029.tif
4563317ded70c5153dfb3858fdf65208
7be55574fa600cf332def6f309efabe1109e2781
6562 F20101129_AAAXGJ leibert_t_Page_021thm.jpg
4d7e5782c020cab22a447280b938b423
f62b9aaee4cd0baa61ffa6d5c18d58e22ce7b543
16195 F20101129_AAAXFV leibert_t_Page_005.QC.jpg
a6638fac8a726dbc6892ac4cf0351ed6
3f007f49627d2f69f357def2d1d46d8a250e7dac
20729 F20101129_AAAXGK leibert_t_Page_023.QC.jpg
fa2202f3964cc8ed056594a581e90ab8
a52767dff5a2f4679d094869382aee654329e604
4487 F20101129_AAAXFW leibert_t_Page_005thm.jpg
c4aa3eb53953f1cf6a1fe869471ad0c1
92d0e54afb08c2b1fa54e58708600e7fdf4f93d6
22531 F20101129_AAAXGL leibert_t_Page_025.QC.jpg
022f113301d6864e222fbc2b1da2be23
b7d7d99184e9e0e17fd4a04abafafd7bd57fcb73
23075 F20101129_AAAXFX leibert_t_Page_006.QC.jpg
986cd10087038e3bdfb3d981b80770a9
7e174e7f6f7939b626094a118c4ba7c1f4070d11
6247 F20101129_AAAXGM leibert_t_Page_025thm.jpg
9d712f64416d9e372d27d98d720b6694
2c99621797b291d18656d68fc70a92e2202ca190
6713 F20101129_AAAXFY leibert_t_Page_007.QC.jpg
fb9e367e9eb45d3a41793e57305a185c
cbdcc6535a062c62e628db5e079600d572c18e0d
23128 F20101129_AAAXHA leibert_t_Page_039.QC.jpg
8579745972f4370820acd2d755c8caa3
7d7bf08c80e579fbe4f1a008db0f6eb9877bd1ff
5213 F20101129_AAAXGN leibert_t_Page_026.QC.jpg
88a2404edc0e239bf6b29811ec9a8c4e
3e7240b949d40e673b51035bde4ca35aff8ca88a
22736 F20101129_AAAXHB leibert_t_Page_040.QC.jpg
23672318c05c87f781ae623584244f46
bd3c0317ddb98bb778e966d10e713ff7e40c537c
21064 F20101129_AAAXGO leibert_t_Page_027.QC.jpg
69db6f7595fca3f925d52685fd1b0544
28c1e400ab26a76212e94dc96c347114c5996c30
10176 F20101129_AAAXFZ leibert_t_Page_008.QC.jpg
7d2f2f63b573bc18f23f043c066a0823
3161c0743d94c7c0f4917cac5c2ca580950c4b65
23638 F20101129_AAAXHC leibert_t_Page_041.QC.jpg
00b511e75a93314c9c46791483e573ac
226e735994f5932bba46b4317f4837b2653fdd61
24002 F20101129_AAAXGP leibert_t_Page_028.QC.jpg
474e5b94d160292d70765cdabc1578e5
d5ea172beaa87999b366ffecd85b2bb5d9f892fb
6320 F20101129_AAAXHD leibert_t_Page_042thm.jpg
26a72e20b231a8595bd86dae278d5b24
b97b5d05eb3daad29e54aeaebf0b29a56c5fa84d
6631 F20101129_AAAXGQ leibert_t_Page_028thm.jpg
e90843b8dd8321f19fd7400e2e12ccc7
23b2b3c2912e0e71c736d5c24caf9cfb2168c07c
23543 F20101129_AAAXHE leibert_t_Page_048.QC.jpg
31288bfbfaa0e05155462beec13828bf
d9e3278c5e90d98f2055afc4c50573c4025d05de
23170 F20101129_AAAXGR leibert_t_Page_031.QC.jpg
858a231a43196fdbba04948f605f9d39
5f983b7adfe8c4a0ae5be0c0ae68aa5354a33823
6514 F20101129_AAAXHF leibert_t_Page_048thm.jpg
41b113782ee6d7645ce23a6a06dcb7b7
b50845f5ee5f01d93c78b470b02628ca2a8aa03e
6293 F20101129_AAAXGS leibert_t_Page_031thm.jpg
f25a95404280d47406a3d31e554d4704
9b490d031020691dc6371e55c645e68f2116d94c
6337 F20101129_AAAXHG leibert_t_Page_050thm.jpg
c1325040c541ee37644fca2d4b8fe24c
a26cc1e5d116443ac70d4e69b15e17af631e3807
24432 F20101129_AAAXHH leibert_t_Page_051.QC.jpg
b8ed20b5655bb75e9ce27d5d25b4b7f8
567b7bf1c8c025171f4fe7f030ec161fadd61ed5
23732 F20101129_AAAXGT leibert_t_Page_032.QC.jpg
09bd53d6e9a6af469fea13a3bc0ceb9e
323e42da48cb62d04e7ff4a110d5d324a45b4f64
22369 F20101129_AAAXHI leibert_t_Page_052.QC.jpg
126b3d26cb69724e586806a6c48d2731
c3c8b13e40e35317dba75820b5536fb4dcbdc581
23424 F20101129_AAAXGU leibert_t_Page_034.QC.jpg
33561dbeeaf2d69bbf42390b6f086637
844fab58c48e5cb8449efb017808fead4e863bea
6408 F20101129_AAAXHJ leibert_t_Page_052thm.jpg
a4130dbfdd41fbb05f4e79c004b0e09e
d0eb09ef392ec3b4472a65a561b2a637a8beabfa
21856 F20101129_AAAXGV leibert_t_Page_035.QC.jpg
9f6505200054bdd4496e0a7932e98bc9
94fdf75664f8e4fffbab2571c2731eca48a1d5f4
23146 F20101129_AAAXHK leibert_t_Page_053.QC.jpg
75519242629528d82aff165c992c821e
749e7ddff0bd40b6f6c0c3230894bf2bb08e1eeb
6319 F20101129_AAAXGW leibert_t_Page_035thm.jpg
bd47030689d927d87e236f1135df4a61
06efc4c5f7b18ea2eb757e3a1ba758cb20d97098
6498 F20101129_AAAXHL leibert_t_Page_053thm.jpg
328a7502a0b26a517d7188584e0b8419
ba10ef1987fc09eb1d2ce58ebbc02048bdbe7b27
24023 F20101129_AAAXGX leibert_t_Page_036.QC.jpg
4a561fa7b79f4b7a898a1b12fd91d672
2dc6162e07c94274713922e3961a8c5892222031
6199 F20101129_AAAXIA leibert_t_Page_067thm.jpg
5af1c91adc8a528b31a2bb5eeb055f6c
330d545e4e57ac982e62d4f46f2d15c2516284d1
6716 F20101129_AAAXHM leibert_t_Page_054thm.jpg
06b159e0b17c17ba7e552697192e0d8e
87d942da6d7a0910f4f70917b113a91d7f52ffcf
6780 F20101129_AAAXGY leibert_t_Page_036thm.jpg
d52fe815010910843a5f615d8155b2bc
083700ef2b650102f687747f6f79f35944bbcaa2
17933 F20101129_AAAXIB leibert_t_Page_068.QC.jpg
e445e06239742e4b85633bb574b2bca6
7a56bba6309dca86e81f2035bafa7c39c691c959
22096 F20101129_AAAXHN leibert_t_Page_055.QC.jpg
6fa9b7359d0d41cf66440be80882deba
7a9089a80f7fe7dfa79022e7fbbd990e81b480fa
23582 F20101129_AAAXGZ leibert_t_Page_037.QC.jpg
d94cc843e5a5039ed537609b5686633b
6930b7e4292af15409ff61c20814f2a94310ab41
5009 F20101129_AAAXIC leibert_t_Page_068thm.jpg
51a588e0d368c12fc35f98a1ba82abf5
caa69d897c96549bc5cd1feba7237624eba35a14
6246 F20101129_AAAXHO leibert_t_Page_055thm.jpg
77ef270dbe536b04f2046f830bcdbf12
b62761304d1953ecf5eb37b9331d906924d9850a
19564 F20101129_AAAXID leibert_t_Page_069.QC.jpg
0223450df349c26899ca041fc73a8524
518890a89b1bd3a85923f2df8a586c771d87cc07
21553 F20101129_AAAXHP leibert_t_Page_057.QC.jpg
6b8979dfb4503d8f576670cd8d0bffd5
4c9846486aaeb4b2a5efc4754bbbea0d89a325a1
5513 F20101129_AAAXIE leibert_t_Page_069thm.jpg
d59518c3b88e981cb2deaa5c54a03783
2f26ed2804e49ca0ae1aa0a8a5fb3718a87f0d02
6127 F20101129_AAAXHQ leibert_t_Page_057thm.jpg
ca055c666afca9ce0aefb2e7b24d806a
77e4a26c6e46524d7bbec350b2820e8160749f3f
21905 F20101129_AAAXIF leibert_t_Page_071.QC.jpg
38118b968d10adb1bc41f3f94bde46eb
297ca6054fafa4fd3105a298c93719e46ef1e1e5
22804 F20101129_AAAXHR leibert_t_Page_058.QC.jpg
fa39b4af01c75936afd58f0345d816cd
bf017ad868aea52b65b61237ff631e50c3923584
5360 F20101129_AAAXIG leibert_t_Page_072thm.jpg
a5203de8a1bf64879be585e4dbb2315f
2c2020b07e701cc160e3a9c7bfe466fa82b102b8
24980 F20101129_AAAXHS leibert_t_Page_059.QC.jpg
ba910fc027643468c1419735d3574085
54f70a352b2f4f1dfcf327bb8b105925510a174f
6230 F20101129_AAAXIH leibert_t_Page_073thm.jpg
6e65328a54d172e842d07e30bb2d2af0
96742317a08a578867bdf2a05c3d2cd24dfdb43a
6899 F20101129_AAAXHT leibert_t_Page_059thm.jpg
b486cf8d4d01d5953b65ded13318f441
2f0bc5e34e60605d961bbc1c8a7b11bfb4aa35c0
6275 F20101129_AAAXII leibert_t_Page_074thm.jpg
37bebc24c50335cdc3f2bcaad57494dd
60492941dad56d6b9c569845fde6fd7c7a4ea4f7
6235 F20101129_AAAXHU leibert_t_Page_061thm.jpg
3b3018b3cfc38babbce52242d9919b5d
fb996d3d7936a2f2079b1453a751829c6a88bf59
23415 F20101129_AAAXIJ leibert_t_Page_075.QC.jpg
293ac984aabe4bdfcb1c4c447706f6a6
94bf0ad87c91c8b09eff3d3fe2b3f592145d9e11
6473 F20101129_AAAXHV leibert_t_Page_062thm.jpg
e13ad16feb1d68978cdd542f9c8dbe87
ce1c9fa08842c93e0c777a0e00aa83c81d514f83
6346 F20101129_AAAXIK leibert_t_Page_075thm.jpg
805f546e1d1201bbca1824056660b546
8d2c3ae25940b2819546113b3209a107bfdb9ad0
23593 F20101129_AAAXHW leibert_t_Page_063.QC.jpg
9b895118551fb2d3c4fc198cc86b011d
fa1133ea94d31b9396095966bd15f6180b32fd91
19552 F20101129_AAAXIL leibert_t_Page_076.QC.jpg
e30cec5a60569afc883b89f60cb6ed7b
2a830bb55549ce37abeb321cd73d2d4bb3c2e125
6679 F20101129_AAAXHX leibert_t_Page_064thm.jpg
658093d921c5f3fe1143537b62dd0ce5
f5f0befaa7189aeddbe52b9083a712e2ab0856f7
5575 F20101129_AAAXIM leibert_t_Page_076thm.jpg
4e5f9e8fbefdc6a8b3036b2608ddc454
c99157c4b1ebc522903a6e27f23562efa539b8d2
6683 F20101129_AAAXHY leibert_t_Page_066thm.jpg
812a7e63ad9d0f7b479f7168825617ba
a563ac39f5cfd686ca00a9e2584ebf1dbb82ab69
6589 F20101129_AAAXJA leibert_t_Page_088thm.jpg
92d4ef34d6c2ad39d4b4753410deb600
d6278a2d3874f80b8a183bafff07772fd513909f
21541 F20101129_AAAXIN leibert_t_Page_077.QC.jpg
27893f71b2236c17ea1e63d68b8b2f7b
d266969963d95b637e31c98300239b3d5470c27b
21956 F20101129_AAAXHZ leibert_t_Page_067.QC.jpg
fad524b51a8016d72e832550e63b5410
8f261fc031a69662a3e963f7eada7ea81ce350a0
22842 F20101129_AAAXJB leibert_t_Page_089.QC.jpg
11cb4e14ae08750bc609952cea6563c3
cbd86696465d6f74408eaad7ef1f0faf627bd642
5944 F20101129_AAAXIO leibert_t_Page_078thm.jpg
54e76e622b19ffa2bb4fa8217b2a0d11
1f4e15ef5b3d227370dbe074d7482b0eb8dcea01
24617 F20101129_AAAXJC leibert_t_Page_090.QC.jpg
deedd5a21a70989ce58b21a436fdd045
121a4423f86eab4f28c159256b778775963b557b
20263 F20101129_AAAXIP leibert_t_Page_080.QC.jpg
a759a9b6daa398b4db7eb5a2b56b7d0a
8fc497b463b178d19c071a929508d18522b2239f
23634 F20101129_AAAXJD leibert_t_Page_091.QC.jpg
c034aaa546d75ddd44359edb81c92689
20fa398f6f0356459fe54f32e3fd87ecf5b3643d
5809 F20101129_AAAXIQ leibert_t_Page_081thm.jpg
e051b067417711c0fdc957505f2aa897
f304b0190a21fd784511773f3cb000339fc4cb6e
6477 F20101129_AAAXJE leibert_t_Page_091thm.jpg
751356ad898d2b7d2ff5a85263b97996
a07a5ecd3603d7d3c2e04a39754e6cb1194fa314
4568 F20101129_AAAXIR leibert_t_Page_082.QC.jpg
6f24dde26bf0560298813d9775901669
839b7b07d77cdef0da46230251493faa8ae1854a
24189 F20101129_AAAXJF leibert_t_Page_092.QC.jpg
effb74946dd8838bd6d8ee51a614011f
8ba5aab413c243ef27d05972597c2c69f32e0527
1685 F20101129_AAAXIS leibert_t_Page_082thm.jpg
0b398a0347095f55f4d10a09809433cb
2fb6df4a94823f153445a29d7b23fde8c7d70330
6653 F20101129_AAAXJG leibert_t_Page_092thm.jpg
9be44ab82ae1dbb95d4c495424a939b0
fbe68b6adbac3d1dba9dab92e024780ce1647f74
19933 F20101129_AAAXIT leibert_t_Page_083.QC.jpg
f37d45e2b5791cf5398c115f99af04f1
ae30a9531c4d3476a55210b1bd13be0d0ac3f0c2
23229 F20101129_AAAXJH leibert_t_Page_093.QC.jpg
c8502418e2246043b3b179a06cee2bc4
bcb182fb35f531223f97e94aa3f6ba65f8a9efbc
5659 F20101129_AAAXIU leibert_t_Page_083thm.jpg
78f9196b7365a39491c53251d0afe726
19e10546b151004c2fb77209ff3084b310ffdd74
F20101129_AAAXJI leibert_t_Page_093thm.jpg
94808fee6ed37b7d7031b0b832e1e1a8
f566dad1739595cc8bd2479c48e3fc36754a80bc
23761 F20101129_AAAXIV leibert_t_Page_084.QC.jpg
5f003ffc81d832524eee7c546b89eac5
af5222968885878820834c15cb49462326f16855
6586 F20101129_AAAXJJ leibert_t_Page_094thm.jpg
b8acc271eaa40da06500e072e5ff045c
69e68179b19e1499764d1824e029419a0ae8d040
6493 F20101129_AAAXIW leibert_t_Page_084thm.jpg
190e409256b8fbaf1d732dc195e329e4
3bad60e10582d84dba4b08de8135cd969b3fd64a
F20101129_AAAXJK leibert_t_Page_095.QC.jpg
b1a5f278f069c9d43ee3e2779b814796
cba944ca531fdd532bb702b55b8ef36a8a544dfe
6548 F20101129_AAAXIX leibert_t_Page_085thm.jpg
832e761325a7f9dbc729744cce74c04f
fdd41a913190d6f4ef3acc090fd2fd13068ebdba
23356 F20101129_AAAXJL leibert_t_Page_096.QC.jpg
12cab25dfe01afe411aae7c2c5669b10
fb06b18384f4db790299f487112f5bcc00a21886
23042 F20101129_AAAXIY leibert_t_Page_087.QC.jpg
c21b505fead156b9081151454c452610
90c0fb8d6f4f6a80c177e19bdcdaafe196a2ccb7
3347 F20101129_AAAXKA leibert_t_Page_110thm.jpg
657994c6f0d9b35d505d6bed92464b6b
48adae924fbde25c4a7719579788b86152fd1591
21810 F20101129_AAAXJM leibert_t_Page_097.QC.jpg
3c439f20b3277243c2b2c9a80dd73df1
2e2d397d44d44e836f63a9b8cbd2605794a5ae92
6530 F20101129_AAAXIZ leibert_t_Page_087thm.jpg
fe3018cff729cfca725e20156af5ff56
4793a9da1c875bc8c889c9cd569533dfa14f00aa
2557 F20101129_AAAXKB leibert_t_Page_111thm.jpg
3829edcc59bdf65467ea82c30288ba43
422a00c330aa48251b3cb260b9c45409ffd465c3
6615 F20101129_AAAXJN leibert_t_Page_099thm.jpg
040d6628fdcd777c2528db7240bf44e7
d51b8af4c7a7ca55b4b98276e069336ee10eb4bf
6108 F20101129_AAAXKC leibert_t_Page_112thm.jpg
96a37ad057226c3d733cf35354f74d9b
fd0e5ea01fa5c79333a180dc51000cc2c78bac36
8931 F20101129_AAAXJO leibert_t_Page_100.QC.jpg
8270cdb9023c3094be021d6835c91e12
629759097458a20d69438f22d176937667a9ae0c
25765 F20101129_AAAXKD leibert_t_Page_113.QC.jpg
c93e3f8e5e748ed30f2aef3d2c4d7e5d
e635e9e88b84ba468d55f28d15e072237e80b148
19039 F20101129_AAAXJP leibert_t_Page_101.QC.jpg
3000b30d85d1256caa0cb9a44ae6317f
fe352cffa0d4f6b389b04af7a3c2bdccf347f564
6919 F20101129_AAAXKE leibert_t_Page_113thm.jpg
b8656993fea0141df0d4ff1f49afe713
2c88f9fe7cd26c620e6b382c32eaad1868be1886
24363 F20101129_AAAXJQ leibert_t_Page_102.QC.jpg
313509849eb6342f51e311053ca1c7ac
f802250f218d0cc15e790800df890739871e2aeb
26610 F20101129_AAAXKF leibert_t_Page_114.QC.jpg
4372a42307a27c1fc8cd637e249e014f
9b2bd42d03699297f908b98d316c755f86fdd0d6
6632 F20101129_AAAXJR leibert_t_Page_102thm.jpg
bccdd017f32b939e1e947eb95b3f953c
b7fb815005cef45c7b6953f9e13ec8da94085226
7009 F20101129_AAAXKG leibert_t_Page_114thm.jpg
1801fa98436f6d6bf56cf64d39888a92
6e1f5e03d8ebc3ca6ad32471cea34b8bc9ed7583
4167 F20101129_AAAXJS leibert_t_Page_103thm.jpg
7a0e2ba00230163a65e8d5b6e4625fbc
2ad86f7c594996580bafe3a38fd3226cfc88ad07
24909 F20101129_AAAXKH leibert_t_Page_115.QC.jpg
ded353cbcc56f99c0664ba3abc007a2d
110ddb527311cfc62843e7a67e71fa39cfe96a51
3580 F20101129_AAAXJT leibert_t_Page_104thm.jpg
8d3feda95d5e9af461ed36e32cf02565
f482963e273df8dd12857993419e56809da9b8bc
6742 F20101129_AAAXKI leibert_t_Page_115thm.jpg
05e5ab60122c027bf2a7bcedf2d3e8cb
36c27c1e032637b63f894605a7b7792ec634f447
2420 F20101129_AAAXJU leibert_t_Page_105thm.jpg
71803b5410bec31d3b52ede6310fc6de
1fca7ea837d5ad2e6ffdf8353dbfe13842551f89
7170 F20101129_AAAXKJ leibert_t_Page_116thm.jpg
c34e499cca1d7f21f7ee2a437c6ba600
b9839a67cc6b15ff39c74136b6cbab77e9751837
2540 F20101129_AAAXJV leibert_t_Page_106thm.jpg
22f7fd48fc987676e62792845d7423ae
0c747f9ce61399132a4f898fd40f8b00d52a4ae7
24939 F20101129_AAAXKK leibert_t_Page_117.QC.jpg
061bd15c7054ed1e755f30a771944d78
42764b33589532358af1feb1fdff0d5d7cd8a3dd
6507 F20101129_AAAXJW leibert_t_Page_107.QC.jpg
e2c473fbf2326876ab2863a390404e99
2f2745464c907d6c56e3518fbc38e37e626ecb98
24769 F20101129_AAAXKL leibert_t_Page_119.QC.jpg
1ca1aaaa54433f7214c3b2e17c51b608
d9375dfd873ef9b3a07de589f2fd99fca56ce1ac
17165 F20101129_AAAXJX leibert_t_Page_109.QC.jpg
56920ca13ad44b4094434de6482a69b3
e70c28738837a17618ab697b3644c58a1fa33513
6813 F20101129_AAAXKM leibert_t_Page_120thm.jpg
3dbb4b2be6abe421c01176c82ab834bd
3e085033ded77fb4664316150ef280535b32c86d
4932 F20101129_AAAXJY leibert_t_Page_109thm.jpg
c12ce474d5c49db4b3cf85225982737a
241962c2e06107de2dddf19d4c7aee9be2122762
22668 F20101129_AAAXKN leibert_t_Page_122.QC.jpg
b3c86bd7ea4bf181fffcd87c21afafae
7c73ff599a299dfe8a7cbbae8dd564774c645806
11111 F20101129_AAAXJZ leibert_t_Page_110.QC.jpg
4760c1add4e6672c9a240429dbbc9718
0df6027d198f61682209abd32519012ab90b952d
25519 F20101129_AAAXKO leibert_t_Page_123.QC.jpg
6d4b44c0668954188829549c99306c07
15ab026c2319389015dca94d287aa5f21d19929c
6897 F20101129_AAAXKP leibert_t_Page_123thm.jpg
89ae05858b938bddb532e8c75fe7eecf
45b9193b8b6f1a0acc4d2cae177f62a60f324f37
25547 F20101129_AAAXKQ leibert_t_Page_124.QC.jpg
511715712c904a73c25dbbc8b917c731
e7de24982aa25f81f40c01009d23a08a1b0a1e39
6633 F20101129_AAAXKR leibert_t_Page_124thm.jpg
f3c318d65c72bfbb802deeddc2fc0692
ac4a9c4e27ddf725a9472a8002f76b0fad381d82
7094 F20101129_AAAXKS leibert_t_Page_125thm.jpg
cc22d4869d9e57aece81d9fc4f0730c5
f3af485cc8192bc430a491cb770f27da1744ff01
24944 F20101129_AAAXKT leibert_t_Page_126.QC.jpg
714e052f0fe2193075e0ca22c72811bd
af016f57a47edb284cbd51b65ce826e1f28e72a5
27769 F20101129_AAAXKU leibert_t_Page_127.QC.jpg
c5e614d1e5206d40f3eecd4e8851e74a
4c839e5f0027527b50046ff84d12c4dd4cd379a2
5207 F20101129_AAAXKV leibert_t_Page_128.QC.jpg
31ab851fa812b5d39df53bb7fa58dc6e
8f7457ff4ac16c11dab2b1d134e9027f6f2d9109
2264 F20101129_AAAXKW leibert_t_Page_130thm.jpg
172d7324b81b09fa362ccc93ff4b94b9
270a1057a6c74111399fcb21279a23a32069d10f
25004 F20101129_AAAWMA leibert_t_Page_118.QC.jpg
a98aada4a639bb5d8b671c6bc3c18a3e
1043ff3dc159adf685ae5016f64fd921f2556f16
87626 F20101129_AAAWMB leibert_t_Page_102.jpg
5376a0503c0b5acbfe39c27f6cddd375
121b8d1a34fa1ad088a4a20603fbc72cf24a10f3
2085 F20101129_AAAWMC leibert_t_Page_107thm.jpg
43438b557caa9e919539942380434bc1
d16fa019e6b47469e1776c31b04cdab519e1a4da
F20101129_AAAWMD leibert_t_Page_069.tif
e64db1d57f8bbd356dc29b766be11cb9
b0985aa7f69325372eee562a424150f7026cafd2
5687 F20101129_AAAWME leibert_t_Page_024thm.jpg
35a5c0fc078c6f201d96552f50ba4938
4f513d967ac11091a716611c82c7d5b559b840c2
F20101129_AAAWMF leibert_t_Page_115.tif
84b07235d452e556f49554ab42512d41
e35911ae89a38d041bd14eaedcd391f278c40f18
71259 F20101129_AAAWMG leibert_t_Page_031.jpg
e8cf268fb7d457031485c9d228032681
02517a275f0d6a2bf7b89ba73db7d6c7d05f9792
6334 F20101129_AAAWLS leibert_t_Page_045thm.jpg
b8a183dcc7a29bf5ab633c00d74f1bf3
d8f13b7d9104350c889336b9e790c03b31cc56e1
F20101129_AAAWMH leibert_t_Page_020.tif
e7c30048fb23a2c05bf7025dd347f5a1
8a7b2806a5bf3ff82216538335fa86d55a8a91be
66448 F20101129_AAAWLT leibert_t_Page_011.jpg
99aba437b014b1905ca410269b26055c
a677e66ebb9aedf6d5dd2c06e7c3edc9808fbbe5
F20101129_AAAWMI leibert_t_Page_014thm.jpg
c1df576af86b8307f454e6c95e111a42
e0e35171e44710177dd42e222a690b29f55f9258
62788 F20101129_AAAWLU leibert_t_Page_078.jpg
7332bbc9d7c97f427a8ef47d966fc5a5
fb788fa81dcfee1367450b4f5ce33b22fd20ef61
F20101129_AAAWMJ leibert_t_Page_076.tif
d803b416b98b6274089679c65f5d25c0
243977a155ce14189394c7664412cbec1e55b437
F20101129_AAAWLV leibert_t_Page_037thm.jpg
1883d4f116085d4a7e8a3e914f1389b4
1ca7561ac310f0ec596db5b93cb89620a28ed90e
F20101129_AAAWMK leibert_t_Page_017.tif
c44f260bfb29e2f392c3fe3e3a9221ab
caac1ecb09b7174f6f568683469bf52644d3ce52
23952 F20101129_AAAWLW leibert_t_Page_062.QC.jpg
eac31e118e3d2b957bcb0f3b25324ad4
3e99d7e96d4226da86a0feb5e743cbbf5ffd6388
70886 F20101129_AAAWNA leibert_t_Page_039.jpg
0e64a5380160807b7ff453b2254a3190
2058b6f9748f745ce809cd19f44590afc6332b0b
F20101129_AAAWML leibert_t_Page_023.tif
c56d3e83e8f45b564c2878ce119b27c9
9be4f35c55970e3d926bcc6af14382f4f9d21a6f
F20101129_AAAWLX leibert_t_Page_125.tif
fe65fe35bdd16d345f8bef18b90b7cbc
ab7c8cb0170978e36cd5053cb1dd8cd7ae998c66
F20101129_AAAWNB leibert_t_Page_036.tif
6df48fcddbdfaba880817ddb7f64c736
ee066c6173e5cc5fce235c2c165430ec1da7b66d
21784 F20101129_AAAWMM leibert_t_Page_108.QC.jpg
049ffab779e75a20ac77ffe098ce7b0d
dc9dc7616f8186a78435e0dd6f2fc06f5934861e
109025 F20101129_AAAWLY leibert_t_Page_053.jp2
a79c4194fbe9c33e87ca26a2c5abf02b
f5a09638e4b81d79246f100767f0930669656eb0
23730 F20101129_AAAWMN leibert_t_Page_098.QC.jpg
68c29823c9667380de050782a507f60c
32b9a2109ceb4a1c5e3119ae5d4f56cae17a19f5
72063 F20101129_AAAWLZ leibert_t_Page_018.jpg
cb4a62115bae6fc03ad203ee13b7a0cf
760be774251b0ce0f494541221181c9ee7e9be28
24112 F20101129_AAAWMO leibert_t_Page_094.QC.jpg
90323767e4c76fd07845e424803ca639
2f46da92dbb0b9436b68171f25e8d05b87beb196
67228 F20101129_AAAWNC leibert_t_Page_097.jpg
8b94f8b6b9eeea4c0f1283786c5f9586
18e16aaa5f05ee2343a06186c088c4592ee85445
77588 F20101129_AAAWMP leibert_t_Page_122.jpg
45530d099f21388dff5abfa3dacd6d35
05dc225e9f9931fa5fb0a677b24bc368cc47a020
F20101129_AAAWND leibert_t_Page_004.tif
f0419d7bec1151410f571c3da442ea18
167e96ce35e1df64caaa702ca9d0f5181691fc6f
23711 F20101129_AAAWMQ leibert_t_Page_065.QC.jpg
20a6324e969a1b993f83d4ce05527cfb
7db3ae790715d766cabc6f296bac79f16266e1fd
F20101129_AAAWNE leibert_t_Page_039.tif
af2203392c20b5e3b05174b7390d0b3f
8092fda60769630c3cdd708988fb4daf868112f8
103708 F20101129_AAAWMR leibert_t_Page_035.jp2
0c951d3505b93bf7c66bf9af1e921c82
c3f869a3d43356afea56f09060e7a43abfc2bfda
18544 F20101129_AAAWNF leibert_t_Page_024.QC.jpg
a01e48a07dd6f5d538f9440ad1d08972
66cbcaa1c08f8a0168ca0c0c20a30f04fa443de6
6328 F20101129_AAAWMS leibert_t_Page_089thm.jpg
683671efcc139146f1484b8efc1995a1
6fe85fdba389321e64f618d31dc9b1a18b4d25bf
6572 F20101129_AAAWNG leibert_t_Page_095thm.jpg
75a7e7b5abff1b50a78c35f7fcddbb4d
d699a6649b8946fa33092c7b1a43fdef08c70070
87126 F20101129_AAAWMT leibert_t_Page_113.jpg
39d08e69a213ea97539eab757b2385e0
ed61602d726fa8604cdee59455589faf2753d3fd
130831 F20101129_AAAWNH leibert_t_Page_119.jp2
8eeda17447af65bd44d132d860a55230
bbb0a2405a07b26f40811fc11c403eba7b319382
23607 F20101129_AAAWMU leibert_t_Page_099.QC.jpg
09ea0cc6cd913c00a2a906d1251f3295
374eb1823bc4d6b88265b064b468c42bc291ba8a
20338 F20101129_AAAWNI leibert_t_Page_078.QC.jpg
26daa4972a4320f76e6bf946ae792ba0
d46798a2e9998c5f0e79aa595ee15363164558d7
23290 F20101129_AAAWMV leibert_t_Page_014.QC.jpg
83dbabd1369685edd13959ff799010e4
8029ea8d57c4b22854c1c47c0112357d1f60912e
F20101129_AAAWNJ leibert_t_Page_118.tif
0a8f15676569fbc2cb26dce6e3c02879
67a30461ba59d9cc11edbfdb45c21dc6151d9842
72312 F20101129_AAAWMW leibert_t_Page_043.jpg
184829b44c06939531bef3fa7b6f0031
cc37ed5826bd465ef9ec8559d5c20a7c58101b23
23900 F20101129_AAAWNK leibert_t_Page_107.jp2
507586d35e958e1671285d51dc70f7cd
848527f23bd24397927d8cfedffebd0cf033ed80
109274 F20101129_AAAWMX leibert_t_Page_031.jp2
dc4a4c1c708a76cb1dca2c93f9eca637
4117abcf04f5929f9e38bc8eacb2b07f7eb0001a
F20101129_AAAWOA leibert_t_Page_083.tif
bd307544d2bab7a1a7013aee4a42e2a7
2c3dfa176e6ec914327c3b1e2b01346312369e8a
6595 F20101129_AAAWNL leibert_t_Page_020thm.jpg
477cb2dda4ae8edf2679fb2c4b594ff6
9850034018e1ea6bdc97471227132a073a031c84
26500 F20101129_AAAWMY leibert_t_Page_004.jpg
a1641a8b767e97d6ef82da2e5de7c53f
3d10a6c0efb242700f1e312db2bc4a2f0ad2f95a
111396 F20101129_AAAWOB leibert_t_Page_086.jp2
a9ebfbdf1d43ca956dce7a16d8edc4c5
de1e009ee117389f164d840a8123aa49622fff4d
70821 F20101129_AAAWNM leibert_t_Page_017.jpg
49fd6de61c5e2e94770017105d37abc2
f0688ab5aaa9308d79214c90a5777325189431de
137337 F20101129_AAAWMZ leibert_t_Page_123.jp2
0049f8fb241a57a67167da008dc4fe83
b48516ca68221c6e307cdd4543981337abfc076c
6418 F20101129_AAAWOC leibert_t_Page_039thm.jpg
8ecfc6d7409b230019952603dad6688f
c341a0239751ae3595ba8da7f6c6ccfc0d2efae5
24035 F20101129_AAAWNN leibert_t_Page_021.QC.jpg
ecf002b96228e0285876763325524ac6
9e9cba32173adc764086b3b4d6c2b67b51591b6f
71170 F20101129_AAAWNO leibert_t_Page_087.jpg
8ffb2494ee5b68cec3f1e0260f1b2ecf
3ef72aabca826f5cf3c8674e1e00b529f96f3147



PAGE 1

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CLIENT FA CTORS AND SYMPTOM LEVELS FOR CLIENTS IN ONGOING MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT By TODD W. LEIBERT A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Todd W. Leibert

PAGE 3

iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I must thank my gi rlfriend, Lyanna Doxey, for her unwavering conviction that I should pursue a PhD despite my many reservations. Her support was the one constant in my life through to the conclusi on of my dissertation. I am grateful that she withstood her own aversion to dealing with life’s uncertainties in order that I fulfill my own potentials in life. I will be forever th ankful for her foresight, support, and love. I want to extend my gratitude towards my doctoral chair, James Archer, Jr., for his efforts to help me complete my disserta tion despite many unexpected personal hardships he faced. He conveyed a deep respect for my ability to thrive as a professor and researcher. He lived up to his billing as a fast editor and greatly facilitated the completion of my dissertation and bo lstered my confidence. I am also appreciative of the rest of my committee, Harry Daniels, Ellen Amatea, and Jamie Algina, for their competent, skil lful, insightful, encouraging input. Each member provided unique help that I think help shaped my development in the PhD program and on the dissertation. I am indebted to each member for their contributions. I want to thank my parents, Bob and Dixi e, for their emotiona l support and interest in my progression. I thank my father, whose many years as a university professor led to wise and experienced advice that saved me from making the pro cess harder than it needed to be. I want to express my thanks to peers Jenny Bergeron, for her competent statistical consults; Tim Baker, for his assistance and use of the online survey software; Kelly

PAGE 4

iv Morgan, for her timely medica l help; and Stephanie Carter for helping me with the formatting of this document, my most fear ed element of the whole dissertation. I am grateful to the many message board sites that supported my study and the people who were willing to complete my survey. The study could not have been completed without their assistance. Finally, my cat’s efforts should not go unsung. Kito provided diligent oversight in my keyboard operations and attack ed research articles with a fervor even I could not attain.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................viii ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Theoretical Framework.................................................................................................7 Statement of the Problem............................................................................................10 Need for the Study......................................................................................................11 Purpose of the Study...................................................................................................12 Rationale for the Study...............................................................................................12 Research Questions.....................................................................................................13 Definition of Terms....................................................................................................13 Organization of the Study...........................................................................................15 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE.....................................................................................17 Social Support.............................................................................................................19 Perceived Criticism.....................................................................................................22 Motivation...................................................................................................................26 Expectancy/Hope........................................................................................................28 Physical Health...........................................................................................................31 SES and Major Role Satisfaction...............................................................................33 Complexity/Chronicity of Problems...........................................................................36 Sociodemographic Factors..........................................................................................38 Response Rate.............................................................................................................39 General Conclusion....................................................................................................44 3 METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................46 Statement of Purpose..................................................................................................46 Hypotheses..................................................................................................................46 Descriptions of Variables...........................................................................................47 Dependent Variables...........................................................................................47

PAGE 6

vi Independent Variables.........................................................................................47 Population...................................................................................................................48 Sampling Procedures..................................................................................................48 Data Collection Procedures........................................................................................50 Instrumentation...........................................................................................................51 Outcome Questionnaire-45 (OQ-45)...................................................................51 Duke Social Support Questionnaire (DSSQ)......................................................53 Social Adjustment Scale-Self Report (SAS-SR).................................................54 Perceived Criticism Measure (PCM)...................................................................54 University of Rhode Island Change Assessment (URICA Long Form).............55 Treatment Expectancy Scale (TES).....................................................................56 Health Survey Short-Form-12 (SF-12)................................................................57 Single Item Questions..........................................................................................58 Data Analysis..............................................................................................................58 4 DATA ANALYSIS....................................................................................................59 Data Collection and Descriptive Statistics.................................................................59 Decision Rule......................................................................................................62 Reliability Estimates for OQ-45, DSSQ, and URICA........................................63 Test of Assumptions, Multicollin earity, and Undue Influence...........................63 Correlation Analysis............................................................................................64 Regression Analysis............................................................................................66 Nature of the Outliers and Rationale for Outlier Exclusion................................68 Hypothesis Testing.....................................................................................................69 Chapter Summary.......................................................................................................71 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................73 Summary of the Study................................................................................................73 Conclusions.................................................................................................................74 Limitations..................................................................................................................86 Implications and Recommendations...........................................................................87 Research..............................................................................................................87 Clinical................................................................................................................89 APPENDIX A ADVERTISEMENT AND CONSENT......................................................................91 B DUKES SOCIAL SUPPORT QUESTIONNAIRE....................................................93 C PERCEIVED CRITICISM SCALE...........................................................................95 D SOCIAL ADJUSTMENT SCALE-SELF REPORT (SAS-SR).................................96 E TREATMENT EXPECTANCY SCALE...................................................................97

PAGE 7

vii F URICA (LONG FORM) UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND CHANGE ASSESSMENT...........................................................................................................98 G CLIENT SOCIODEMOGRAPHI C INFORMATION (9-ITEMS)..........................100 REFERENCE LIST.........................................................................................................102 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................119

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 Frequency Distribution of Participat ing Mental Health Message Boards................60 2 Descriptive Statistics for the Continuous Variables.................................................61 3 Recoding Reports of Time or Sessions in Counseling.............................................62 4 Zero-Order Correlations between Client Variable and the OQ-45..........................65 5 Source Table for the Model of Client Variables on the OQ-45...............................66 6 Regression Coefficient Estimat es and Independent Variance..................................67 7 Client model and Individual Client Factor Semi-Partial Correlations.....................68

PAGE 9

ix Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CLIENT FA CTORS AND SYMPTOM LEVELS FOR CLIENTS IN ONGOING MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT By Todd Leibert August 2005 Chair: James Archer Major Department: Counselor Education The common factors model of mental health counseling posits that as much as 55% of the variance in outcome results from client factors apart from th e counseling itself. The primary purpose of this study was to evalua te the relationship of common factors on client symptom levels during an ongoing treat ment attempt. The secondary purpose of the study was to assess which client factors were associated with positive mental health symptom levels. Based on counseling literature, 13 client factors we re selected on the basis of their prognostic potential. The dependent variable was the Outcome Questionnaire-45 which provided a global measur e of mental health comprised of the three subscales symptom distress, quality of interpersonal relations, and social role at home, work, or school. Clients undergoing mental health counseli ng were solicited thr ough Internet selfhelp mental health message/bulletin boards th at primarily targeted depression and anxiety related concerns. Recruitment of participants began by first achieving access to Internet

PAGE 10

x self-help message/bulletin boards and then pos ting an advertisement directed towards members also involved in face-to-face profe ssional mental health counseling. Seventyfour mental health message/bulletin board fo rums were solicited for participation over a period of 13 weeks. In total, 195 self-selec ted volunteer responses to the survey were analyzed using correlation and multiple regression analyses. Respondents were mainly adult, white, well-educated females, with a history of chronic and severe mental health concerns. The results revealed that the 13 client factors measured significantly related to client sy mptom level and collect ively explained over half (i.e., 58%) of the variance in client sy mptom level, thus supporting the influence of the common factors model for clients undergoi ng mental health treatment. Satisfaction with social supports and prim ary life role (e.g., student, re tired volunteer) were the two most influential factors relating to less repor ted symptom levels. Fewer prior attempts at coping with the respondent’s presenting probl em, higher education level, satisfaction with physical health, older age, and to a lesse r extent, financial secu rity, no incidence of emotional or sexual abuse, and hope/expectancy for improvement, also related to reports of fewer mental health symp toms. Clinical implications and future research are elucidated.

PAGE 11

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Mental health therapists face increasing pr essures to demonstrate effective practice by third-party payers, health managed organi zations (HMOs), and administrators (Addis, Wade, & Hatgis, 1999; Plante, Couchman, & Hoffman, 1998; Rainer, 1996). The now infamous Hans Eysenck (1952) study purpor ting that people undergoing psychotherapy were no better off than those going without psychotherapy galvanized researchers to focus on the task of outcome studies (Clark in & Levy, 2004). In the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, psychotherapy research ers subsequently turned in an impressive mass of empirical evidence demonstrating the general benefit of counseling (Shapiro & Shapiro, 1982; Smith & Glass, 1977; Smith, Glass, & Miller, 1980), and were able to conclude that clients who received counseling were be tter off than 80% of those who had not received counseling (Lambert & Ogles, 2004). With the general effectiveness of counse ling demonstrated, attempts were then undertaken to discover specifica lly what treatments, or scho ols of therapy, worked for which clients (Chambless & Ollendick, 2001), an d to identify what the curative factors (e.g., advanced empathy, disputing irrational beli efs) of therapy were (Lambert & Ogles, 2004). To accurately evaluate which schools of psychotherapy (e.g., cognitive-behavioral therapy vs. person centered therapy) were most effective, treatment manuals were developed that specified pro cedures for applying the inte rventions (Beck, Rush, Shaw, & Emery, 1979). The advent of treatment manuals -psychotherapy researchers constituted a “small revolution” (Luborsky & DuRubeis 1984) in counseling methodology. Manuals

PAGE 12

2 also allowed researchers within a school to remove one intervention to an approach (i.e., dismantling study), or add one in tervention (i.e., component st udy) to that approach, to study which interventions were the crucial elements of the particular school of psychotherapy (Wampold, 2001). Paul’s overa rching question (1969) “What treatment, by whom, is most effective for this individua l with that specific problem, under which set of circumstances, and how does it come a bout?” was ready to be investigated. The advent of treatment manuals and, later, better measurement tools and statistical methods (Howard, Moras, Brill, Martinov ich, Lutz, 1996; Nathan, 1998), have indeed helped identify when specific treatments fo r diagnoses should be considered. Client ailments such as panic disorder, phobias, a nd compulsions have especially emerged as treatable interventions delineated in manua ls (Lambert & Ogles, 2004). Some findings even show that interventions from manuals improve therapy relations hips (Brown, Dreis, & Nace, 1999). Other reports indicate that manuals not only help clients with their primary problem (e.g., agoraphobia) but also with coexisting mental health complaints (Addis et al., 1999). Even though the rigor of comparative outcome studies in counseling research is in its infancy, in general, m odest advantages have accrued to behavioral, cognitive, or cognitive-behavioral approaches over humanistic approaches (Lambert & Ogles, 2004). These advances in the field are important as the healthcare cost-cutting policies of the 90s intensify demands on mental hea lth professionals to demonstrate success (Barlow, 1994; Hubble, Duncan, & Miller 1999a; Nathan, 1998). Mental health professionals responded to the demands by de veloping practice guidelines for the field (Nathan, 1998) and reporting 22 treatment s considered “empirically validated” by

PAGE 13

3 Division 12 of Clinical Psychology of the Am erican Psychology Association (Division 12 Task Force, 1995). Although the Divisi on 12 psychotherapy researchers were attempting to build stability to the field, th eir publication was met with considerable resistance and controversy (Garfield, 1996; Silverman, 1996). Some researchers have provided evidence that a researcher’s trea tment allegiance, acting as a self-fulfilling prophecy, explained advantages accruing to em pirically validated treatments over other treatments (Robinson, Berman, & Neimeyer, 1990; Wampold, 2001). Meta-analyses (Wampold, Mondin, Moody, Stich, Benson, & Ahn, 1997) and null findings from studies comparing Empirically Supported Treatments against one another (ESTs; Elkin, Shea, Watkins, Imber, Sotsky, Collins, Glass et al ., 1989; Project Match Research Group, 1997) have led some research ers to invoke Rosenzwe ig’s (1936) classic analogy to Alice in Wonderland’s “dodo bi rd” verdict, where everyone wins and everyone gets prizes. In other words, all treatments work, and do so about equally well (Luborsky, Singer, & Luborsky, 1975; Stiles, Shapiro, & Elliott, 1986; Wampold et al., 1997). Although the dodo bird ve rdict has been disputed (Beutler, 2002; Chambless, 2002), others continue to espouse that nonspecific “ingredients” common to most psychotherapy approaches better explai n the data (Frank & Frank, 1991; Wampold, 2001). One model that has received much atte ntion in the field is outcome researcher Michael Lambert’s (1992) common factor model of therapy outcome. Based on his reviews of three decades of outcome researc h, and especially studi es about spontaneous remission of mental health symptoms (Lam bert, 1976), he estimated that the largest portion of outcome resulted from client vari ables. He theorized that 40% of outcome variance arose from “extratherapeutic” factors (i.e., factors outside the therapy room) and

PAGE 14

4 another 15% proceeded from client expectancy for success in treatment. Thus, according to the theory, over half (55%) of what drives psychotherapy ch ange has little to do with what happens inside the therapy room. The ot her 45% of client change was speculated to result from the relationship between therapis t and client (accounti ng for 30% of change) and 15% depended on counseling school or approach. Although Lambert’s common factor model of outcome retains its adherents (Hubble et al., 1999a), the model has not been examined directly. Nor does the common factors model influence manage care policy. As outcome researcher Gene Glass (2001) colorfully expressed it: “any therapy that uses non-specifi c diagnoses and non-specific treatments is somehow bogus witchcraft lack ing indications of when to begin and when to end, and its application should be excluded from third-party cove rage” (p. x). Miller, Duncan, and Johnson (1999) contended that the inability of practitioners to show objective measures of their effectiveness will result in increasing forfeiture of control over their clinical work to “accountants and ac tuaries” (p.55). In actuality, third-party payers have assumed a larger role in dete rmining the type, frequency, and duration of treatment (Addis et al., 1999; Miller et al., 1999). The commo n factor model, in and of itself, has not helped reverse this trend. For researchers and practitioners wanting to demonstrate the efficacy of their approach without using manuals Howard et al.(1996) develo ped an alternative research method to accommodate HMOs in what is now called “Client-focused Research” (Whipple, Lambert, Vermeersch, Smart, Nielsen, & Hawkins, 2003). Client-focused research is a system for tracking and eval uating client progress during the treatment course for the purpose of improving services to the individual c lient (Lambert, 2001).

PAGE 15

5 The focus is on the individual client while in treatment rather than groups of clients after treatment has been completed (Howard et al ., 1996). The tracking system of Howard et al. was derived from research about the dose-effect of psychotherapy based on multiple research efforts collected over 30 years and including 2,400 clients (Howard, Kopta, Krause, & Orlinsky, 1986). Howard et al. ( 1986) found that the grea test therapy gains came relatively fast in the first few couns eling sessions and that later gains came increasingly slower (i.e., negatively deceler ating change curve). Since that time, other research has replicated the negatively decel erating change curve in counseling outcomes (Lambert, Hansen, & Finch, 2001). Empirical be nchmarks provide a basis of comparison for whether treatment is working or not depending upon severity of problem and length of time in treatment. The benefits of client-focus ed research were describe d as “a win-win proposition,” not only for clinicians, but “for researchers, health care organizations and patients” alike (Lambert, 2001, p. 148). After all, clinicians want to use their preferred treatment approach and not necessarily an Empiri cally Supported Treatment (Silverman, 1996). The researchers are not restricted to time a nd cost intensive methods associated with controlling treatment methods to demonstrate empiri cal support of treatment. HMOs have a way to monitor and demonstrate cost-effectiv e treatment from their providers, without resorting to compliance checks and treatment plan updates (Brown et al., 1999; Miller et al., 1999). Finally, clients receive monitored care from clinician and HMO while getting to inform both parties of th eir progress on a regular basis. In short, client-focused research affords clinicians an alternative, practical way to demonstrate the scientific validity of their services.

PAGE 16

6 Regardless of whether client-focused re search or manual-based research schemes have been utilized, client fact ors frequently emerge as mediating or moderating factors in what causes change in thera py (Clarkin & Levy, 2004; Sots ky, Glass, Shea, Pilkonis, Collins, Elkin, Watkins, et al., 1991). Manual studies that have shown a dose-effect response to treatment of diminishing returns have been used as further evidence of the influence of non-specific factors on outcome. Tallman and Bohart’s (1999) review of common factors concluded that change was a func tion of client attribut es and suggest that researchers “focus their study on clients rather than on therapists” (p. 199). In the most recent edition of the Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change chapter authors of “The Influence of Client Variables on Psychotherapy” concluded that studying client variables may greatly improve mental health professional’s unders tanding of counseling effectiveness. The guiding purpos e of their chapter was that “identification of premorbid clinical and personality characteristics predic tive of outcome might help clinicians guide treatment choices and revise treatment methods based on the needs of different types of clients” (Clarkin & Levy, 2004, p. 195). Thus, studying client factors more comprehensively has the potential to help the mental health counseling profession measure the role of treatment more precisely, improve delivery of therapy, and ultimately create more confidence of what counselors offer to themselves, funding bodies, and the public. A counseling maxim advises, that for best results, th e clinician should “go where the client is at.” The phras e captures the notion that a c lient is best served not by delivering the clinician’s preconc eived ideas of what a client needs, but by striving to discover and reflect as accurate ly as possible what the client asks for. Analogously, the

PAGE 17

7 general aim of the present counseling outcome study is to listen to the accumulated voices of past research findings a nd include factors that have spoken the loudest on outcomes. The general purpose of this study is to examine c lient factors, or extr atherapeutic factors, that have shown the most promise in prior research, and evaluate their relationship to symptomatology for clients in ongoing counseling treatment. Theoretical Framework The theoretical framework for this study uses Lambert’s (1992) common factor model of therapy outcome. Because extrathera peutic factors (e.g., client social support, motivation, financial stability) are considered the greatest source for client outcome, this factor will be considered in the greatest deta il. Closely related to ex tratherapeutic factors is the client’s hope, or expectancy, for helpfu l treatment. Both of these factors originate with the client, and therefore, both of th ese factors will be considered together (theoretically, according to the common f actors model, accounting for 55% of the outcome variance in counseling treatment). Qualities that clients bring with them to the sessions are theorized to exert the greatest influence on how a treatment episod e ultimately goes (Lambert, 1992). After all, clients may only be in treatment for one hour a week, estimated at less than 1% of their waking hours (Whipple et al., 2003). Examples of extratherapeutic qualities are having a good home, financial stability, a loving famil y, caring friends, healt h, satisfaction with life, education, motivation, hope, chance life events, and a host of both developed and untapped innate abilities (Beutler & Clarkin, 1990; H ubble et al., 1999a; Lambert & Cattani-Thompson, 1996). The terms Social Support or Social Networ k refer to the clients perceptions about their interpersonal world: quality of family life, intimate relationships, friendships, and

PAGE 18

8 the interactions among these networks. Social support indicates the adequacy to which clients are satisfied with their interpers onal relationships, and suggests how well the person will do in the interpersonal psychot herapy context. Clarkin and Levy (2004) conclude that “social suppor t is a summary statement about the interpersonal context within which the individual operates and ha s been found to be a potent variable in treatment outcomes” (p. 213). Because resear ch has consistently demonstrated that subjective perceptions of social support are more influential on psychotherapy treatment outcome than objective indicators of social support (e.g., number of friends, time spent with one’s social network, length of time in the relationship), this study will measure only subjective perceptions of social support. Stability and satisfaction with employmen t are regarded as critical to client response to treatment. As pointed out by Be utler and Clarkin ( 1990), the number of working hours frequently exceeds waking hours spent at home and likely plays a large role in maintaining ongoing mental health. Wo rk stress emerges when work roles are not clear, when there is interpersonal stress on th e job, and when feeling overwhelmed or not in control over work tasks (Fletcher & Payne, 1980; Holt, 1982; Karasek, 1979). Unemployment is related to psychological disturbance (Beu tler & Clarkin, 1990), and the greater work is desired while unemployed, th e greater the damage (Stafford, Jackson, & Banks, 1980; Warr, 1978). Adults attending school full time is assumed to play a similar role in mental health (Beutler & Clarkin, 1990) and is considered as part of the construct of employment in the pr esent investigation. In terms of motivation, this study draws on a transtheoretical model of change (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983; Prochaska, 19 99) that explains how people modify or

PAGE 19

9 alter behaviors whether in therapy or not. Acco rding to the model, ch ange is a function of five levels, or stages, of mo tivation an individual has towa rds a goal. The first stage, precontemplation, precedes serious thought of change; the second stage, contemplation, occurs when need for change becomes a cons ideration to think about; the third stage, preparation, describes that poi nt in time when steps are ta ken to get ready for making a change; the fourth stage, acti on, characterizes the physical laun ch into the change effort; the fifth stage, maintenance, is the degree to which the new behaviors are retained. A client’s stage of motivation is theoretically critical to amount and rate of change resulting from a treatment course. For the purposes of the present disserta tion, motivation will be tested for its relationship to sympto m level for clients during treatment. Hope/expectancy occurs when people believe they see one or more ways to achieve a goal and have the ability to initiate and pursue that goal (Snyder, Mi chael, & Cheavens, 1999). In the context of couns eling, Frank and Frank (1991) conceptualized clients entering treatment as individuals believing they have failed to resolve a problem and feel demoralized and powerless to solve the situation on their own. Clients see what must happen, but have lost their determination to pursue the goal. A first step in treatment is to return hope to the client (Snyder et al., 1999). Although, in the pres ent study, it was not possible to ascertain hope at the outset of treatment, participants were asked to estimate their pretreatment levels. Chronicity refers to other enduring problem s in other major life areas the client brings with them to the treatment epis ode. Chronic problems with mental health symptoms (Beutler, Clarkin, & Bongar, 2000), le gal, medical (Belsher & Costello, 1988; Murphy, 1983), employment (Gelhart, Ha nd-Ronga, & King, 2002; Mi-Young, 2001) or

PAGE 20

10 financial areas (Chiesa, Drahorad, Longo, 2000) are all added complications that theoretically affect th e client’s response to treatmen t in psychotherapy. Chronic physical health problems reduce outcome and increase the risk for relapse (Belsher & Costello, 1988; Murphy, 1983). The term “response rate” refers to speed of progress made by a client during treatment. Concern over response rate rose as studies reported that average time clients spent in counseling was only between six to eight sessions (Beckham, 1989; Garfield, 1986). If clients did not respond rapidly to trea tment, then clients might not benefit from treatment. Identifying clients likely to fail w ithin the first couple of counseling sessions and discovering mechanisms for rapid impr ovement were considered important in improving psychotherapy treatment (Crits -Christoph, Connolly, Gallop, Barber, Tu, Gladis, & Siqueland, 2001; Wilson, Fairburn, Agras, Walsh, & Kraemer, 2002). The phenomenon of rapid response has been offe red as support for nonspecific or a common factors explanation for the active ingredient s of mental health counseling (Ilardi & Craighead, 1999; Tang & DuRubeis, 1999). De lineation of extratherapeutic and hope factors related to varying le vels of symptom severity dur ing counseling episodes might also help future researcher s identify an important source of variance in response rate. Statement of the Problem HMO’s have “challenged” the psycho therapy community to demonstrate comparative cost-effectiveness of different tr eatments in actual clin ical practice (Howard et al., 1996; Ogles, Lambert, & Fields, 2002). Ho wever, therapists as well as HMOs stand to profit from discovering the active ingred ients of treatment (Brown et al., 1999). Research aiming to identify client predictors for symptom amelioration will help clinicians adapt therapeutic approach to maximize outcome (Rude & Rehm, 1991). Rapid

PAGE 21

11 early responses to treatment have eluded researcher attempts to identify specific ingredients and have suggested nonspecific (i.e., common fact ors) factors for the active ingredient behind their success (Ilardi & Crai ghead, 1999). In a commentary about extant knowledge of rapid response to treatment, W ilson (1999) suggested that “Finding robust, pretreatment predictors of treatment for a vari ety of clinical disorders remains a priority” (p.291). On the other hand, nonresponders to treatment also remain a puzzle. Approximately 10% of clients in counseli ng experience a worsening of symptoms (Bergin & Lambert, 1978; Mohr, 1995; Shap iro & Shapiro, 1982), while some 30-60% of clients drop out prematurely (Wierzbicki & Pekarik, 1993). Few empirical data are available to inform practitioners of whether de terioration in clients is a result of faulty treatment or particularly troubled clients (Mohr, Beu tler, Engle, Shoham-Salomon, Bergan, Kaszniak, & Yost, 1990). Not just a pr oblem for researchers, some studies show that therapists inaccurately predict whic h clients are likely to drop out (Auerbach, Luborsky, & Johnson, 1972; Lambert & Bergin, 1994; Lunnen & Ogles, 1998). The need for guidelines to determine when treatmen t should be altered has been called for (Auerbach et al., 1972; Wilson, 1999). Identifica tion of influential extratherapeutic and hope factors associated with be tter mental health symptom le vels might help researchers explain rapid responses and lack of responses to treatment. Need for the Study As reviewed by Clarkin and Levy (2004), mo st past research has endeavored to single out a central client variable predictive of outcome. They contended that “research focused on a constellation of salie nt variables will be likely to show the greatest impact on treatment process and outcome” (p. 215). Furt hermore, the majority of studies have used the medical model conception to study cl ient variables, relying on diagnosis and

PAGE 22

12 purported treatment approaches. Clarkin and Le vy argue that the medical model leads to an oversimplification of the client variable and magnifies the separa tion between research and practice. The need, as they put forth, is to study an amalgam of non-diagnostic client variables based on theory and empirical findi ngs. In the past, such studies were often undertaken as an afterthought when the intended factors (esp ecially treatment approach) failed to produce positive impact on outcome (Clarkin & Levy, 2004). Finally, although studies using manuals typically attempt to c ontrol client variabilit y, client sources of variability are greater than that of treatment approach (Luborsky, McLellan, Woody, & O’Brien, 1985). A more producti ve avenue of research would be to explore how the diversity of client variables (i.e., extratherapeutic and hope factors) affects outcome. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to evaluate the common factors extratherapeutic and hope factors relationship to sy mptom levels for ongoing mental health clients involved in Internet Mental Health Messa ge Boards. Using brief, clie nt-self-report measures, key client variables suggested by the common fact or theory of counseling will be examined for their relationship to persisting mental he alth symptoms. Results will be discussed in the context of improving theory and measurem ent of counseling, as well as implications for improving quality assurance in th e delivery of couns eling services. Rationale for the Study If therapy outcome is largely dependent on client variables, as the common factors model of therapy outcome proposes, the propos ition should be empirically testable by measuring the amount of variance client f actors account for in the symptom levels reported by clients during treatment. Results will help illuminate what client factors operate in the natural setting that relate to overall symptom levels. These results will also

PAGE 23

13 help determine which moderating client variab les need to be accounted for when studying speed of response to treatment, as well as therapist and treatment manual contribution to outcome. If no clear results emerge, this will provide evidence against the common factor theory for counseling outcome. Null results might also suggest a general problem of measurement shortcoming in the field. In th at case, emphases should be placed heavier on outcome measure development. On the ot her hand, should client factors relate to symptom levels as expected, then the results will help shape future research about the role of professional c ounselors in helping clients and in what therapists offer to the public, themselves, and to funding bodies. The fo llowing questions were investigated in this study. Research Questions 1. What client factors predict lower levels of symptoms in clients during therapy treatment? 2. To what extent do client factors (extra therapeutic and hope) account for client symptom level in the course of an ongoing psychotherapy regimen? 3. Do the client factors explain over half of the treatment variance in symptom levels as would be suggested by the common factors model of treatment outcome? Definition of Terms Bulletin boards : Public forums that can be accessed through the Internet (e.g., Yahoo, Google, etc.) that allow people to join in online discussion about a given topic by reading previous messages from other members, adding your own, and receiving responses to your own messages. Used interchangeably with message boards. Client-focused research: A method for improving outcome for the individual client by empirically monitoring ongoing treatment response.

PAGE 24

14 Common factor model : Treatment elements present in therapy across diverse approaches (i.e., extratherapeutic fact ors, empathy, relationship strength, hope, a treatment method). Dose-response : Refers to empirical findings in mental health counseling research showing that clients receive the greatest bene fits early in treatment and have diminishing returns as treatment continues. Empirically Supported Treatments (ESTs ): Therapy approaches that have shown statistical advantage over a comparison group (i.e., control group, wait list group, alternative treatment group) with a specific diagnostic clientele (i .e., major depression, agoraphobia). Extratherapeutic factors : Attributes about the client that exist in side and outside the therapy room (i.e., social supports, SE S, physical health, ego strength). Hope/expectancy factors : Sometimes referred to as plac ebo effects, refers to the client’s anticipation of improvement just by virtue of being treated by professional technique. Mental health message boards : Message boards that are specifically created for self-help regarding specified mental health concerns (e.g., eating disorders, grief). Message boards : Public forums that can be accessed through the Internet (e.g., Yahoo, Google, etc.) that allow people to join in online discussion about a given topic by reading previous messages from other members, adding your own, and receiving responses to your own messages. Used interchangeably with bulletin boards.

PAGE 25

15 Negatively decelerating change curve : The belief that the greatest reduction of a client’s self-reported mental health symptoms occurs in th e first few counseling sessions; further improvements occur increasingly slower. Negative responder : A client whose outcome score (falls short of) the expected change score based on actuarial data (also called, slow/non responder). Positive responder : A client whose outcome score exceeds the expected change score based on actuarial data (a lso called, fast/rapid responder). Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) : A research method aiming to control extraneous factors influenc ing outcome by rigorously defi ning client selection and therapist treatment procedures (i.e., Therap ists are trained and monitored to follow a specific treatment manual; clie nts are selected according to a diagnosis to maximize their similarity to one another). Response rate: The speed of progress made by a c lient during treatment in terms of decreased level of symptoms as determin ed by the client’s self-report on a normed outcome measure. Organization of the Study This study is comprised of an abstract, five chapters, append ices, and a list of references. The abstract and chapter 1 present the history of establis hing the efficacy of counseling and modern methods to move the counseling field forward, including the value of investigating client variables on outcome. Chapter 2 reviews literature that supports variables germane to th is study: Client’s social s upport, perception of criticism, motivation for treatment, hope in treatment, life role satisfacti on, health, and factors related to SES. Chapter 3 addresses th e method, design, independent and dependent variables, and the statistical method to analy ze the results. Chapter 4 presents the results

PAGE 26

16 of the statistical analysis. Chapter 5 su mmarizes the primary findings and their implications for both researchers and pract itioners. Finally, the appendices display measures that were used in this study.

PAGE 27

17 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE This literature review will cover those clie nt factors cited frequently as important extratherapeutic variables affecting c ounseling treatment (Clarkin & Levy, 2004; Garfield, 1994). After a brief introduction to client factor s, literature on the following, client variables will be reviewed: social support, perceived criticism, motivation, expectancy/hope for treatment success, physical health, socioeconomic status (SES) and major role satisfaction, complexity/chronicity of the presenting problem for counseling including history of emotional or sexual abuse, and sociodemogr aphic factors (i.e., gender, age, education). Last, a more r ecent and sophisticated research methodology using client response rate will be discussed as further evidence for the importance of the client on treatment outcome. Research attempting to identify vital clie nt and expectancy/hope factors impacting counseling response for the purpose of guidi ng clinician choice of treatment method (Hoberman, Lewinsohn, & Tilson, 1988; Rounsaville, Weissman, & Prusoff, 1981) or understanding the wide varia tion in client response to treatment (Bosworth, Hays, George, & Steffens, 2002; Sotsky et al., 1991) have provided indirect support for a common factors model of psychotherapy outco me. Taken as a group, client factors tend to predict a substantial por tion of outcome variance. For example, in a study involving over 400 depressed clients starting counseling, Billings and Moos (1985) prospectively examined extratherapeutic factors, such as ongoing stressors, family and work environment, interpersonal relationships, a nd coping skills on recovery from depression

PAGE 28

18 in counseling a year later. Extratherapeutic factors at posttreatment accounted for about 23% of the outcome variance in depression and when pretreatment depression levels were included, client variables expl ained approximately 45% of outcome variance. In another study, Steinmetz, Lewinsohn, and Antonuccio (1 983) carefully controlled for Depression level in a group counseling intervention to estimate impact of client factors and expectancy factors for improvement on depr ession. Client and expectancy factors accounted for roughly 25% of the outcome variance and when pretreatment levels of depression were included, about 50% of out come in depression was explained. In two smaller studies on depression treatment (N < 50) client factors explained between 6085% of outcome variance (Hoberman et al., 1988; Rounsaville et al., 1981). When the NIMH TDCRP study failed to find a superior treatment approach, the researchers retrospectively identifie d a handful of predictive client variables (Sotsky et al., 1991). Such research points to fact ors about the client as the key variable in explaining counseling outcome. Although substantial portio ns of variance have been accounted for by client factors and hope/expectancy across se veral studies, the precise influential client factors have been varied and in consistent. The goal of this literature review is to focus on the most consistent predictors of outcome. Several texts were used to help guide the search: The Handbook of Psychotherapy and Beha vior Change (Bergin & Garfield, 1994; Lambert, 2004), The Heart and Soul of Change (Hubble, Duncan, & Miller, 1999b), Systematic Treatment Selection: Toward Targ eted Therapeutic Interventions (Beutler & Clarkin, 1990), Guidelines for the Systema tic Treatment of the Depressed Patient (Beutler et al., 2000), and Who Will Benefit from Psychotherapy? Predicting Therapeutic Outcomes (Luborsky, Crits-Christo ph, Mintz, & Auerbach, 1988).

PAGE 29

19 Social Support Many studies document a strong affect on counseling outcome depending upon the client’s social network. Billings and Moos (1985) conducted a 12-month prospective, longitudinal study of 380 adult depressed clients at six in-patient and out-patient clinics. The purpose was to determine the role of lif e stressors and social supports on various measures of outcome (e.g., depression, self -esteem). Seven indices of environmental stress (i.e., negative events, medical cond itions, spouse illness, children’s illness, negative home environment, and family argu ments) and six indice s for social support (i.e., number of friends, number of networ k contacts, number of close relationships, quality of significant personal relationship, family support, and work support) were used. The results showed that even when demogr aphics and intake de pression severity was taken into account (22.1 % of the outcome variance), both environmental stressors (12.8% of the outcome variance) and posttr eatment social supports (12.1% of the outcome variance) independently contribute d significantly to outcome (44.9 % total variance accounted for). Within the domain of environmental stressors predicting improvements on level of depression, all seven sub-indices had nearly equivalent partial correlations, ranging from .11 to .23. However, w ithin the domain of social support, the subjective indicators of social support were substantially greate r (range -.27 to -.39) than the objective indicators (range -.11 to -.17). Although Billings and Moos did not evaluate the strength of the 13 environment stressors and social support predictors against each other, it is interesting to note that the tw o largest environmenta l stressors were both related to subjective social supports: negative home environm ent and family arguments. One conclusion the researchers drew was th at subjective support was more important than objective indicators of support in predicting treatment outcome.

PAGE 30

20 In a similar study, Moos (1990) explored th e extratherapeutic e ffects of stress and social supports on the success of treatment pr ograms on 265 depressed, outpatient clients. Negative stressors (e.g., medical conditions, fam ily conflict) in the client environment were evaluated both preceding and during treatment by clients. Quality of client confidants and family supports was also assesse d from client self-report. End of treatment analysis indicated that the two domains (i.e., social suppor t and environmental stress) together explained a significan t portion of variance in ame lioration of depression (3% at intake), and substantia lly more when measured 6 months later (14% of variance). The findings, though not as robust as found in B illings and Moos’ (1985) study, supported the importance of social support in pr omoting positive treatment outcome. The evidence for subjective social support as a prognosticator of favorable treatment outcome was also found in a NIMH Epidemiologic Catchment Area study involving 3,732 clients diagnosed as having symptoms of or having major depression (Landerman, George, Campbell, & Blazer, 1989). A more recent NIMH funded study that took into account of client social networ ks as part of the study question, essentially replicated the positive effect s of subjective social support (Bosworth et al., 2002). These two NIMH study results are also consistent with studies of people recovering from problems of habit. For example, a study exploring smoking-cessation among 46 participants with a si gnificant other found that clients su ccessfully abstinent six months posttreatment reported significantly greater perceived helpfuln ess from their significant others (Mermelstein, Lichtens tein, & McIntyre, 1983). In anot her example, evaluation of a weight loss program showed that percei ved support from friends and spouse was more predictive of successful weight loss at pretreatment than eith er expectations for weight

PAGE 31

21 loss, % overweight, demographics, SES, or motivational factors (Prochaska, Norcross, Fowler, Follick, & Abrams, 1992). The literature on social support also provi des evidence for the importance of the kind of social support received. For example, George, Blazer, Hughes, and Fowler (1989) explored four dimensions of social support in a longitudinal, multidisciplinary research program geared for older, adult, in-patie nts diagnosed with major depression. Social support was measured on the four dimensional, 30-item self-report D uke Social Support Index. Of the four dimensions, the first th ree reflected objective qualities, number of individuals in support network, quantity of interactions (i.e ., amount of human contact), and practical supports received (i.e., cooking, repairs, sick ca re, transportation, financial). Only the fourth dimension of the instrument reflected subjective perceptions of social support. Results revealed pretreatment seve rity as the most si gnificant predictor of improvement on depression measures, but so cial support was the next most powerful predictor for success. As was shown in Billings and Moos (1985) and Moos (1990), subjective social support indicators predic ted outcome more so than did objective indicators of social support. However, contra ry to the researchers’ expectations, clients were less depressed when they were single a nd had smaller social networks compared to clients who were married and had larger soci al networks. The author s concluded that not all relationships are helpful a nd that perceived satisfaction wi th the relationships is the component most vital to treatment success. Along those lines, Longabaugh, Beattie, Noel, Stout, & Malloy (1993) hypothesized that value of so cial support on treatment outcome depended on a client desire for, or investment in his or her so cial supports. Longabaugh et al. (1993) examined

PAGE 32

22 the response of 107 outpatient clients ove r 1 year in a comparative outcome study involving treatment for alcohol addiction. Longabaugh et al. tested their hypothesis by developing an instrument that measured bot h objective and subject ive dimensions of social support. Social Investment was de rived from both objec tive and subjective dimensions of the instrument (e.g., number of people in network and how important the people in the network were to the client), a nd from indicators such as, proportion of time in the client’s life spent with his or her current partner versus time spent living alone. Results of the study indicated that leve l of social support influenced outcome only for clients who were highly invested in thei r social network. The clients reporting high support remained abstinent sign ificantly more days than clients reporting a weaker support system. In contrast, when social suppor t was not valued as hi ghly by clients (i.e., clients reported low social investment), the so cial support variable di d not influence days they remained abstinent. In sum, the evidence supports the impor tance of social support on treatment outcome, especially when measured by the cl ients’ perceived satisfaction, and in some cases, indifference with those supports. Becau se subjective measures of social support have more successfully predicted eventual counseling outcome than have objective measures of social support, this study w ill focus only on subjective social support. Therefore, the social support indicator in this study will not necessarily reflect actual, true social support, but rath er, the client perceptions of that support. Perceived Criticism Within the construct of social support, pe rceived criticism from one’s significant other (i.e., spouse, partner, or parent) has been identified as a critical feature of a client’s general satisfaction with his or her social supports. Per ceived criticism from one’s

PAGE 33

23 significant other in particular has been shown to predict treatment outcome for a range of mental health concerns, including schizophr enia (Tompson, Goldstein, Lebell, Mintz, Marder, & Mintz, 1995), posttraumatic stre ss disorder (Chambless & Steketee, 1999), depression (Hooley & Teasdale, 1989), and obsessive-compulsive disorder and panic disorder with agoraphobia (Renshaw, Chambless, & Steketee, 2003). Several studies evaluated criticism from a significant other within the construct of expressed emotion which embodied criticism, hostilit y, and emotional over-involvement. Expressed emotion is assessed by interviews wi th a client’s significant other and in the absence of the client (Okasha, El Akabawi, Snyder, Wilson, Youssef, & El Dawla, 1994; Vaughn & Leff, 1976). Although predictive of treatment outcome, measuring expressed emotion is time-intensive (i.e., requiring a one to two hour semi-s tructured interview, audio recorded, and coded by trai ned raters) and is not from th e perspective of the client themselves (Hooley & Teasdale, 1989). Using a single item that asked cl ients to rate their sense of criticism from significant others, H ooley and Teasdale (1989) monitored relapse rate of 39 major depressed, married clients after successful treatme nt and discharge from three different in-patient hos pitals in England. Factors unde r scrutiny were levels of expressed emotion from the spouse of the clie nt, relationship quality as measured on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale self-report measure (DAS; Spanier, 1976), and client perceived criticism both towards, and from, his or he r spouse. Hooley and Teasdale’s findings demonstrated that expressed emo tion, client’s perceived criticism from his or her spouse, and marital distress measured by the DAS, all were significantly related to client relapse rates. However, the clients’ sense that they were criticized by th eir spouse was the most potent predictor, explaining 38% of the vari ance. Rather than using expressed emotion,

PAGE 34

24 Hooley and Teasdale speculated that the si ngle item of perceive d criticism was more incisive, tapping degree of criticism actually “getti ng through to” clients. A similar finding and conclusion was reached a decade later when a client sample of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) or panic disorder with agoraphobia (PDA) treated with behavioral therapy was exam ined (Chambless & Steketee, 1999). The timeintensive measure of expressed emotion was not as predictive of ratings on treatment target goals as was the single item asking clie nts to respond to percei ved criticism. Even when the authors controlled for criticism and hostility from the measure of expressed emotion, perceived criticism remained signi ficant. Chambless and Steketee concluded that objective cri ticism was weakly related to perceive d criticism, and that learning about the latter is important in clinical work. However, there was concern over whether perceived criticism was confounded with a client’s symptom severity or history of the presenting problem. Riso, Klein, Anderson, Ouimette, & Lizardi (1996) evaluated the convergent and discriminant validity of perceived criticism. Riso et al. (1996) studied both the client’s perc eived criticism of his or her significant other and of his or her fa mily/relatives. The study sample consisted of 34 depressed outpatients with a significant ot her at a New York treatment center. Using a number of established measures for compar ison, perceived criticism of significant other showed discriminant validity by low corre lations to symptom severity, history of problem, global functioning, and personality tr aits. In contrast, and as anticipated, perceived criticism showed convergent valid ity with marital adjustment and social functioning. With regard to the measure of c lient perceived criticism from family or relatives, though it showed good discriminant validity, it showed poor convergent

PAGE 35

25 validity with subjective soci al support, casting some doubt on the meaning of the measure. Further studies testing the value of perc eived criticism of significant other in predicting treatment outcome were conducted by Renshaw, Chambless, and Steketee (2001, 2003). The researchers studied samples of northeastern outpatients diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) or pa nic disorder with agoraphobia (PDA). They tested whether perceived criticism predicted treatment outcome independent of comorbid diagnoses or traits (2001), a nd pretreatment severity usi ng structural equation modeling (2003). In both studies, perceived criticism emerged as a significant, independent predictor of outcome. Few studies using perceived cr iticism have failed to find it predictive of outcome or relapse. One that did was a study of 32 E gyptian outpatients after being treated for depression and evaluated nine months posttre atment (Okasha et al., 1994). However, an important cultural difference in the noted by Ok asha et al. was the high level of client suspicion towards the measure. Clients reportedly questioned the motives for quantifying criticism of their significant others. Seven of the 32 clients refused to respond to the item. The remaining 25 clients only responded to a modified (non-numeric), version that asked whether perceived criticism was either low moderate or high The scale was reduced from a 10-point Likert scale to a 3-point Likert scale. This restricted range reduced power to detect significance and may have accounted for Okasha et al. discrepant findings (Renshaw et al., 2003). The majority of research about perceived cr iticism is that it is an efficient method to gain important prognostic treatment in formation. The research about perceived

PAGE 36

26 criticism regarding family members is less clear or established as a predictor of counseling success as perceived criticism of the significant other. Motivation A number of studies comment on the difficu lty of treating a client unmotivated to change (Luborsky, Chandler, Auerbach, Cohen, & Bachrach, 1971; Strupp, Wallach, Wogan, & Jenkins, 1963). Researchers have attempted to characterize nuances of motivational problems in a host of ways, all of which have negatively related to outcome: client unwillingness to engage in the trea tment process (Gomes-Schwartz, 1978), commit to therapy (Gaston, Marmar, Thompson, & Gall agher, 1988), client re sistance to therapy (Bischoff & Tracey, 1995), or reactance, or opposition to therapist influence (Arnow, Manber, Blasey, Klein, Blalock, Markowitz, Rothbaum et al., 2003). Most of these client characteristics have been assessed by traine d raters who coded recorded psychotherapy sessions (Orlinsky, Grawe, & Parks, 1994; Stoolmiller, Duncan, Bank, & Patterson, 1993). Where self-report instruments have been used, the instruments tend to be either lengthy (Jackson, 1984) or limited in concurrent and predictive validity (Seibel & Dowd, 1999). One exception stems from the transthe oretical stages of change model for behavior change (McConnaughy, Prochaska, & Velicer, 1983) that was designed to integrate diverse schools of psychology (Pro chaska, 1999). The stages of change model was largely based on how people change from habit disorders and research has shown support for its ability to detect those ready to benefit from help and those who are not as ready (Clarkin & Levy, 2004). In a study involving volunteers for a sm oking cessation program (DiClemente, Prochaska, Fairhurst, Velicer, Velasquez, & Rossi, 1991), participants were compared on a number of variables depending on whether they were in pr eparation, contemplation, or

PAGE 37

27 precontemplation for quitting the habit. These pretreatment categories discriminated well between those prepared to change and those not. For example, participants prepared to change were smoking less cigarettes per day, began smoking later in the day, and had the greatest number of attempts quitting compared to clie nts in contemplation or precontemplation stages. A similar trend c ontinued at six month follow-up: A greater percent of participants in the prepared stag e of change had attempted quitting compared to those in contemplation stage, which in tu rn was greater than t hose in precontemplation. Even more telling in terms of readiness to change was that success in quitting the habit was significantly greater for clients in the preparation stage than clients in either contemplation or precontemplation stages. A study for weight control using hospital staff members explored client factors influencing weight loss (Prochaska et al., 1992). At pretreat ment, Prochaska and colleagues factored in client demographics, previous weight loss history and expectancy for improvement, self-efficacy for weight loss, social supports, process variables related to change (e.g., self-liberation, counterconditioning, etc.), and st ages of change variables. Among these pretreatment variables, a multiple regression analysis revealed stages of change accounted for 6% of posttreatment wei ght loss, comparable to that explained by demographics (7%) and weight loss histor y and expectations for success (9%). Only social support explained s ubstantially more of the outcome variance (17%). More specific to psychotherapy, Brog an, Prochaska, and Prochaska (1999) attempted to distinguish between what cl ients would dropout pr ematurely (against therapist advise before 10 sessi ons), appropriately (agreement with therapist before 10 sessions), or continuance in treatment. Discrimi nant analysis was used to test accuracy of

PAGE 38

28 classification into each of these three groups based on either client self-report motivational or demographic variables. Mo tivational, but not demographic variables doubled the accuracy by which clients could be cl assified into premature, appropriate, or continuer therapy groups compared to chance placements. Among variables in the stages of change measure, clients in the precont emplation and contemplation stages improved accuracy of the classification. Expectancy/Hope Client expectation has a relatively long hi story of relating to successful treatment outcomes, and has been summarized in ear ly major psychotherapy outcome reviews (Garfield, 1978; Luborsky et al., 1971). C lient expectancy for outcome has been evaluated a number of times and using differe nt methods. The methods reviewed here are ones drawn from studies that measured client expectancy before client exposure to treatment. The measures thus tap the client s’ preconceived hope about how well therapy will unfold and are not based on perceptions about the counselor or treatment approach. In a relatively early example of the appr oach, Steinmetz et al. (1983) tried to find the best predictors of therapy outcome for 75 depressed adult clients. Steinmetz et al. examined client demographic information, soci al adjustment, perceived locus of control, reading ability, and client expectancy for positive outcome. Before treatment commenced, clients completed the dependent va riable in the study, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and then estimated how mu ch he or she would improve on the same BDI. The greater the difference between self-reported depression and expectancy for change in pretreatment depression indicat ed level of hope. The treatment episode involved eight weeks of psychoeducational grou ps that proceeded according to a specific textbook. By the conclusion of treatment, c lient depression level was significantly

PAGE 39

29 reduced. A multiple regression revealed that af ter controlling for pretreatment depression level, positive expectancy accounted for almo st twice as much outcome variance as any other factor (10.5% of outcome variance co mpared to 5.6 % accounted for by the next best predictor-Reading Ability). Using a different method of assessing hope, participants in a weight loss intervention predicted amount of weight they expected to lose prior to treatment (Prochaska et al., 1992). At the end of the weight loss re gimen, the pounds participants expected to lose at pretreatment, along with weight history, explained 9% of the variance in weight loss achieved at posttreatment Another study measured expectations employing a 19-item instrument on pessimism (Hoberman et al., 1988). The aim of the study was to discover qualities predicti ng improvement in a group treatment for depressed clients. Only client impre ssions of group rela tionship strength (e.g., cohesiveness) explained more outcome vari ance than client hope for improvement. Gaston, Marmar, Gallagher, and Thompson (1989) used a variation on client expectancies to improve behavioral therapy, cognitive therapy, or brief dynamic therapy for depression in older adults. Clients were as ked to evaluate their expectancies for the kind of therapeutic tasks that would be helpfu l in relieving their depression. The results showed that only when clients both expected change to occur through behavioral and cognitive tasks, and received cognitive ther apy, did expectancies predict improvement in depression. One conclusion these authors dr ew was that client expectation about how change occurs may have “limited importanc e in predicting outcome in psychotherapy” (pp. 301). General expectation about outcome may be more predictive than tapping expectations about how that outcome will come about.

PAGE 40

30 Along these lines, Sotsky and colleagues ( 1991) explored client predictors of positive treatment response in 162 clients completing the full 16-week NIMH TDCRP study. The researchers analyzed 26 client fact ors known to influence outcome, separating them into three major domains: (1) sociode mographic factors; (2) diagnostic and treatment course factors; and (3) symptom, function, and personality factors. Across treatment conditions, only four client factors significantly predicted decrements in depression severity: Two factors were relate d to depression severity (discussed below under Chronicity of Problems). The other tw o factors foretelling success were lower cognitive dysfunction, and germane to this review, higher client expectations of improvement based on a single 5point Likert scale item. Using a similar method of measuring e xpectancy, Chambless, Tran, and Glass (1997) explored predictors of successful treatment with social phobia clients using cognitive-behavioral group therapy. Client variables examined were treatment expectancy, personality pathology (e.g., avoi dant personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder), pretreatment depr ession, and use of medication. Results at termination showed that treatment expectancy was significantly re lated to outcome, but that avoidant traits were mo re powerful. However, at six months follow-up, this was no longer the case. Expectancy and pretest depre ssion each significantly explained 5% of the outcome variance, while the effect of avoi dant traits no longer impacted outcome. The authors recommended that expectancy for positive treatment outcome deserved greater attention in future research. Similarly, Safren, Juster, & Heimberg (1997) studied the relationship between client expectancies about his or her cogn itive-behavioral group treatment for social

PAGE 41

31 phobia. Self-report ratings of expectancy for th e 113 adult clients were administered after the first and fourth sessions. Clients also co mpleted self-report instruments assessing their social phobia and depression. Results showed th at after partialling out shared variance between initial expectancies and pretreatme nt severity, expectan cies were negatively correlated ( r = -.21) with both the BDI and Ha milton Rating Scale for Depression. Expectancies were also negatively correlate d (r = -.34) with a So cial Anxiety Scale measured by an independent rater. These resu lts further support the value of considering expectancies as an influence on outcome. Physical Health Physical health status impacts mental we ll-being. Some studies have reported that medical problems can either precipitate a depr essive condition or interfere with recovery from it (Alexopoulos, Barnett, Meyers, Young, Kakuma, Feder, Einhorn et al., 1996). For example, a longitudinal, national sample of participants with musculoskeletal pain revealed that pain was more predictive of depression than other demographic variables analyzed (Magni, Moreschi, Rigatti-Luchin i, & Merskey, 1994). Banks and Kerns (1996) provided an in depth review of literature to explain the high rate of depression accompanying chronic pain. Nine of the 14 re viewed studies that used standardized assessments of depression, such as the Di agnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. (DSM-IV; American Psychiatri c Association, 1994) or the Research Diagnostic Criteria (RDC; Spitzer, Endicott, & Robins, 1978), iden tified between 30% and 54% of chronic pain client s also experiencing depression Even in an exception to this trend and Amsterdam researchers did not find major depression related to physical health problems, minor depression (i.e., depr essive symptoms falling short of rigorous

PAGE 42

32 diagnostic criteria for major depression) was related to failing physical health (Beekman, Penninx, Deeg, Ormel, Braam, & van Tilburg, 1997). While not as strong as the link to depr ession, Banks and Kerns (1996) reported on studies that showed the high rates of depression with cardi ac disease (17%), coronary artery disease (27%), and stroke (27%). Ot her researchers have doc umented that clients with Parkinson’s disease have a higher incidence of depression. A number of investigators have found a relationship between chronic pain and other psychological problems. Chronic pain ha s shown strong correlations with insomnia (Wilson, Eriksson, D’Eon, Mikail, & Emery, 2002) Gatchel, Polatin, and Kinney (1995) showed that 24% of 310 chronic back pain clie nts also met at least one Axis II disorder. Polatin, Kinney, Gatchel, Lillo, & Mayer ( 1993), using a semi-structured assessment, similarly found that 51% of the sample (n = 2 00) of clients with lower back pain were diagnosed with a personality disorder. A sma ller study of chronic pain clients (n = 17) showed that almost half of the participant also met criteria for Bo rderline Personality Disorder using both a self-re port and semi-structured interview assessment (Sansone, Whitecar, Meier, & Murry, 2001). Chronic pain clients have exhibited d ecreased household chores, outdoor work, family, social, recreational, and work rela ted activities (Kerns & Jacob, 1993; Rudy, Kerns, & Turk, 1988) and Magni et al. (1994) su ggested that disability mediates between chronic pain and the ensuing depressive symptoms. In regard to psychotherapy specifically, medical conditions explained a significant amount of variance in studies exploring ex tratherapeutic pret reatment factors on treatment outcome for depressed clients (Bil lings & Moos, 1985; Krantz & Moos, 1988;

PAGE 43

33 Moos, 1990). A year after treatment in a sa mple of depressed older adults, Murphy (1983) showed that physical health problems we re associated with diminished success in treatment outcome. SES and Major Role Satisfaction Socioeconomic status (SES): Multiple reviews have demonstrated a clear relationship between higher e ducation and SES characteristic s and retention in treatment (Garfield, 1994; Petry, Tenne n, & Affleck, 2000). However, the relationship between education and SES is more e quivocal in terms of symptom amelioration (Petry et al., 2000). In one study where SES did play a role, 7% of the outcome variance in the percent of weight loss was explained by SES in c onjoint with age (Prochaska et al., 1992). Although, the effect was small, Diener, Sandvi k, Seidlitz, & Diener (1993) reported a significant correlation (r = .12) between income level and subjective well-being among a United States sample of almost 5000 adults. A review of the extant literature on th e relation between income and subjective well-being within the Unite d States and around the world may help explain its inconsistent impact on symptom improvement in counseling (Diener and Biswas-Diener, 2002). Diener et al. (2002) pos tulated that the affect of income level on well-being depended on whether the indi vidual was living in povert y. Increased income would improve sense of well-being for people livi ng in poverty but would not improve sense of well-being for people not suffering from impoverished living conditions. Theorizing further, Diener, Oishi, and Lucas (2003) s uggested that increased income for people living in poverty might make the differen ce for whether they could afford basic necessities like food and shelter. Attaining basic needs would measurably increase the individual’s sense of wellbeing. In contrast, increased income for people already

PAGE 44

34 meeting their basic needs might merely provide for the acqui sition of additional luxuries. Attaining additional luxuries above and beyond basic necessities may result in a diminished return of improving subjective we ll-being. Returning to the purpose of the current investigation, it may be that income level only exerts an effect of counseling outcome for the extreme destitute. When counseling research studies do not include people living in low income levels, SES ma y not predict outcome. Although the aim of the present study is not to test this hypothe sis, SES has influenced outcome in enough studies to merit its inclus ion in the current study. Because time spent at work tends to be gr eater than waking time at home, there is an assumed relationship between life satis faction and job satis faction during waking hours (Tait, Padgett, & Baldwin, 1989). In Ta it and colleagues meta-analysis of 34 studies (n=19,811), they found a significant co rrelation between life satisfaction and job satisfaction (r = .44). A recent example of this relationship was shown in a study involving 474 Korean women. Women reporting th e highest levels of education, income, job satisfaction, and employment stability were four of the six quali ty of life variables that were associated with less depression (Mi-Young, 2001). For people whose primary roles may take place at the home, Greenberger and O’Neil (1993) compared the effect primary role s (at home or at a traditional job) had on anxiety and depression for approximately 300 married participants. Participants were assessed for their commitment to marriage, parenting, and their job. Participants were also assessed for their perceptions of the respective demands each role placed on them, for their evaluation, satisfacti on, and social supports for t hose roles. Results of the investigation showed that men had significan tly less anxiety when they liked and spent

PAGE 45

35 more time on job-related tasks. Similarly, women had significantly less anxiety when satisfied with parenting. However, wo men also experienced more anxiety and depression when dissatisfied by their marriage and em ployment. Overall, parental and job satisfaction was the most consistently rela ted variable to anxiety for both men and women, suggesting the importance of respect ive life roles among married couples in counseling treatment. When people are unemployed yet wanting wor k, mental health suffers. In a review of happiness and economic sa tisfaction, Oswald (1997) cite d a number of studies that indicated that unemployed peopl e in particular feel far less content with their lives compared to both wealthy and poor people. Oswald presented results from the first sweep of the 1991 British Household Panel Study studyi ng psychological distress that used a random sample of approximately 6000 particip ants. While no effect of income was found for psychological distress, those without work reported twice the amount of psychological distress as those with work. Consistent with the negative impact of joblessness, Oswald also review ed a number of studies that found a greater risk of suicide attempts among the unemployed versus those employed. For example, Platt & Kreitman (1985) found not only a greater incidence of suicide attempts for those unemployed, but that incidence grew as amount of time jobless increased. More specific to psychotherapy, FirthCozens and Hardy (1992) investigated whether a clinical intervention could improve job attitudes, anxi ety, and psychological functioning in 90 clients usi ng a longitudinal design. After treatment, clients reported feeling more competent, in-con trol, and valued in their job compared to before treatment began. These feelings of job satisfaction were significantly correlated with both a

PAGE 46

36 decrease in psychological symptoms and an increase in self-esteem. In a study on extratherapeutic factors for treatment with depressed clients, Billings & Moos (1985) found that job related variables accounted for a significant amount of variance in treatment outcome. Specificall y, a supportive network on the j ob contributed positively to outcome, whereas work stress related negatively to outcome. Employment history of clients has been researched as a prospective factor for retention in substance abuse treatment. Se veral studies found that having job skills or good employment history was related to rete ntion in treatment (Kelly, Blacksin, & Mason, 2001; Platt, 1995) and helped prev ent relapse (Vaillant 1988). Alternatively, some studies have found that substance a buse clients who were either unemployed (Ginexi, Foss, & Scott, 2003), or who had high job counseling needs (McCaul, Svikis, & Moore, 2001), stayed in counseling longer compared to their peers. In summary, the research relating to work or role satisfaction is associated with higher levels of well-being and that when di ssatisfied, mental health is lower. For the present investigation, in order to include homemakers, students, disabled persons, or retired people, a general measure of role satisfaction was chosen over job satisfaction. Because SES can have an impact on psychol ogical distress, a measure of financial security will be included. Complexity/Chronicity of Problems Outcome researchers, Beutler and Harw ood (2000) performed studies to identify client prognosticators of tr eatment outcome. One of the six categories identified was complexity/chronicity of client problems. The category was defined by coexisting Axis I or II disorders, recurrence or frequency of the presenting problem, and the duration that the problem persists. One area of client complexity receiving recent attention is a history

PAGE 47

37 of sexual abuse (Clark in & Levy, 2004; Rogers & Norma n, 2004). For example, Laffaye, Kennedy, and Stein (2003) studied 70 female s with a history of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse by an intimate partner. The results revealed that females who had been abused showed lower levels of quality of life on measures of mental health, vitality, and physical, social, and role functioning, compared to females that had not been abused. In another study, the authors attempted to id entify prognosticators of poor response for treatment of 452 in-pa tient Bulimia Nervosa clients (Gleaves & Eberenz, 1993). The researchers formed a high risk category based on clients with a history of multiple outpatient treatment episodes or an in-patient treatment episode, a history of self-injury or suicide attempts, and alcohol or drug abuse. The results showed that 8% of the Bulimia Nervosa clients were at risk for treatment failure and that, a significant number (i.e., 71%), had prior sexual abuse incidents. Nearly a third of those had at least five counts of sexual abuse incidents. Gleaves and Eberen z recommended that hist ory of sexual abuse be evaluated prior to treatment. One study (Safren et al., 1997) documenting the importance of chronicity showed that both greater severity and number of y ears clients had suffered with their presenting symptoms (i.e., social phobias, depression) negatively impacted their hope for achieving a positive treatment outcome. In a study invol ving older adults after treatment for depression, one of the only four significant predictors of 40 examined, was having had incidents of depression three or more times pr ior to the current episode (Bosworth et al., 2002). A small but significant predictor of success in group treatment of depression was the number of previous depressive episode s (Hoberman et al., 1988). Clients suffering from depression tended to fair less well when their current episode had a longer duration

PAGE 48

38 compared to clients who had endured th e depression for shorter amounts of time (Alexopoulos et al., 1996; Sotsky et al., 1991) Compared to clients with a single diagnosis of depression, client s diagnosed with double depression (i.e., major depression and dysthymia) predicted a more severe case of depression at the end of treatment in the NIMH TDCRP (Sotsky et al., 1991 ) and greater rate of relaps e after treatment (Keller, Shapiro, & Lavori, & Wolfe, 1982). Less severity of diagnosis and less a hi story of chronic problems have been associated with better outcomes in a psychot herapy outcome reviews (Luborsky et al., 1988). The sum of the evidence supports consid eration of client history of his or her presenting problem when identifying predictors of therapy outcome. Sociodemographic Factors Reviews covering gender, age, and e ducation typically draw conclusions suggesting these variables have little or in consistent influence on success in counseling (Clarkin & Levy, 2004; Garfiel d, 1994). With regard to gender, Clarkin and Levy point that few studies purposely set out to eval uate the impact of gender on outcome. The authors cited three studies that did evalua te gender as a more complex variable concerning the impact of having same or oppos ite genders in client -therapist dyads in counseling. But again the results were mi xed, with one study supporting same gender client-therapist dyads (Fujino, Okazaki & Young, 1994), one study supporting opposite gender client-therapist dyads (Willer & Miller, 1978), and one study supporting neither (Flaskerud & Liu, 1991). The variable age, in an early review of factors impacting outcome (Luborsky et al., 1971) produced inco nsistent findings. Of 11 studies, five had no relationship to outcome, four a positive relationship, and two a negative relationship with outcome. Almost a decade later, a la rge scale meta-analysis between age and

PAGE 49

39 counseling success showed a correlation of zero (Smith et al., 1980). Eight years later, in a review about client rela pse after recovering from de pression, age again produced conflicting results (Belsher & Costello, 1988). And in the more recent Clarkin and Levy (2004) review, they concluded that age was not an important factor in determining outcome as a main effect variable. Finally, ed ucation levels show equivocal influence on counseling outcome. Education showed a rela tionship to outcome in 5 of 7 studies reviewed by Luborsky et al. (1971). Some evid ence is presented describing a relationship between lower education and premature dropout rates in treatment (Garfield, 1986; Petry et al., 2000; Wierzbicki & Peka rik, 1993), but was considered weak in affecting outcome (Garfield, 1994). Response Rate As shown by Howard et al. (1986) and late r by Lambert et al. (2001) dose-response curves in psychotherapy show that over half the clients entering treatment have experienced improvements by the eighth sess ion. Research has documented that most clients only attend about six to eight sessions and that so me treatment manuals do not even prescribe the primary interventions un til session six (Beck et al., 1979; Ilardi & Craighead, 1999). In other words, for the aver age client to succeed in therapy, he or she must do so fairly rapidly. While some resear chers have explored client factors for why treatment succeeds or fails (Mohr et al., 1990) others have examined client factors behind response rate t o treatment (Beckham, 1989; Fennell & Teasdale, 1987). Beckham (1989), for example, evaluated pos sible predictors be hind rapid response to psychotherapy of depression with 23 at a mid western training program. Four predictors tested were lear ned resourcefulness, patient co llaboration, therapist empathy, and initial depression level. Clients were cons idered rapid responders if they improved at

PAGE 50

40 least 50% from intake to session six. Only initial scores on the Beck Depression Inventory at session one expl ained a significant amount of the treatment variance at termination (55%). Consistent with previous research, the most seve re clients at session one made almost no gains while less severe clients made significantly more improvement by session six. Further, because the greatest improvements were made between intake and session one, Beckham speculated that techni cal interventions may have had less to do with change than factors re lated to the client or to the counseling setting. Studying efficacy of CBT with 34 depressed clients, Fennell and Teasdale (1987) showed that some clients responded more rapidly to treat ment than others and suggested that how clients change might vary as a function of response rate. Some researchers have cited rapid respons e as evidence for nonspecific or common factors mediating clinical improvement (Crits -Christoph et al., 2001; Ilardi & Craighead, 1994). Ilardi and Craighead reviewed eight c ognitive-behavioral th erapy (CBT) studies on depression that had used treatment manua ls. The findings indicated that over 60% of overall symptom amelioration occurred by the fo urth week of treatmen t and that half of the total improvement made by clients occu rred by session six. Moreover, even the treatment gains made by clients classified as “nonresponders,” achieve d their gains in the first four weeks. Contrary to dose-response li terature, no further gains were made for the nonresponders. Because most of the benefits to treatment occurred early, Ilardi and Craighead interpreted this as evidence for nons pecific or, at least “nonspecified,” factors, because the CBT treatment manual does not prescribe cognitive modification techniques until session six.

PAGE 51

41 Wilson (1999) proposed that an undetermi ned mechanism, perhaps behavioral home work assignments, may have accounted for the early responses in CBT studies. Wilson suggested that research methods s hould examine client progress on a session-bysession basis to clarify the mechanism of ch ange. Tang and DeRubeis (1999) re-analyzed data from two of the studies reviewed by Ilardi & Craighead ( 1994) and highlighted limitations to statistical analyses averaging ch ange of all clients t ogether. Some clients are especially responsive to therapy, cal led “responders,” while others are less responsive, called “nonresponders.” Although bot h groups displayed rapid change across the first four weeks of treatment, nonresponders underwent no further change after that point whereas responders continued at roughly the same rate of cha nge through to the end of treatment. Unless mediators for the change are investigated on a session-by-session basis (Wilson, 1999) for individual client’s time courses (Tang & DeRubeis, 1999), it will be difficult to explain response rate and id entify clients who will continue to benefit from an approach and those w ho would benefit by a change in approach (Wilson, 1999). To evaluate session-by-session change, re searchers at Brigha m Young University developed a set of procedures using actuarial data generate d from a national data base using the Outcome Questionnaire-45 (OQ-45). Th e OQ-45 is described in detail in the section on instrumentation. The OQ-45 data base (n=11,492) was created in cooperation with a number of agencies across the United States, including community mental health centers, college counseling centers, empl oyee assistance programs, and providers practicing under national managed behavioral health care systems. From this national data base, expected response curves dependi ng on initial OQ-45 score were developed to standardize assessment for ongoing treatment re sponse across client treatment episodes.

PAGE 52

42 Client response slopes were generated us ing hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) and were averaged to provide typi cal response patterns depending on initial disturbance level as measured by the OQ-45. In all, 50 different groups of client re sponse were identified by percentile clustering, with at least 220 c lients in each cluster, or 2% of the 11,492 client sample (Finch, Lambert, & Schaalje, 2001). Initial disturbance level was used for thr ee central reasons. First, the first OQ-45 score is the most consistently available c ontinuous measure. Second, research spanning several decades, client problems, and measur es supports the notion that the healthier a client is at the start of treatment, the health ier he or she will be at the conclusion of treatment (Billings & M oos, 1985; Curry, Wagner, & Grothaus, 1990; Gottschalk, Mayerson, & Gottlieb, 1967; Haas, Hill, Lamb ert, & Morrell, 2002; Luborsky et al., 1971; Mann, Jenkins, & Belsey, 1981; Ogles et al., 2002). Third, change scores on the OQ-45 from initial disturbance were highl y predictive of post-treatment change, explaining 17% of the variance after just one session of therapy and as high as 42% of outcome variance after three sessions (Finch et al., 2001). Using these norms, Haas et al. (2002) evalua ted 147 clients at a western university counseling center on whether rapid responders maintained their treatment gains at termination and at follow-up. Response rate to treatment was determined by averaging the difference between the client’s first thr ee sessions to normative ERCs. The categories rapid, moderate, and slow responders correspond ed to the top, middle, or bottom of the distribution for response rate. Ov erall, the results showed that 84% of those classified as rapid responders reliably improved by the e nd of treatment. The other 16% remained

PAGE 53

43 about the same as at pretreatment levels. Roughly 90% of slow res ponders either did not change (55%) or grew worse (35%). The results further revealed that client s who had faster rates of response to psychotherapy in the first three sessions had more healthy scores on the outcome measure at both termination and at two years follow-up compared to clients with slower rates of early response. No clients in the fast responder group deteriorated by the end of treatment. Haas and colleagues concluded that early response to therapy predicted eventual outcome. Haas et al. also speculated that faster responders to treatment might have traits that render them more motivated or prepared for counseling. Lambert et al. (2001) and Lambert, Whi pple, Bishop, Vermeersch, Gray, and Finch (2002) both used ERCs to predict clients at high risk of treatment failure early in treatment. The purpose was to alert therapists of the risk so that they could modify approaches and improve outcome. Both studies showed modest reduct ions in failures for these high risk clients, from 85% to 75%. Howe ver, in another study alerting therapists to ERCs of their clientele, Whipple et al. ( 2003) also provided assessments about client’s extratherapeutic characteristics for clients at risk of treatment failure. Early identification and feedback to clinicians improved client out come compared to clients whose clinicians did not have such feedback. The reduction in treatment fa ilures went from 81% down to 51%. The results supported the use of monito ring client progress and using feedback to improve outcome of slow responders to treat ment. The results also suggest that slow responders likely present with mo re severe treatment issues. In summary, regardless of whether manual dr iven studies or client-focused studies were used, the active ingredients determini ng response rate elude researchers. While

PAGE 54

44 some researchers speculated that common factors or non-specific factors may have accounted for response rate, others hypothesi zed that homework assignments accounted for early improvements. The approach at Brigham Young provides a method to study session by session change and a procedure of de fining rapid, moderate, or slow response based on normative data. The Brigham Young st udies indicate that rapid and slow responses to treatment maintain themselves over the treatment course and as much as two years later. The researchers ur ge continued studies to examin e client factors contributing to response to treatment (e.g., Haas et al., 2002; Whipple et al., 2003). General Conclusion Research on client social support ove r a number of studies and methods of assessment has been associated with c ounseling outcome. Generally, when clients perceived supports in their networks predict positive tr eatment outcome and that objective indicators of those same networks does not predict treatment response. One of the most important single social support pr edictors of outcome is perceived criticism from significant others. When criticism is str ongly felt by the client, his or her success in counseling is attenuated. Like general measur es of social support, subjective measures are more predictive than objective measures of criticism. Motivat ion has been studied with a variety of methods. One approach that has gained popularity is the transtheoretical stages of change model for behavior change proposed by Prochaska. Research from this approach has yielded modest support for the construct’s prognostic virtues. Related to motivation at the outset of treatment, is clie nt expectancy or hope he or she has for a positive therapy venture. Although pretreatment expectancies have been measured in a number of ways, a simple, general expectancy item measure, has consistently related to treatment success. Client physical health has been linked with mental health well-being.

PAGE 55

45 Health conditions, physical pain and chronic pain, have relate d to depressive disorders, insomnia, and personality disorders. When medical health has been included as a predictor of psychotherapy out come, it has explained significant levels of outcome variance. While SES has not consistently pr edicted improvement of client symptoms in treatment, until a demonstrated predictor for th e inconsistent results emerges, it should be included for its potential to explain a dditional outcome variance. Work history, employment, and satisfaction with primary role are variables that have impacted psychological well-being and retention in treat ment. Clients who have chronic or severe episodes of a presenting problem and who ha ve multiple diagnoses tend to show worse prognosis in treatment than clients wi thout such complexity of conditions. Interest in rapid response to treatment has increased to understand mechanisms for the change that occurs in early sessions to improve client response to psychotherapy. Both researchers using manuals and natura listic methods have found rapid response in therapy to be a strong indicator of eventu al treatment outcome. Controversy surrounds the mechanism for its efficacy and recommendations have been made to study change on a session-by-session basis. Recommendations have been made to track response rate on a session-by-session basis to add precision to former analyses on rapid response. In addition, client variables have been posited as a possible explanatory variable accounting for rapid response. Research identifying clie nt factors (i.e., extr atherapeutic and hope factors) might help serve as a springboard for researchers examining response rate. This study will help examine the model of common factors to move this research agenda forward.

PAGE 56

46 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Statement of Purpose The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relationship of client factors and hope/expectancy factors on symptom leve ls for ongoing mental health clients participating in Internet Mental Health Messa ge Boards. Clients’ pe rceptions about their levels of social support and criticism from their significant other, personal motivation and expectancy for a positive treatment experience, satisfaction with their primary role, their health, history of their presenting problem, hi story of past emotiona l or sexual abuse, and sociodemographic factors will be measured. This chapter explicates the research hypotheses, dependent and independent va riables, sample population and sampling procedures, data collection procedures, instrumentation, and method of analysis. Hypotheses The study will test the following null hypotheses: Ho1: There is no significant relati onship between client factors (i.e., extratherapeutic, hope factors) a nd client reported symptom level. Ho2: There is no significant relationship between client reported symptom level and client rated social support. Ho3: There is no significant relationship between client reported symptom level and client rated perceived criticism. Ho4: There is no significant relationship between client reported symptom level and client rated motivation. Ho5: There is no significant relationship between client reported symptom level and client rated hope/expectancy for positive treatment outcome.

PAGE 57

47 Ho6: There is no significant relationship between client reported symptom level and client rated satisfaction with his or her primary life role. Ho7: There is no significant relationship between client reported symptom level and client rated physical health. Ho8: There is no significant relationship between client reported symptom level and client rated psycholo gical history of his or her presenting problem. Ho9: There is no significant relationship between client reported symptom level and client rated history of emotional or sexual abuse. Ho10: There is no significant relationship between client reported symptom level and client report of number of counseli ng sessions attended for current presenting problem. Ho11: There is no significant relationship between client reported symptom level and client rated financial security. Ho12: There is no significant relationship between client reported symptom level and client reported education level. Ho13: There is no significant relationship between client reported symptom level and client reported age. Descriptions of Variables Dependent Variables The dependent variable is a global measur e of mental health symptoms based on a client-report composite of three primary areas of their life functioning: amount of symptom distress, quality of their interpersona l relations, and social role at home, work, or school. The composite score provides a general measure of functioning across multiple client diagnoses or mental health conditions. Independent Variables There were 13 independent, or predictor va riables, explored in this study. The first six were based on psychometrically validated instruments: subjective social support, perceived criticism, perception of financ ial security, hope/exp ectancy, health, and

PAGE 58

48 motivation. The next seven predictor variable s were single items regarding life role satisfaction, psychological history of the presenting problem, number of counseling sessions attended for the current episode, history of emotiona l or sexual abuse, education level, age, and gender. The literature documents that clients with strong social support s, who do not feel criticized from a significant other, are hope ful about and motivated for treatment, are satisfied with their primary life role, ha ve good health, and relatively short bouts of current symptoms, all have a positive impact on counseling. Particip ants were asked to complete these survey questions from the perspective of how they felt at the time they initiated their current face-to-face counse ling course. Sociodemographic variables for clients have variable impacts on treatmen t course and are included for reasons of statistical control and exploratory reasons. Population The client population was comprised of members of mental health self-help message/bulletin boards who were currently i nvolved in face-to-face professional mental health counseling. The message/bulletin board web sites were self-help forums designed to serve people coping with depression, bi polar disorder, genera lized anxiety, panic disorder, social phobia, sleeping disorders, eati ng disorders, and grief. Forums that were excluded from sampling were conditions of psychosis, autism, mental handicaps, substance abuse or dependence, and antisocial personality disorders. Sampling Procedures Volunteers were solicited by posting messa ges over publicly accessible internet mental health message/bulletin board web sites inviting part icipation in a dissertation research study. Using a similar method in a recent study (Leibert, Archer, Munson, &

PAGE 59

49 York, in press), 160 clients were solicited wi thin a 3 months. Therefore, the period of data collection is anticipated to requi re a similar time period of 3 months. Recruitment occurred in two steps. First, searches we re conducted to identify publicly accessible mental health message/b ulleting board forums. Searches primarily targeted prevalent mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety related concerns. Second, rules and re gulations governing research solicitation at potential forums were reviewed because some forums e xplicitly prohibited solicitation for research participants. Other forums, governed by modera tors, reviewed appropriateness of content for the forum they were overseeing. Still ot hers, contained provisi ons that demanded a lengthy review process similar to a research committee and institutional review board (IRB). When no clear guidelines about advertis ing research were st ated, listed contacts were emailed with the request to advertise my study on the respective forum. Third, when either access was granted, or at minimum not prohibited, I completed the registration process (i.e., acquired a unique name and password) for joining the message/bulletin board forum. Fourth, upon becoming a member of the forum, I posted an advertisement asking for participants currently involved in face-to-face professional mental health counseling to volunteer for my study. Interested participants were linked to the following site: http://www.counselingsurve ys.org/do.php?survey=s195197 The site provided the purpose of the study, the estimated time involved, and the consent for participation. Financial remuneration was not offered for pa rticipation and respondents were free to ompletion of the consent allowed access to the survey but the option was given to terminate participation.

PAGE 60

50 After completing the survey, participants ag ain had the option to submit or not submit their survey for data analysis. Data Collection Procedures The online survey developed was created using software at CounselingSurveys.org, a free web site maintained for the purpose of constructing Internet surveys. The surveys created at this site are designed to protect the identity of respondents while simultaneously using three methods to help identify possible duplicate responses to preserve the validity of data collection. The three methods i nvolved computer IP (Internet Protocol) addresses, browser cookies, and tim e of survey submission records. The IP address, which identifies a computer or group of computers, is recorded through a process of encryption. If the same computer is used to complete a future survey, the program identifies the duplicat ed, albeit encrypted, IP address. That way, respondent identity is protected, but the survey highlight s that the source of the survey came from a formerly used IP address, and therefore the possibility of a second survey from the same person. Browser cookies, a record of having visi ted a website from a particular computer (e.g., submitted an electronic survey), can rec ognize whether it has al ready been used to submit surveys. Both the IP and cookie me thods provide an indication of whether the same person has sent a survey on more than one occasion. Combining these two methods with time of submission records provides further evidence of a duplicated survey response. This helps rule out the possibility that a different person submitted a survey from a computer from which a survey had been previously submitted. Therefore, the present method protects the anonymity of the respondent while meeting practice standards of validity for web-based surveys ( http://www.counselings urveys.org/counselors/).The responses were stored in the

PAGE 61

51 CounselingSurveys.org database and were expor ted as a generic or universal spreadsheet format, comma-separated value (.csv) file. Afte r exporting the data from the site, the .csv file was opened in Microsof t Excel for data analysis. Instrumentation Outcome Questionnaire-45 (OQ-45) The OQ-45 (Lambert, Lunnen, Umpress, Hansen, & Burlingame, 1994) is a brief, 45-item, client self-report measure that is well suited for this study. Generally, it measures a broad spectrum of adult symptoms, syndromes, and stressors (Lambert, Hansen, Umpress, Lunnen, Okiishi, & Bur lingame, 2003). The OQ-45 measures three domains of outcome considered essential in evaluating therapy outcome (Lambert & Hill, 1994): (1) Symptom Distress (e.g., anxiety, de pression) consisting of 25-items; (2) Interpersonal Relations (e.g., subjective degree of dissatisfaction with personal relations) consisting of 11-items; and (3) Social Role (e .g., degree of subjective inability to function at work or school) consisting of 9-items. The OQ-45 has strong psychometric validity and reliability across repeated administrations for both client and non-client populations. The inte rnal consistency for the three subscales was .91 for Symptom Dist ress, .74 for Interpers onal Relations, and .71 for Social Role. However, its overall inte rnal consistency is hi gh (alpha = .93) and a confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that a one-factor global measure of severity might best represent the instrument (Lam bert et al., 2003). Using a normative population of university students to show stability of th e measure, its test-retest reliability across repeated administrations over 10 weeks wa s .84 overall and from .78 to .82. on its subscales (Lambert et al., 1994; Lambert et al., 2001).

PAGE 62

52 The total score of the OQ-45 also shows c oncurrent validity with several scales related to a host of mental health symptoms. It correlate d with The Symptom Checklist 90: SCL-90 (Derogatis, 1983) that measures general psychiatric symptoms, the Beck Depression Inventory (Beck, Ward, Mendels on, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961), the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger, Go rsuch, & Lushene, 1970), the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems, (Horowitz, Rosenbe rg, Baer, Ureno, & Villesenor, 1988), and the Social Adjustment Scale (Weissman & Bothwell, 1976) all between .50-.85, and significant at the .01 level (Lambert et al., 2001). In addition to factor analysis, the cons truct validity was also assessed by its sensitivity to change in a University Outpa tient Clinic (Kadera, Lambert, & Andrews, 1996). Results of the study indicated that the total score and s ubscale scores were sensitive to change for clients in ther apy sessions while simultaneously showing no change occurring for the contro l group of students not trying to change. The OQ-45 also demonstrated sensitivity to severity of mental health symptoms. The OQ-45 indicated more severity in an outpatient community me ntal health clients compared to Employee Assistance Program (EAP) clients, which we re significantly more severe compared to non-clients in both the community and at the university (Lambert et al., 2003). The questions, rated on a 5-point Likert scale, have a maximum possible score range from 0 to 180. Higher values indicate lo wer functioning while lower values suggest higher levels of functioning. Extensive norms have established ranges of functioning, from severe to not severe (Lambert et al ., 2003). Norms show that community outpatient adult clients have an average pretreatment OQ score of 77 and that the average person not involved in counseling has an OQ score of 63. A score of 14 points or more reflects

PAGE 63

53 reliable change (change not due to measurem ent error and is derived from Jacobson and Truax’s 1991 reliable and clin ical change formulas). The OQ-45 also includes critical items for assessing danger to self, others, as well as substance abuse (Johnson & Shaha, 1996). The capacity of the OQ-45 to measure clinical change acr oss a diversity of symptoms, diagnoses, as well as severity, makes it possible to compare therapist performance (i.e., client outcome) acr oss clients and counseling sites. Duke Social Support Questionnaire (DSSQ) The DSSQ is a 10-item self-report, 5-point Likert scale measure of subjective social support (e.g., feeling listened to, sa tisfied with relationships). Original development of the DSSQ was a 35-item social support measure with 5 subscales: satisfaction with social support, perceived social support, freq uency of social interaction, size of the social network, and instrumental support. Factor analysis using principal factoring supported the 5-factor model, acc ounting for over 80% of the variance. Only items with factor loadings exceeding .40 were retained (Landerman et al., 1989). However, in a follow-up study, only items reflect ing subjectivity of that social support predicted successful treatment recovery (George et al., 1989). For the 10-item subjective social support measure used in this study, in ternal consistency was adequate (Cronbach’s alpha = .79) and the measure is positively related with amelioration of depression symptoms at termination at follow-up (Bos worth et al., 2002). Eight of the 10 Likert responses range from “none of the time” to “all of the time” for questions like, Does it seem that your family and friends (i.e ., people who are important to you) understand you? The remaining two Likert responses range from “extremely dissatisfied” to “satisfied all of the time” for questions like, How satisfied are you with the kinds of

PAGE 64

54 relationships you have with your family and friends? Higher scores i ndicate greater perceived social support. The complete in strument is presented in Appendix B. Social Adjustment Scale-Self Report (SAS-SR) The full SAS-SR is 54 six-point Likert self -report scale with nine subscales. The SAS-SR derives from the earlier SAS instrume nt based on an interview format. The SASSR has fair overall internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .7 4). Only the one-item Economic Subscale used in th is study, “Have you had enough money to take care of your own and your family’s financial needs during the last 2 weeks?” Hi gher scores indicate greater impairment of adjustment (Weissman & Bothwell, 1976). The item is presented in Appendix D. Perceived Criticism Measure (PCM) The PCM scale is a single self-report ite m. Clients respond to the question, “How critical is your significant ot her/spouse of you?” The 10-point Likert scale is anchored from 1 (not at all critical) to 10 (very critic al indeed). The scale has been evaluated for psychometric properties in a number of studi es. The results show that the PCM has a Test-retest reliability over 20 weeks of .75 (Hooley & T easdale, 1989), and .80 over two weeks (Renshaw et al., 2003). Although c onvergent validity for PCM is mixed, its discriminant validity is supporte d by nonsignificant correlations with client self-reported anxiety, depression, and personality disorder traits (Renshaw et al.). Predictive validity has been demonstrated by its negative pret reatment relation to eventual treatment outcome (Chambless & Steketee, 1999; Hooley & Teasdale, 1989; Renshaw et al). While construct validity has not b een established, possible confounding variables have been explored. Nonsignificant differences have b een reported between PCM and gender, SES, initial severity, diagnostic gr oup, duration of disorder, or re lative type/significant other

PAGE 65

55 (Renshaw et al.). The one item provides an efficient means of gathering clinically relevant information and was more predictive of outcome than a one hour plus measure designed to assess negative expressed emo tion in the client’s family using semistructured interview that re quired trained coders for scoring (Hooley & Teasdale, 1989). The item is presented in Appendix C. University of Rhode Island Change Assessment (URICA Long Form) The URICA is a 32-item, five-point Likert self-report scale measuring stage of change in the four stage model (McConna ughy et al., 1983). Although the highest score on the four subscales (i.e., precontemplation, contemplation, action, and maintenance) identifies the client’s readiness to change, the scale is designed as a continuous measure so that participants can score high on more th an one of the four stages. Construct validity for the instrument has been demonstrated us ing principal component s factor analysis on two samples of adult outpatients for mental health services (McConnaughy et al., 1983; McConnaughy, DiClemente, Prochaska, & Velice r, 1989). Both studies produced four factor solutions correspondi ng to the four proposed subscales in two studies. These results also revealed simple structures for the factor so lutions, therefore supporting the independence of the four factors. Internal reliabilities for each of the four subscales were also adequate, showing Cronbach’s alpha be tween .79 and .88 for precontemplation (P), .84 and .88 for contemplation (C), .84 a nd .89 for action (A), and .82 and .88 for maintenance (M). Examples of items of each subscale are below, arranged in descending order from precontemplation to maintenance: (P) As far as I’m concerned, I don’t have any problems that need changing. (C) I think I might be rea dy for some self-improvement. (A) I am doing something about the problems that had been bothering me.

PAGE 66

56 (M) It worries ms that I might slip back on a problem I have already changed, so I am here to seek help. The items are anchored from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Because this study is designed for clients be ginning counseling for a particular problem, the maintenance subscale has been droppe d. The URICA correlated with treatment outcome with habit problems (e.g., smoking, drinking) and has promise to predict outcome for psychotherapy clients (Prochaska et al., 1992). The scoring algorithm used by some researchers to yield one overall motivation measure is adding contemplation, action, and maintenance subscales and subt racting out precontemplation scores. The higher the client score, the gr eater is his or her level of motivation. This was the scoring algorithm used for the URICA in the present dissertation. The complete instrument is presented in Appendix F. Treatment Expectancy Scale (TES) The TES is a single, 5-point Likert scal e item. Clients res pond to the question, “Which of the following best describes your e xpectations about what is likely to happen as a result of your treatment?” The Likert scal e ranges from 1 (I expect to feel completely better) to 5 (I don’t expect to feel any diffe rent). Because the instrument has only one item, internal reliability data are not av ailable. However, the TES has significantly predicted outcome with depre ssed clients in past studies (es = .22; Meyer, Pilkonis, Krupnick, Egan, Simmens, & Sotsky, 2002) and remained significant even when other client factors were controlle d (Sotsky et al., 1991). An al most identical scale ranging from 1 (I expect to feel much better) to 5 (It’ s possible I could feel a little worse) showed convergent validity with Vanderbilt Psychotherapy Proce ss Scalesubscale “patient hostility” (VPPS) r = -.54, indicating that the lower the expectation for outcome on

PAGE 67

57 symptoms of depression, the greater his or her level of hostility (Foley, O’Malley, Rounsaville, Prusoff, & Weissman, 1987). Th e scale provides efficient information potentially predictive of client outcome The item is presented in Appendix E. Health Survey Short-Form-12 (SF-12) The SF-12 is derived from the SF-36, a gene ral health measure containing eight subscales: Physical functioning, Role-Physical Bodily Pain, General Health, Vitality, Social Functioning, Role-Emotional, and Mental Health. In studies of content validity, these eight subscales have been found to be among the most frequently measured health areas (Ware, 1999). Construct validity of the eight subscales has been demonstrated with factor analysis (Ware, Kosinski, & Kelle r, 1994). The measure also provides two composite scores, one for physical health and one for mental health. The physical health component has been shown excellent validity and has an estimated reliability of over .90 (Ware, 1990; Ware et al., 1994). The SF-12 was developed to further shor ten the instrument. The SF-12 correlates about .95 with the longer SF-36 version and ha s a test-retest reliability of .89 over two weeks in the United States (Ware, Kosinski & Keller, 1996). Because the purpose of this instrument is the physical health component, onl y that subscale will be analyzed in this study. All references to the “ SF-12” will hereafter refer on ly to the physical health composite. The SF-12 can be self-administered in a bout two minutes. It has both dichotomous (Yes, No) items and Likert items from three to five response scales. Scoring of the SF-12 is norm-based standardized scores with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10 in the United States (Ware et al., 1996).

PAGE 68

58 Single Item Questions Clients responded to seven additional singl e-question items, including gender, age, education, chronicity/counseling history, emo tional and sexual abuse history, number of sessions attended, and primary life role satis faction. The influence of sociodemographic information (i.e., gender, age, education) has been variable (Garfield, 1994), so are included in this study to consider possible influence on outcome. These sociodemographic items are presented in Appendix G. Data Analysis Data will be analyzed using correlation and multiple regression analysis. Zero order correlations will be used to analyze simple relationships between client predictor variables and the dependent variable. Multiple regression analysis will follow to evaluate the relationship of the whole array of client variables on the dependent variable. The adjusted R2, or total variance of the model accounting for measurement error, will provide a measure of how much variance the 13 client factors explained in mental health symptom level. The squared semi-partial correla tions will also be an alyzed to provide a measure of independent contribution to the de pendent variable cont rolling for all other variables in the regression model. Basic a ssumptions of regression will be evaluated and outliers will be examined for undue influence on the results.

PAGE 69

59 CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship of client factors and hope/expectancy factors on symptom levels fo r ongoing mental health clients. The study drew from members of public In ternet Mental Health Message Boards that were currently concurrently involved in professional face-to -face mental health counseling. Volunteers were directed to a web page that featured the anonymous client-self-report survey. Completed surveys were distributed to a so ftware database accessible through a password known only to the researcher. Data Collection and Descriptive Statistics One-hundred fifteen mental health message /bulletin board forums were solicited for participation over a period of 13 weeks. Of those 115 forums, 74 (i.e., 64%) permitted the advertisement for this study on the forum message board. Table 1 shows the frequency distribution of forum mental health boards that al lowed members to participate in this study. The majority of participating forums were related to anxiety or depression (i.e., 67.6%); nearly 15% of participating fo rums pertained to general mental health problems or coping with someone with a me ntal health problem and 7% were about mental health counseling treatment. There were 255 responses to the survey. Th e 47 responses that registered either a cookie or duplicate were excl uded from analysis, leaving th e data set with 208 responses. Eight responses were eliminated because either the number of counseling sessions ( n = 5)

PAGE 70

60 or gender ( n = 3) was left blank, leaving 200 resp onses. In addition, five outliers were eliminated, leaving a total of 195 responses for the analysis. The sample was primarily Caucasian (i.e ., 96.7 %), and female (i.e., 86.2 %), with 3.3% of the respondents African American, Asian, or Multir acial. The mean age was 36.9 years old ( SD = 10.6), and had at least some coll ege (i.e., 84.3 %) w ith the largest categories some college (i.e ., 36.5 %) or a Graduate Degree (i.e., 23.4 %). The average respondent had coped with his or her presen ting problem “on and o ff my whole life,” and had attended approximately 30-39 counseling sessions. Table 1. Frequency Distri bution of Participating Ment al Health Message Boards Forum Category N Anxiety, Panic, Agoraphobia, Phobia, Stress 22 Depression 12 Problems and Concerns surrounding mental health 11 Bipolar, Mania 5 Obsessive Compulsive Disorder 5 Mental Health Therapy 5 Anxiety and Depression 4 Eating Disorders 4 Sleep Problems 2 PTSD 2 Self-Injury 1 Relationship Problems 1

PAGE 71

61 Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics for the continuous variables in the study. The dependent variable, OQ-45 showed similar results ( M = 90.9, SD = 24.9) as found by Lambert and colleagues (2003) published norms for an inpatient sample ( M = 88.8, SD = 26.7). The scores in this sample were not significantly differe nt from the inpatient sample as shown by a 2-sample, independent samples t test, t (195, 207) = .82, p > .05, even though participants in the present study were not currently attendi ng inpatient counseling. The other standardized measure in this st udy, the SF-12, provided norms for the general United States population (Ware, Kosins ki, Turner-Bowker, & Gandek, 2002). The present sample was compared to the norms using a 2-sample, independent samples t test. The results showed that the present sample ( M = 50.1, SD = 12.8) was not significantly different from the norms ( M = 49.63, SD = 9.91), t (195, 6917) = .54, p > .05. Table 2. Descriptive Statistic s for the Continuous Variables Variables N MinimumMaximumMean SD OQ-45* 195 2716890.9 24.9 SSS 195 104528.0 7.8 SAS-SR 195 153.7 1.5 PC* 195 1106.1 2.7 Hope* 195 152.5 0.95 URICA 195 57135106.4 12.5 SF-12 195 17.872.250.1 12.8 Life Role* 194 152.9 1.2 Age 193 126536.9 10.6 Education 192 163.8 1.5 Psy History* 195 264.9 1.0 # Sessions* 186 1104.4 2.7 Lower scores mean greater satisfaction or shorter history of the presenting problem Except for the item Psychological History, all single Likert scale items (i.e., Perceived Criticism, SAS-SR, Hope, Life Ro le Satisfaction, Education, and number of sessions attended) received scor es spanning the entire possible range on the Likert scale.

PAGE 72

62 For example, the item Perceived criticism range d from 1 (not at all critical) to 10 (very critical indeed), and responses ranged from one to 10. Decision Rule The number of sessions attended was rec oded because of wide variation of respondent estimates of counseling sessions a ttended (i.e., 1-1500 sessions) or estimating in terms of time in counseling rather th an number of sessions (e.g., on and off for 25 years, in-patient for 1 year). To provid e a consistent respons e code, the amount of counseling was recoded into a 10-point Likert scale as shown in Table 3. The first six items corresponded to increments of 10 sessions The remaining codes were in terms of time in counseling rather than the number of sessions. Because respondents frequently reported attending weekly counseling sessi ons, a number between 50-60 sessions was considered equivalent to a response of 1 year. When the number of sessions reported exceeded 60 sessions, the total number of sessions was divided by 50. Therefore a response of 200 sessions was recoded to fall with in the category of 1-4 years. The mean response ( M = 4.4, SD = 2.7) fell in the category, of 30-39 sessions. Table 3. Recoding Reports of Time or Sessions in Counseling Likert Scale Recode Partitions 1 1-9 sessions 2 10-19 sessions 3 20-29 sessions 4 30-39 sessions 5 40-49 sessions 6 50-60 sessions or 1 year 7 1+ to 4 years 8 5-9 years 9 10-14 years 10 15 years +

PAGE 73

63 Reliability Estimates for OQ-45, DSSQ, and URICA Reliability estimates were computed using SPSS 11.0 for Windows Student Version. The Cronbach’s alpha for the OQ-45 full scale score measure of severity ( N = 172) was .94 and comparable to the internal consistency of .93 reported by Lambert and colleagues (1996). The Cronbach’s alpha for the total score for the D uke Social Support Questionnaire (DSSQ) was .90 ( N = 189) and higher than the reliability (Alpha = .79) reported in its validation study (George et al., 1989). Internal reliabilities for each of the f our subscales of the URICA were also comparable to reported levels in past va lidation studies of the instrument (McConnaughy et al., 1983; McConnaughy et al., 1989). The Cr onbach’s alpha for the precontemplation subscale was .85, the contemplation subscal e was .89, the action subscale was .88, and the maintenance subscale was .86. A composite Cronbach’s Alpha was also calculated for contemplation, action, and maintenance subscales because subtracting out precontemplation scores gives the overall motivation score. The composite for the three subscales had a strong internal consistency of .91. In summ ary, all three instruments showed acceptable reliability and were very similar to levels reported in validation studies of the instruments. Test of Assumptions, Multicoll inearity, and Undue Influence Before conducting the test of multiple re gression analysis, underlying statistical assumptions and potential problems were ex amined to ensure the accuracy of the analysis. First, because violations of assumptions for linearity, equal conditional variance, and conditional normality can distort result s (Myers & Well, 1991), these assumptions were tested using SAS version 8.2. Examin ation of the studentized residuals, a

PAGE 74

64 standardized measure of error from the regression plane, showed that the three assumptions were met satisfactorily. Another potential problem in multiple regr ession analysis is the presence of multicollinearity, two or more independent va riables related to each other. The presence of multicollinearity reduces power to de tect significance. One measure of multicollinearity used by SAS is whether each independent variable shows high Tolerance (i.e., TOL .1). All independent variables in this study showed a Tolerance exceeding .1 and were therefore were not collinear with one another. The term outlier denotes data points that deviate far from the regression plane and can have a dramatic effect on the analysis (Pedhazur, 1982). Outliers can be detected by evaluating plots of Studentized residuals greater than +/2.0, or for extreme points with respect to the rest of the data. Examinati on of the Studentized re siduals indicated the presence of five outliers (R ange +/2.68 to 3.47). The five outliers were removed from the study. Finally, extreme values on the independent variables can cause undue influence on the regression coefficients and predicte d values. The SAS procedure used provided DFBETAS, a studentized measure of influen ce of each data point on the Intercept and Regression coefficients. The DFBETAS were examined for unusually large values with respect to the rest of the data. Because no large discrepancies were found, the data set appeared free of data exerting undue influe nce on the results. W ith these preliminary analyses completed, discussion is turned towards the findings. Correlation Analysis The Correlation analysis revealed that eight of the 13 client variables were significantly related to lower symptom levels as meas ured by the OQ-45. The correlation

PAGE 75

65 matrix is presented in Table 4. The four scales (i.e., DSSQ, SF-12, SAS-SR, and Education Level) where high scores corres ponded to greater soci al support, health, financial security, or education, were all ne gatively related to the OQ-45. The four scales (i.e., Life Role Satisfaction, Psychological History, History of Emotional or Sexual Abuse, Hope/Expectancy) where low scores co rresponded to greater life role satisfaction and hope, shorter histories of the presenting problem and no experiences of abuses, were all positively related to th e OQ-45. The two highest correlations were Life Role Satisfaction and social suppor t (i.e., DSSQ) accounting for 32% and 31% of the variance in the OQ-45 scores, respectively. Chronicit y, or length of time with the presenting problem, was the third highest correlation accounting for 15% of the variance in OQ-45 scores. Health (SF-12), financial secur ity (SAS-SR), education, emotional/sexual victimization all correlated m odestly with the OQ-45. Client variables that were not significantly related to the OQ45 were perceived criticism (i.e., PCM), motivation (i.e., URICA), age, number of sessions attended for presenting problem, and gender. Table 4. Zero-Order Correlations between Client Variable and the OQ-45 OQ-45 DSSQ SAS-SR PCM TES URICA SF-12 OQ-45 1.000 DSSQ -.560*** 1.000 SAS-SR -.292*** .058 1.000 PCM .098 -.191** -.131 1.000 TES .160* -.088 -.043 .139 1.000 URICA .043 -.002 .049 -.079 -.245**1.000 SF-12 -.306*** .162* .329***.013 -.052 .058 1.000 Age -.102 -.058 .068 -.144 .023 .082 -.067 Education -.254** .020 .261** -.143 -.147 .093 .167* Life Role .566*** -.258** -.302** -.019 .135 .014 -.191* Chronicity .382*** -.382***-.112 .011 .119 .052 -.205** # Sessions .019 -.210* .038 .049 -.037 .152* .049 Victim .254** -.325***-.117 .173* .001 .022 -.092 Gender -.062 -.089 .014 .026 -.012 -.073 .047 p < .05. ** P < .01. *** P < .0001.

PAGE 76

66 Table 4. Continued. Age Education Life RoleChronicity# Sessions Victim Gender OQ 45 DSSQ SAS-SR PCM TES URICA SF-12 Age 1.000 Education .240** 1.000 Life Role .090 -.109 1.000 Chronicity .053 -.138 .121 1.000 # Sessions .127 .066 -.178* .228** 1.000 Victim .079 -.048 -.004 .333*** .318*** 1.000 Gender -.091 .085 -.241** -.018 .105 .187*1.000 p < .05. ** P < .01. *** P < .0001. Regression Analysis Table 5 shows the results of the regression analysis of the full model of all the client variables on the dependent measure, the OQ-45. The full model is a test of the first hypothesis that there was no si gnificant relationship betw een client factors (i.e., extratherapeutic, hope factors) and client reported symptom level. The results showed that the full model related to the OQ-45, F (13, 163) = 19.70, p <.0001. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected and th e alternative hypothesis that client factors predicted decreased levels of client symptoms wa s supported. The model of client variables predicted a substantial 58% of the variance in OQ-45 scores. Table 5. Source Table for the Mode l of Client Variables on the OQ-45 Sources of Variance df Sums of SquaresMean Square F Value Client Model 1363265 4866.551 19.70 Error 16340267247.034 Corrected Total 176103532 Table 6 shows the results of individual client factors independently relating to lower OQ-45 scores controlling for all othe r independent variable s in the model.

PAGE 77

67 Table 6. Regression Coefficient Es timates and Independent Variance Client Variable Estimate Standard Error t Value R2 Intercept 104.836 18.526 5.66 DSSQ -1.153 0.185 -6.25*** 0.093 SAS-SR -0.791 0.903 -0.88 0.002 PCM -0.271 0.494 -0.55 0.001 TES 1.564 1.364 1.15 0.003 URICA 0.116 0.080 1.45 0.005 SF-12 -0.211 0.103 -2.06* 0.010 Age -0.379 0.123 -3.08* 0.023 Education Level -1.902 0.908 -2.09* 0.010 Life Role 8.332 1.171 7.11*** 0.121 Chronicity 2.894 1.413 2.05* 0.010 Number Sessions -0.128 0.484 -0.26 0.000 Victimization 5.386 3.151 1.71 0.007 Gender -0.158 3.930 -0.04 0.000 p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .0001 Satisfaction with Life Role (Hypothesis 6), Subjective Social Support (Hypothesis 2), older Age (Hypothesis 12), and higher leve ls of education (H ypothesis 9), better Physical Health (Hypothesis 8), and a shorter Psychologica l History (Hypothesis 10) were all significantly associated with lower symptom levels on the OQ-45, controlling for the other client variables. Satisfaction with Life Role explained a significant amount of variance, t = 7.11, p < .0001, r2 = .12, Subjective Social S upport explained nearly the same amount of variance and was significant, t = -6.25, p < .0001, r2 = .09, while Age, t = -3.08, p < .0025, r2 = .02, education, t = -2.09, p < .05, r2 = .01, Physical Health, t = 2.06, p < .05, r2 = .01, and Psychological History, t = 2.05, p < .05, r2 = .01 explained considerably less variance in the OQ-45, though all statisti cally significant. The beta coefficients provide a measure of change in the OQ-45 depending upon the associated client variable. For example, for every one poi nt increase in Life Role Satisfaction there was an associated decrease in the OQ-45 scor e of 8.33 points. Simila rly, every one point

PAGE 78

68 change in Subjective Social Support, there was an accompanying change of -1.2 in the OQ-45 score. Nature of the Outliers and Rationale for Outlier Exclusion Four of the five outliers were females, had a mean OQ-45 of 45 ( SD = 4.97), which was about half the mean OQ-45 scor e as the rest of the sample ( M = 90.45, SD = 24.25). The other outlier was a male respondent with an OQ-45 of 129. The five outliers also had low DSSQ scores ( M = 16.6, SD = 6.2) relative to the total sample ( M = 28.14, SD = 7.7). The rest of the client variables were compar able between the outliers and the full sample. The results of a multiple regression analysis conducted on the sample with the outliers included were compared to the results of th e regression analysis of the full sample. A summary of the comparison is presented in Table 7. Table 7. Client model and Individual C lient Factor Semi-Partial Correlations Statistics Outliers Included (N = 200) Outliers Deleted (N = 195) Full Model F Value 13.280*** 19.700*** Adjusted R2 .469 .580 Significant R2 Life Role .10*** .12*** DSSQ .06*** .09*** Victimization .03** Age .03** .02* URICA .01* SF-12 .01* Education .01* Chronicity .01* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .0001 As shown in Table 7, the analysis of the full model with the outliers included was significant at the .0001 level, but explained 11% less variance in OQ-45 scores than did the full model with the outliers deleted. Squa red semi-partial correlations show that the two largest individual pr edictors of symptom levels, Life Role and DSSQ, were the same

PAGE 79

69 between the two analyses. Individual client variables explaining less variance differed between the two models. To resolve the di screpancies, a robust regression method was used to analyze the data. A robust analysis is a statistical proce dure that limits the influence of outliers without de leting them from the data set. The robust analysis yields more stable and reliable model estimates (C hen, 2002). The results of the robust analysis were consistent with the regression analysis without the five outliers in this data set. Therefore, the final analysis was based on the data excluding the five outliers. Hypothesis Testing Hypothesis 1 that there was no significant re lationships between client factors (i.e., extratherapeutic, hope factors) and clie nt reported symptom level was rejected. Hypotheses 2-13 were null hypothe ses about each of the 13 i ndividual client variables (e.g., subjective social support, physical health) and fewer symptoms on the OQ-45. Hypothesis 2 that there was no significant relationship between client reported symptom level and client rated social suppor t was rejected when tested by itself (i.e., zero-order correlation) and when all the othe r client variables we re controlled (i.e., squared semi-partial correlation). Hypothesis 3 that there was no significant relationship between client reported symptom level and client rated perceived criticism was not rejected in the zero-order correlation or the squared semi-partial correlation. Hypothesis 4 that there wa s significant relationship between client reported symptom level and client rated motivation was not rejected in either test of relationship (i.e., zero-order correlation or th e squared semi-partial correlation). Hypothesis 5 that there was no significant relationship between client reported symptom level and client rated hope/expect ancy for positive treatment outcome was

PAGE 80

70 rejected when tested by itself (i.e., zero-ord er correlation) but not when all the other client variables were controlled. Therefore, hope/expectancy received only limited support and predictive of symptom level only wh en treated with no other client variables as predictors. Hypothesis 6 that there was no significant relationship between client reported symptom level and client rated satisfaction with his or her primary life role was rejected when tested by itself (i.e., zer o-order correlation) and when al l the other client variables were controlled (i.e., square d semi-partial correlation). Hypothesis 7 that there was no significant relationship between client reported symptom level and client rated physical health was rejected when tested by itself (i.e., zero-order correlation) and when all the othe r client variables we re controlled (i.e., squared semi-partial correlation). Hypothesis 8 that there was no significant relationship between client reported symptom level and client rated psychologica l history of his or her presenting problem was rejected when tested by itself (i.e., zer o-order correlation) and when all the other client variables were controlled (i.e ., squared semi-parti al correlation). Hypothesis 9 that there was no significant relationship between client reported symptom level and client rated history of em otional or sexual abuse was rejected when tested by itself (i.e., zero-ord er correlation) but not when all the other client variables were controlled. The history of emotional or sexual abuse was only significant when treated with no other client variables as predictors.

PAGE 81

71 Hypothesis 10 that there wa s no significant relationshi p between client reported symptom level and number of sessions atte nded for the presenting problem was not rejected in the zero-order correlation or the squared semi-partial correlation. Hypothesis 11 that there wa s no significant relationshi p between client reported symptom level and financial security was reje cted when tested by itself (i.e., zero-order correlation) but not when all the other clie nt variables were controlled. Therefore, financial support received limited support and was predictive of symptom level only when treated with no other clie nt variables as predictors. Hypothesis 12 that there wa s no significant relationshi p between client reported symptom level and client education level was rejected when tested by itself (i.e., zeroorder correlation) and when a ll the other client variables were controlled (i.e., squared semi-partial correlation). Hypothesis 13 that there wa s no significant relationshi p between client reported symptom level and client age was not rejected when it was the only predictor for symptom level. However, the hypothesis that client age was not predictive of lower symptom levels was rejected when other c lient variables are c ontrolled (i.e., squared semi-partial correlation). Theref ore, age as a predictor of symptom level, was partially supported in this study. Chapter Summary This chapter described the procedures fo r collection of data response rates of participating bulletin/message board websites, decision rules, and statistical analyses. Reliability estimates were provided where re levant and assumptions of the regression analyses were considered. Hypothesis te sting of the 13 research hypotheses were

PAGE 82

72 examined. The results supported rejection of research hypotheses 1, 2, 6-9. Partial support was garnered for rese arch hypotheses 5, and 10-12.

PAGE 83

73 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship of client factors and hope/expectancy factors on symptom levels for clients undergoing mental health counseling. The following chapter provides a discussion of the findings and suggests clinical implications and future research. Summary of the Study This dissertation study was carried out over public Intern et Mental Health Message Boards. Message Board members who were co ncurrently involved in professional faceto-face mental health counseling were asked to volunteer for participation. One hundred and ninety five message board self-selected volunteers completed the battery of surveys. The survey began with a measure of overall mental health symptoms (i.e., OQ-45) that was the dependent variable in the study. The re st of the survey consisted of measures tapping various aspects of client variables (i.e., extratherape utic and hope factors) that have shown prognostic potential from the counseling and psychotherapy literature. Multiple Regression analysis was used to determine how well the client factor model predicted symptom level of the respondents. The analysis included simple, zero-order correlations between each indivi dual client factor and sy mptom level. The Regression also provided squared semi-partial correla tions, which showed the contribution of explained variance in symptom level of each client factor above and beyond explained when all the rest of the client factor s were already included in the analysis.

PAGE 84

74 Conclusions Three overarching research hypotheses were tested and are considered next. The first two research hypotheses will be considered together because they compliment each other. The first research hypothesis was to de termine the extent to which client factors (extratherapeutic and hope) acc ounted for client symptom le vel in an ongoing counseling episode. The second research question was whet her client factors explained over half of the symptom variance as implied by the comm on factors model of treatment outcome? The results revealed that the 13 measured clie nt factors significantl y related to client symptom level and collectively explained over ha lf (i.e., 58%) of the variance in client symptom level. The common factor model theorized by Lambert (1992) proposed that 40% of the variance in outcome was explained by extratherapeutic factors and 15% of the variance in outcome was explained by hope th at treatment would be successful. These two client factors theoretically explained about 55% of the variance in counseling symptom levels. The variance in symptom le vel explained by client variables in the present study (i.e., 58%) very closely appr oximates Lambert’s pr oposed common factor model for client variables (i.e ., 55%). However, in contrast to Lambert’s common factor model, hope was not one of the variables that predicted client symptom level in this study. Overall, the finding supports a common factor model of counseling outcome in that the majority of reported symptom levels were accounted for by factors outside of the counseling room. The third overarching research hypothesis was an exploratory question: Which of the 13 measured client factors were associ ated with positive mental health symptom levels during ongoing therapy treatment? Subjecti ve social support sign ificantly related to client symptom level by itself and when added th e rest of the client factors were already

PAGE 85

75 in the regression model. By itself, subjectiv e social support explained the second greatest amount of variance in symptom level (i.e., 31%) of the client factors. When added to the other 12 client variables in the model, subj ective social support ex plained an additional 9% of the variance in symptom level. The finding resembled previous research on subjective social support. For example, higher levels of subjective social support helped prevent relapse in clients with schizophrenia (Koenigs berg & Handley, 1986; Vaughn & Leff, 1976), depression (Brown & Lewins ohn, 1984; Hooley, Orley, & Teasdale, 1986; Krantz & Moos, 1988; Sherbourne, Hays, & Wells, 1995), depressed geriatric clients (Bosworth et al., 2002), and across diagnos es (Spiegel & Wissler, 1986); subjective social support also buffered the stress of j ob loss (Gore, 1978) and he lped in a weight loss program (Prochaska et al., 1992). The amount of variance explai ned by social support when controlled for a number of other factor s has ranged from about 3% (Steinmetz et al., 1983) to 14% (Hobe rman et al., 1988). By way of contrast, in a fe w studies pretreatment soci al support did not predict depression improvement at posttreatment (Billings & Moos, 1985) or at follow-up (Paykel, Cooper, Ramana, & Hayhurst, 1996; Sherrington, Hawton, Fagg, Andrew, & Smith, 2001). Noting the deviation in findings from the literature base, Cooper et al. (1996) observed that their sample was more severely disturbed, or depressed, than in other studies showing the benefits of social supports. Sherrington et al., (2001) joined Paykel et al. in postulating that social support plays less a role in outcome for severely depressed, or symptomatic, clients. Alt hough the present study cannot resolve this discrepancy in findings, a point of measurement is worth noting. Besides the similarity between the two former studies in evaluating a severe population of clients, both used the

PAGE 86

76 same measure of social support based on a se mi-structured intervie w procedure (Surtees, 1980). The measure provided information about whom the client lived with, whether he or she had a confiding relationship, the amount and frequency of cont act with others, and attendance at social events. Unfortunately, the measure does not appear to tap the critical variable of subjective or perc eived social support that has contributed to prediction of outcome (George et al., 1989; Landerman, 1989; Riso et al., 1996). It may be that whether social support predicts outcome or not depends more on how (i.e., subjective or objective survey) it is measured than on who (i.e., severely distressed vs. minimally distressed) it is measured on. In general, evidence supporting the influence of the way measurement is executed as more influentia l than content of the measurement is well documented (Hill & Lambert, 2004). Related to subjective social support was the respondents’ perceived criticism from their significant others. Perceived criticism di d not relate to the client reported symptom level in the present study. This null finding is in contrast to previous studies where perceived criticism predicted worse outc ome for clients coping with obsessivecompulsive disorder, panic disorder with agoraphobia, and depressive symptoms (Chambless & Steketee, 1999; Renshaw et al., 2001; 2003). In fact perceived criticism remained predictive of outcome despite controlling for a number of potentially confounding factors, such as hostility and critical comments made by family members during research interviews (Chambless & Steketee, 1999; Hooley & Teasdale, 1989), demographics, duration of the disorder, pretre atment severity, comorbid major depression and Axis II traits (Renshaw et al., 2001) or depression (Ris o et al., 1996). One study that did fail to establish a link between relapse in depression and perceived criticism was a

PAGE 87

77 small Egyptian sample (Okasha et al., 1994) but may have occurred due to the cultural differences. However, findings from a study about convergent and di scriminant validity may help explain the present results (Ris o et al., 1996). Perceived criticism was significantly related to marital quality specifically, and not to social relationships in general (e.g., friends, relatives). The measure of perceived criticism may provide a strong subjective indicator of relations with a significant other, but no t with the rest of his or her social network in general. It may be that in the current study, the ro le of the significant other was not as important as general rela tions. Perhaps perceive d criticism is more predictive when study participants are in married relationships. Because data about marital status was not collected in the presen t study, it is not possible to rule out this possibility. In previous studies there wa s not general measure of subjective social support as used in this project and ma y partially account for the lack of significant finding in the present study. However, even when subjectiv e social support is not included in the analysis, perceived criticism wa s not significant. Further, it may be that in the current study, the affect of the significant other wa s not as important as general relations. The client variable motivation, as measur ed with Prochaska and colleagues URICA scale, did not significantly relate to clie nt reported symptom level in this study. One reason for the lack of relationship may have resulted from the crosssectional nature of the design. Neither pretreatment evaluations for motivation nor posttreatment counseling outcomes available to evaluate within s ubject treatment respons e as a function of motivation over time. The self-selected sample suggests that particip ants were motivated already. Motivation may be more appropriate in predicting outcome for shorter-term

PAGE 88

78 treatment episodes with a follow-up assessmen t. In addition, the URICA has primarily been used in studies dealing with problems of habit, such as drinking or smoking, not necessarily mental health problems. With these design limitations in mind, the URICA has been criticized for failing to produce va lid stage profiles across study samples (Carey, Purnine, Maisto, & Carey, 1999). Prochaska, DiClemente, Velicer, and Rossi (1993) showed that assessing stage of motivation could improve treatment for programs in smoking cessation, but did not use the URIC A measurement. When using the URICA measurement, Prochaska et al. (1992) showed that three of four subscales on URICA significantly predicted weight loss, but Contemplation stage did not. Then in a study to identify clients who struggle to complete treatment, three of the four subscales were predictive, but Maintenance di d not predict outcome (Broga n, Prochaska, & Prochaska, 1999). When a single measure of URICA was used to measure outcome (Project MATCH Research Group, 1997) one positive re sult emerged at 15-month follow-up, but did was not predictive at othe r points in time nor for all the client groups. In a more recent study of 252 outpatient substance abusers, results showed that the stages of change did not predict outcome in percentage days abstinent (Blanchar d, Morgenstern, Morgan, Labouvie, & Bux, 2003). Only a follow-up regres sion analysis of the four subscales produced a significant predictor: The Action st age. Even so, its effect size was only .02. The authors questioned the clinical utility of the instrument despite its intuitively attractive conceptualization of motivation. Unfortunately, in the present study, it is impossible to determine whether the failure to find significant pr edictive effects of motivation was a result of the design shortcom ings, the more general mental health nature of the sample, or the instrument itself. These considerations await future studies.

PAGE 89

79 Client rated hope/expectancy for successful reduction in symptoms received partial support in this study. When no other client va riables were included in the model (i.e., zero-order correlation), the hope measure show ed a small (i.e., 3% of variance) but significant relationship to symptom level. Wh en all the other client variables were included in the model, hope/expectancy no longer explained a si gnificant portion of variance in symptom level. The finding deviat es from several other studies that found a benefit of high hope/expectancy on depressed clients (Hoberman et al., 1988; Sotsky et al., 1991; Steinmetz et al., 1983), socially a nxious clients (Safren et al., 1997) using different measures of hope/expectancy (Cha mbless et al., 1997; Hoberman et al., 1988; Steinmetz et al., 1983), as well as the same measure of hope (Sotsky et al., 1991). These discrepancies might be a function of the retr ospective ratings of hope/expectancies in the present study. Ratings of hope/expectancies may have been influenced by ongoing struggles with the presenting problems. Similar to the pres ent results, a follow-up report from the NIMH TDCRP study showed that the hope/expectancy factor significantly correlated to a composite outcome measur e but when data about the therapeutic relationship was added to the model, hope/expectancy was no longer significant a significant predictor of outcome (Meyer et al., 2002). Although there may be better measures of hope available than the single item used in this study (Borkovec & Nau, 1972; Devilly & Borkovec, 2000), such measures take into account cl ient reactions after meeting the therapist. The goal in the current investigation was to explore what the client presents without influence of the counselor at all. A better evaluation of hope would be to evaluate it prospectively.

PAGE 90

80 Client satisfaction with his or her Primary Life Role had a large and significant relationship to client reported symptom level. When no other client factor was included in the regression analysis, satisfaction with primary life role accounted for 32% of the variance in symptom level. Even when all the client factors were already in the model, adding primary life role factor into the mode l explained an addition 12% of the variance in symptom level. When all other client va riables were controlled, Primary Life Role explained the greatest porti on of variance in the present study. In terms of previous research, using a group psychoeducational inte rvention to treat de pression, one client variable examined was satisfaction in 18 areas of life-roles, from health, fitness, and appearance to leisure, housing, religion, and occupati onal status. Life roles did not predict amelioration in depression (Hoberman et al., 1988) in one study, but did in a longitudinal follow-up project about depr ession (Gonzales, Lewinsohn, & Clarke, 1985). Research about work has shown a strong relationship be tween job satisfaction and life satisfaction (r =. 44) in meta-analysis (Tait et al ., 1989). Another study showed that getting reemployed after losing a job promotes qual ity of life, self-esteem, while lowering depression and anxiety compar ed to people that have not returned to employment (Caplan, Vinokur, Price, & Van Ryn, 1989). The Primary Life Role item used in the current study was more focused than the 18item life role used by Hoberman et al. but broader than work role defined by employment status. Whether a pe rson is a student, homemaker, or retiree engaged in voluntary activities, people spe nd a large portion of time in various work or life roles. The pauc ity of research on the affect of life role on psychotherapy outcome is surprising. The si ngle item used in this study, while shows promise as a prognosticator of outcome, l acks psychometric validation and should be

PAGE 91

81 interpreted cautiously. Hopefully the present re search will serve as a heuristic to promote the inclusion of this variable in studies desi gned to understand extratherapeutic influences on therapy outcome. Client rated physical health as m easured by the widely used SF-12 was significantly correlated with cl ient reported symptom level wh en other client variables were ignored. By itself, physical health expl ained 9% of the variance in symptom level. When all the client variables were controlle d, physical health explai ned a small (i.e., 1%), but significant portion of a dditional variance. Respondent’s whose physical health was rated more positively was related to lower mental health symptomatology. The finding supports some of the literatur e about the impact of physical health on recovery from mental health problems. For example, physical health conditions predicted relapse in depression at follow-up (Krantz & Moos, 1988; Gonzales et al., 1985) and predicted poorer outcome at treatment completion (M oos, 1990). In another study, fewer chronic medical conditions significantly related to improved depression symptoms in a large national study, though only accounting for 3% of the variance (Sherbourne et al., 1995). In contrast, self-rated phys ical health did not predic t outcome in a population of depressed geriatrics (Boswort h et al., 2002), middle-aged in -patient clients (Billings & Moos, 1985), or a sample whose average age was around 35 years (Hoberman et al., 1988), as was the case in this dissertation. Phys ical health has been evaluated objectively, as on some form of medical problems lis ting, like diabetes, cancer, asthma, etc. (Hoberman et al., 1988; Krantz & Moos, 1988; Sherbourne et al., 1995), or subjective ratings of physical health (Gonzales et al ., 1985), or has been measured using both objective and subjective methods (Bosworth et al., 2002). No clear pattern emerges from

PAGE 92

82 these findings except that, when physical health predicts outcome, it tends to be one of the smaller sources of explanatory variance am ong the client variable s. Further research in this area might help to determine how impor tant medical health is in the treatment of mental health. The proxy for Complexity/Chronicity was the clients’ ratings of how long they had dealt with their presenting pr oblem (i.e., Psychological Hist ory). Psychological History did predict symptom level by itself and when all the other client variables were in the model. By itself, Psychological History expl ained a substantial 15% of the variance in symptom level; when all the other client va riables were controlle d, though significant, Psychological History explained on ly an additional 1% of the variance. Although this is a small effect, it appears to be a fairly consiste nt finding in the literature. For example, in a sample involving over 1000 depressed clients, a longer history of prior bouts with depression predicted higher probability of relapse for the curren t episode (Lewinsohn, Zeiss, & Duncan, 1989). The number of previ ous depressive episodes accounted for a small but significant portion of variance (2%) in depressi on outcome (Hoberman et al., 1988) but a very large portion of variance ( 17%) in another study (G onzales et al., 1985). An example of the sometimes variable role of history can be observed in following the work of researchers from North Carolina studying course of depression among geriatric clients. In one study, three or more prior de pressive episodes signi ficantly predicted nonremission (Bosworth et al., 2002) but number of prior episodes did not predict nonremission in an earlier study (George et al., 1989 ). Some studies show that history of previous treatment does not influence outcome in depression (Steinme tz et al., 1983), but many do show a relationship (Cla rkin & Levy, 2004). In sum, the present study replicates

PAGE 93

83 a robust finding in the mental health counseling l iterature, that the less incidents of a given problem in one’s life, the better the prognosis. The research question about the relationshi p between client re ported symptom level and client rated history of em otional or sexual abuse was sign ificant when tested by itself (i.e., zero-order correlation). Respondents repo rting a history of abuse had more severe symptom levels, accounting for 6% of symptom level. When th e rest of client variables were controlled, however, the contribution of abuse history to outcome disappeared. In contrast, Gleaves and Eberenz (1993) found that history of sexual abuse was a good prognosticator of poor response to treatment and recommended that history of sexual abuse be evaluated prior to treatment. In a more recent study, people reporting a history of abuse had lower levels of quality of life and mental health compared to people not reporting a history of abuse (Laffaye & Kennedy, 2003). Although not definitively supported as a predictor of lower symptom levels, the variable is worth continued attention in more contro lled research projects. The clients’ Length of Time in Counseli ng, as measured by their estimate of the number of counseling sessions attended, did not relate to symptom le vel. The result was not consistent with the dose-e ffect of psychotherapy literatur e that suggests later gains come increasingly slower (Howard et al., 1986; Lambert et al., 2001). In the present study, regardless of time in treatment, there was no change in symptom reduction. The departure from the dose-effect response is pr obably related to the cross-sectional design and the loose reporting measure of time in treatment. Many respondents provided very gross estimates of number of counseling sessi ons, such as, “about a year” in treatment. It was not possible to know whether some of these reports reflect multiple treatment

PAGE 94

84 episodes that were successful, followed by relapse and a return to treatment. Additionally, it was not known wh at kind of treatment clients were receiving, nor how well those treatments were bei ng executed. Alternatively, the failure of the present study to show a dose-response effect might be attrib uted to a different popul ation of clientele. The clients in this study reported severity of symptom levels typically exhibited by clients undergoing inpatient treatment (Lambert et al., 2003). Whether there is a point of severity or complexity of sy mptoms that does not follow th e typical dose-response effect remains to be revealed. There is some evid ence that suggests this may be true. For example, more intense depressive episodes or prior treatment attempts significantly predicted nonremission among a sample of 395 depressed clients (Krantz & Moos, 1988). An earlier onset of depression in one’s life predicted poor response to treatment (Brown & Lewinsohn, 1984). Both the longer durati on of depression episodes reported at pretreatment and the occurrence of minor depression accompanying the major depression, predicted higher severity of de pression posttreatment in the NIMH TDCRP study (Sotsky et al., 1991). In summary, while it was not the purpose of the study to test a dose-response effect, the lack of such findi ng raises the question about whether severity and chronicity of the presenti ng problem alters the phenomenon. As in past research, the demographic vari ables of SES, education, and age in this study were inconsistently related to lower leve ls of symptoms. Client ratings about his or her financial security, the measure of SE S in this study, rece ived partial support individually. When no other cl ient factors were controlle d, financial security accounted for 9% of the variance in symptom level. However, when the full model was already accounted for, financial security did not add significantly to explained variance. Although

PAGE 95

85 past studies have demonstrated a fairly consistent relationship between SES and treatment retention (Petry et al., 2000; Wi erzbicki & Pekarik, 1993), the relationship between SES and outcome is not convincing. Several studies, for example, show that income does not influence outcome among c lients with depression (Bosworth et al., 2002; Steinmetz et al., 1983; H oberman et al., 1988). Other re views have suggested there was a modest relationship of education w ith outcome (Luborsky et al., 1988). Client education level was related to client reporte d symptom level in this study, explaining 6% of the variance by itself, and 1% when the rest of the clie nt variables are controlled. Although education level predicted outcome for depresse d clients (Moos, 1990) in one study, it did not predict depression outcome in several others (Bosworth et al., 2002; Brown & Lewinsohn et al., 1984; Hoberman et al., 1988; Rounsaville et al., 1981). Reviews about education status has documente d that while it does influence the duration of treatment (e.g., lower education predicts premature dropout), its affect on symptom outcome has been inconsistent (Garfiel d, 1978; 1994; Wierzbicki & Pekarik, 1993). Perhaps the role of education level exerts a greater influence on symp tom levels with an online population that tends to be a fairly well educated populations, its prognostic value should be regarded tentatively. With regard to age, older client s in the current study provided a unique independent contribution to having lower symptom levels. Although age was not significantly related to lower symp tom levels by itself, when all the client variables were controlled, age significan tly accounted for an additional 2% of the variance. The finding closely resembled one study showing that age significantly accounted for an additional 3.5% of variance in depression outcome with other client variables controlled (Steinmetz et al., 1983). In general, however, age has proved an

PAGE 96

86 inconsistent predictor of treatment outcomes (Garfield, 1978; 1994). For example, there are several cases where age was not related to depression outcome (Bosworth et al., 2002; Hoberman et al., 1988; Rounsaville et al ., 1981; Sotsky et al., 1991). In addition, sometimes younger age related to better counseling outcomes (Krantz & Moos, 1988; Steinmetz et al.) but sometimes worse (G onzales et al., 1985). In summary, the demographic variables in this dissertation refl ect the lack of a strong relationship between demographic variables and outcome found in the literature generally. Limitations Weakness in the internal validity resulted from relying on a self-selection sampling process (Ray, 2000). In fact, the evidence is strong that the present sample did not represent the population at large. Participants were white females who were economically well off enough to have access to internet serv ices and were fairly well educated. Many had struggled with his or he r presenting problem or problems over a number of years and may have represented a more complex populat ion than typically f ound in general adult out-patient treatment placements. The particip ants were also not closely controlled on diagnostic features, although the majority of people were drawn from internet self-help sites dealing with either de pression, anxiety, or both. The cross-sectional correlation design made it impossible to draw causal conclusions based on the results. Because th e goal of the study was to evaluate the common factors model of outcome, a major shor tcoming was the design failure to include outcome data. Instead, the evaluation was limited to ongoing progress. There was no way to measure change on the basis of treatment. Therefore, the support found for the common factors model in this project must be considered tentative. To assess outcome, it

PAGE 97

87 would be better to conduct a randomized, repe ated measures, pretes t-posttest longitudinal design to analyze pretreatment client factors on actual amounts of change. A related limitation was that client fact ors may have been confounded with present symptom levels. Even though clients were as ked to rate themselves on the variables before treatment began, some clients reported being in treatment for a number of years. The validity about the hope/e xpectancy and motivation measure would therefore be questionable. While it has been suggested th at social support may be contaminated by depression (Henderson, 1984), the measure of so cial support in this study was shown to be independent of depression in a longitudinal analysis (B lazer & Hughes, 1991). Also, in the present study, hope/expectancy and motiva tion levels were similarly confounded by symptom levels as were social support le vels. However, hope/expectancy and motivation levels did not correlate with varying sympto m levels as subjective social support did. Implications and Recommendations Research The primary finding of this research is th at client factors as postulated in the common factors model of outcome were highly related to levels of mental health symptomatology. One implication is that, if clie nt factors relate to lower symptom levels among clients receiving ongoing counseling, then c lient factors might also relate to lower symptom levels at outcome. If client factors relate to lower symptom levels at outcome, then these client factors measured at pret reatment might predict ultimate outcome. In other words, just as client factors highly re lated to symptom levels in this study, client factors might similarly exert a large influence over the success or failure on treatment in general.

PAGE 98

88 Over the last few decades, researcher s have tried to determine unexplained variation in treatment outcomes (Bosworth et al., 2002; Mohr et al ., 1990), distinguish between clients who improve, stagnate, or de teriorate in treatment (Steinmetz et al., 1983), identify factors associated with th e high risk and prevalence of recurrent depression episodes (Belsher & Costello, 1988 ), identify client factors behind response rate to treatment (Beckham, 1989; Fennell & Teasdale, 1987), and intervene according specific identified risk factor s to improve outcome (Gonzales et al., 1985; Haas et al., 2002; Krantz & Moos, 1988; Rounsaville, et al., 1981; Rude & Rehm, 1991; Sotsky et al., 1991; Whipple et al., 2003). The client f actors of social suppor t, satisfaction with primary life role (e.g., student, home maker), prior attempts coping with the presenting problem, and to a lesser extent, education leve l, health satisfaction, and complexity of symptoms (i.e., history of victimization) might help future researchers identify an important source of variance in response rate. Whether a study method follows a naturalistic or RCT approach, measuring client symptom change session by session provides more precise information about what causes rate of response (Tang & DeRubeis, 1999; Wilson, 1999). Using that approach (Haas et al., 2002), results have indicated that what ever causes rapid and slow responses to treatment, that those outcomes persist for as much as two years posttreatment. The influential extratherapeutic factors identified in the current study might be used in a longitudinal study to explain response rate to treatment. Knowledge about client symptom level after just the first three sessi ons has been shown to improve treatment for at risk clients (Haas et al.). Adding extrat herapeutic prognosticators of outcome into the picture may advance the cause of determining, “ What specific treatment, by whom is

PAGE 99

89 most effective for this individual with that specific problem, and under which set of circumstances” (Paul, 1967, p. 111)? Clinical For adult, white, well-educated females, satisfaction with their social supports, primary life role (e.g., student, retiree), fe wer prior attempts at coping with their presenting problem, and to a lesser extent, highe r education level, satisfaction with their physical health, and having less comorbidity of symptoms (i.e., history of victimization), all related to lower mental health symptoms. Knowledge in these areas at treatment intake might help shape the clinician create goals with the client to improve chances for success. Perceived dissatisfaction with current social supports and/or primary life roles may have the greatest relationship to clients’ ultimate well-being. A ddressing such dissatisfaction might help promote recovery. There may be a ne ed to incorporate social skills training or coping skills to promote greater socializa tion practices to expand the client support network. Low education or job satisfacti on might suggest a strong need for career assessment and counseling. A long history of the presenting problem (e.g., social anxiety), comorbid problems (e.g., emotional abuse), may also indicate the need for a longer term treatment approach. Brief thera py may be advised for clients with strong resources but contraindicated for clients who do not. The large portion of variance explained by client variables gives credence to the therapeutic approaches that build on client strengths and help prom ote coping skills in deficit areas. Client changes that have occu rred between sessions, starting with changes that may have occurred between the intake appointment and the first counseling session can help mobilize client resources (Hubble, Duncan, & Miller, 1999c). As these authors point out, common factors theory of change does not transl ate into a counseling approach

PAGE 100

90 devoid of technique. Assisting the client recognize life-impr oving actions executed on his or her own can be noticed and amplified by counselors (Hubble et al ., 1999c). Clinician knowledge of pretreatment client factors may potentially help improve service and at the same time, teach therapists what factors dict ate the most effective interventions. Future research taking advantage of client feedback about resources at in take and his or her symptoms throughout the counseling process ho lds promising benefits to providers and clients alike.

PAGE 101

91 APPENDIX A ADVERTISEMENT AND CONSENT I would appreciate your help with my survey. Hi, I am a graduate researcher at the Univ ersity of Florida studying people currently receiving professional face-to-face mental health counseling. Specifically, I am examining how things in our lives (e.g., fr iends, family support, health, etc.) affect symptoms while in counseling. If you are willing to participate, please visit this web site: http://www.counselingsurveys.org/do.php?survey=s195197 The survey here takes between 20-30 minut es to complete. I am will to send an electronic copy of my results upon request after the study is co mpleted. This research has been approved by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board. Thank you for your time and attention, Todd Leibert Informed Consent The purpose of this dissertation research is to better understand how things in your life (e.g., social/family support, health, employme nt) affect counseling, and ultimately, to help improve the quality of professional mental health counseling servic es. I invite you to participate in this study and am requesting you r consent to take part in this research. Participation requires you to complete an a ssessment that will ta ke approximately 20-30 minutes. Before you agree to take part in this study, please be aware of the following: 1. You must currently be involved in face-to-face professional counseling.

PAGE 102

92 2. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary an d there are no penalties for not participating. You also ha ve the right to stop particip ating at any time without penalty. 3. There are no known physical, psychological, or economic risks associated with participation in this study. 4. There is no compensation to you for partic ipating in this study. There are no direct benefits to you for part icipating in this study. 5. There is a large range in the questions as ked, from gender and education level to more sensitive questions about abuse history and sexual fulfillment (Examples of the kinds of items on this survey ask you to rate yourse lf on a number of items: “I get along with others,” “ How satisfied are you with the kinds of relationships you have with your family and friends?” and “I wish I had more ideas on how to solve the problem.”) 6. No names are asked for in this study. I ndividual results of the study will remain confidential. All data collect ed will remain confidential w ithin the bounds of internet usage. 7. Privacy Policy and Security Notice: This web site does not co llect any electronic information in a manner that could be used to identify who you are. Th is site does not use encryption technologies, theref ore any information you provide could be observed by a third party while in transit. 8. You have the right to ask any additional questions of the res earcher concerning the purpose of the study, your rights as a particip ant, and how the information will be used. To continue, click the big button at the bottom of this screen. I have read the above document and agree to participate. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Todd Leibert, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Counselor Educati on, University of Florida, P.O. Box 117046, 1215 Norman Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611-7046, (352) 392-0731, leibert@ufl.edu Supervisor Contact : James Archer, Jr., Department of Counselor Education, 1215 Norman Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611-7046, (352) 392-0731, ext 231, jarcher@coe.ufl.edu Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Fl orida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; phone number: (352) 392-0433.

PAGE 103

93 APPENDIX B DUKES SOCIAL SUPPORT QUESTIONNAIRE 1) Does it seem that your family and frie nds (i.e., people who are important to you) understand you? a) none of the time b) hardly ever c) some of the time d) most of the time e) all of the time 2) Do you feel useful to your family a nd friends (i.e., people important to you)? a) none of the time b) hardly ever c) some of the time d) most of the time e) all of the time 3) Do you know what is going on with your family and friends? a) none of the time b) hardly ever c) some of the time d) most of the time e) all of the time 4) When you are talking with your family a nd friends, do you feel you are being listened to? a) none of the time b) hardly ever c) some of the time d) most of the time e) all of the time 5) Do you feel that you have a definite ro le in your family and amount your friends? a) none of the time b) hardly ever c) some of the time d) most of the time e) all of the time 6) Can you talk about your deepest problems with at least some of your family and friends?

PAGE 104

94 a) none of the time b) hardly ever c) some of the time d) most of the time e) all of the time 7) In time of trouble, can you count on at least some of your family and friends? a) none of the time b) hardly ever c) some of the time d) most of the time e) all of the time 8) When you are with you family and friends, how often do you feel lonely? a) none of the time b) hardly ever c) some of the time d) most of the time e) all of the time 9) How satisfied are you with the kinds of re lationships you have with your family and friends? a) extremely dissatisfied b) very dissatisfied c) somewhat dissatisfied d) satisfied most of the time e) satisfied all of the time 10) Are you satisfied with how often you see your friends and relativ es; that is, do you see them as often as you want to? a) extremely dissatisfied b) very dissatisfied c) somewhat dissatisfied d) satisfied most of the time e) satisfied all of the time

PAGE 105

95 APPENDIX C PERCEIVED CRITICISM SCALE (Hooley & Teasdale, 1989) Directions: On a scale from `Not at all Critical` to `Very Critical,` Please check the number on the scale that best describes you. 1. How critical do you think the most signif icant person in your life is of you? Not at all Critical 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very Critical

PAGE 106

96 APPENDIX D SOCIAL ADJUSTMENT SCALE-SELF REPORT (SAS-SR) Weissman & Paykel 1. Have you had enough money to take care of your own and your family’s financial needs during the last 2 weeks? a) I had enough money for needs. b) I usually had enough money, with minor problems. c) About half the time I did not have enough money but did not have to borrow money. d) I usually did not have enough mo ney and had to borrow from others. e) I had great financial difficulty

PAGE 107

97 APPENDIX E TREATMENT EXPECTANCY SCALE Which of the following best described your ex pectations about what was likely to happen as a result of your treatment? 1. I expected to feel completely better. 2. I expected to feel somewhat better. 3. I wasn’t sure what to expect. 4. I didn’t expect to feel much difference. 5. I didn’t expect to feel any different.

PAGE 108

98 APPENDIX F URICA (LONG FORM) UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND CHANGE ASSESSMENT This questionnaire is to help us improve services. Ea ch statement describes how a person might feel when starting therapy or approaching problems in their lives Please indicate the extent to which you tend to agree or disagree with each statement. In each case, ma ke your choice in terms of how you feel right now, not what you have felt in the past or would like to feel. For all the statements that refer to your "problem", answer in terms of what you write on the "PROBLEM line below. And "here" refers to the place of treatment or the program. There are FIVE possible responses to each of the items in the questionnaire: 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Undecided 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree 1. As far as I'm concerned, I don't have any problems that need changing. 2. I think I might be ready for some self-improvement. 3. I am doing something about the problems that had been bothering me. 4. It might be worthwhile to work on my problem. 5. I'm not the problem one. It doesn't make much sense for me to be here. 6. It worries me that I might slip back on a problem I have already changed, so I am here to seek help. 7. I am finally doing some work on my problem. 8. I've been thinking that I might want to change something about myself. 9. I have been successful in working on my problem but I'm not sure I can keep up the effort on my own. 10. At times my problem is difficult, but I'm working on it. 11. Being here is pretty much a waste of time for me because the problem doesn't have to do with me. 12. I'm hoping this place will help me to better understand myself. 13. I guess I have faults, but there's nothing that I really need to change. 14. I am really working hard to change. 15. I have a problem and I really think I should work at it. 16. I'm not following through with what I had already changed as well as I had hoped, and I'm here

PAGE 109

99 to prevent a relapse of the problem. 17. Even though I'm not always successful in cha nging, I am at least working on my problem. 18. I thought once I had resolved my problem I would be free of it, but sometimes I still find myself struggling with it. 19. I wish I had more ideas on how to solve the problem. 20. I have started working on my problems but I would like help. 21. Maybe this place will be able to help me. 22. I may need a boost right now to help me maintain the changes I've already made. 23. I may be part of the problem, but I don't really think I am. 24. I hope that someone here will have some good advice for me. 25. Anyone can talk about changing; I'm actually doing something about it. 26. All this talk about psychology is boring. Why can't people just forget about their problems? 27. I'm here to prevent myself from having a relapse of my problem. 28. It is frustrating, but I feel I might be having a recurrence of a problem I thought I had resolved. 29. I have worries but so does the next guy. Why spend time thinking about them? 30. I am actively working on my problem. 31. I would rather cope with my faults than try to change them. 32. After all I had done to try to change my problem, every now and again it comes back to haunt me. Scoring Precontemplation items 1, 5, 11, 13, 23, 26, 29, 31 Contemplation items 2, 4, 8, 12, 15, 19, 21, 24 Action items 3, 7, 10, 14, 17, 20, 25, 30 Maintenance items 6, 9, 16, 18, 22, 27, 28, 32

PAGE 110

100 APPENDIX G CLIENT SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION (9-ITEMS) 1) Gender : Male: _____ Female: _____ 2) Age : _____ 3) Racial/Ethnic Background: African Descent/Black ____ American Indian ____ Asian ____ Caucasian/White ____ Hispanic/Latino(a) ____ Multiracial ____ 4) Education : Some High School _____ High School _____ Some College _____ Undergraduate Degree _____ Some Graduate School _____ Graduate Degree _____ 5) Hours employed per week: _____ 6) Length of Employment : Estimate the amount of time at the longest held job you have had: 1. Less than 6 months. 2. Between 6 months and 1 year. 3. 1-2 years. 4. 2-5 years. 5. 5-10 years. 6. Other. 7) Primary Life Role: I am satisfied with or am making progress to ward a rewarding career/primary life role (e.g., retirement, motherhood, career, school, etc.). 1. Very Satisfied 2. Satisfied

PAGE 111

101 3. Unsure 4. Dissatisfied 5. Very Unsatisfied 8) Previous Psychological History : Please estimate how long you have experien ced significant psychological (e.g., anxiety, depression) problems during your life? 1. This last month only. 2. About 2-6 months. 3. About 6 months to 1 year. 4. The last few years. 4. For on and off my whole life. 5. For as long as I can recall. 9) Please check if you h ave ever been a victim of : Rape ____ Incest ____ Sexual molestation as a child ____ Physical/emotional a buse as a child ____ Physical/emotional/sexua l abuse by partner ____ N/A ____

PAGE 112

102 REFERENCE LIST Addis, M. E., Wade, W. A., & Hatgis, C. (1999). Barriers to dissemination of evidencebased practices: Addressing practitio ners’ concerns about manual-based psychotherapies. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 6, 430-441. Alexopoulos, G.S., & Meyers, B.S., Young, R.C. Kakuma, T., Feder, M., Einhorn, A., & Rosendahl, E. (1996). Recovery in geriatric depression. Archives of General Psychiatry 53, 305-312. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Arnow, B.A., Manber, R., Blasey, C., Klei n, D.N., Blalock, J.A., Markowitz, J.C., Rothbaum, B.O., Rush, J.A., Thase, M.E ., Riso, L.P., Vivian, D., McCullough, J.P., Keller, M.B. (2003). Therapeutic reactan ce as a predictor of outcome in the treatment of chronic depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 1025-1035. Auerbach, A.H., Luborsky, L., & Johnson, M. (1 972). Clinicians’ predictions of outcome of psychotherapy: A trial of a prognostic index. American Journal of Psychiatry 128, 830-835. Banks, S.M., & Kerns, R.D. (1996). Explaining high rates of depression in chronic pain: A diathesis-stress framework. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 95-110. Barlow, D.H. (1994). Psychological interven tion in the era of managed competition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 1, 109-122. Beck, A.T., Rush, A.J., Shaw B.T.F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression New York: Guildford Press. Beck, A.T., Ward, C.H., Mendelson, M., Moc k, J., & Erbaugh, J. (1961). An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychology 4, 53-63. Beckham, E.E. (1989). Improvement after ev aluation in psychotherapy of depression: Evidence of a placebo effect? Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45, 945-950. Beekman, A.T.F., Penninx, B.W.J.H., Deeg, D.J.H., Ormel, J., Braam, A.W., & van Tilburg, W. (1997). Depression and physical health in later life: Results from the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (LASA). Journal of Affective Disorders, 46, 219-231.

PAGE 113

103 Belsher, G., & Costello, C.G. (1988). Relapse after recovery from unipolar depression: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 84-96. Bergin, A.E., & Garfield, S. L. (1994). Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (4th edition). New York: Wiley. Bergin, A.E., & Lambert, M.J. (1978). The ev aluation of psychotherapeutic outcomes. In S.L. Garfield, & A.E. Bergin (Eds.), In Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change: An empirical analysis (2nd ed., pp. 139-190). Wiley: New York. Beutler, L.E. (2002). The dodo bird is extinct. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 9(1), 30-34. Beutler, L.E., & Clarkin, J.F. (1990). Systematic treatment selection: Toward targeted therapeutic interventions New York: Brunner/Mazel. Beutler, L.E., Clarkin, J.F., & Bongar, B. (2000). Guidelines for the systematic treatment of the depressed patient. New York: Oxford University. Beutler, L.E., & Harwood, T.M. (2000). Prescriptive psychotherapy : A practical guide to systematic treatment selection New York: Oxford University Billings, A.G., & Moos, R.H. (1985). Life stressors and social resources affect posttreatment outcomes among depressed patients. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 94, 140-153. Bischoff, M.M., & Tracey, J.G. (1995). Clie nt resistance as predicted by therapist behavior: A study of sequential dependence. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 487-495. Blanchard, K.A., Morgenstern, J., Morga n, T.J., Labouvie, E., & Bux, D.A. (2003). Motivational subtypes and continuous measures of readiness for change: Concurrent and predictive validity. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 17, 56-65. Blazer, D.G., & Hughes, D.C. (1991). Subj ective social support and depressive symptoms in major depression: Sepa rate phenomena or epiphenomena. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 25, 191-203. Borkovec, T.D., & Nau, S.D. (1972). Credib ility of analogue therapy rationales. Journal of Behaviour Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 3, 257-260. Bosworth, H.B., Hays, J.C., George, L.K., & Steffens, D.C. (2002). Psychosocial and clinical predictors of unipolar depression outcome in older adults. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 17, 238-246. Brogan, M.M., Prochaska, J.O., Prochaska, J.M. (1999). Predicting termination and continuation status in psychotherapy using the transtheoretical model. Psychotherapy, 36, 105-113.

PAGE 114

104 Brown, J., Dreis, S., & Nace, D. K. (1999). What really makes a difference in psychotherapy outcome? Why does managed care want to know? In M. A. Hubble, B. L. Duncan, & S. D. Miller (Eds.), The heart and soul of change: What works in therapy (pp. 389-406). Washington, DC: Am erican Psychological Association. Brown, R.A., & Lewinsohn, P.M. (1984). A psyc hoeducational approach to the treatment of depression: Comparison of group, indivi dual, and minimal contact procedures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 774-783. Caplan, R.D., Vinokur, A.D., Price, R.H., & Van Ryn, M. (1989). Job seeking, reemployment and mental health: A random ized field experiment in coping with job loss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 759-769. Carey, K.B., Purnine, D.M., Maisto, S.A., & Carey, M.P. (1999). Assessing readiness to change substance abuse: A crit ical review of instruments. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 6, 245-266. Chambless, D.L. (2002). Beware the dodo bi rd: The dangers of overgeneralization. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 9, 13-16. Chambless, D.L., & Ollendick, T.H. (2001) Empirically supported psychological interventions: Controversies and evidence. Annual Review of Psychology 52, 685716. Chambless, D.L., & Steketee, G. (1999). Expressed emotion and behavior therapy outcome: A prospective study with ob sessive-compulsive and agoraphobic outpatients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 67, 658-665. Chambless, D.L., Tran, G.Q., & Glass, C.R. (1997). Predictors of response to cognitivebehavioral group therapy for social phobia. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 11, 221240. Chen, C. (2002). Robust regression and ou tlier detection with the ROBUSTREG procedure. Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual SAS Users Group International Conference. Cary, NC: SAS Institute. Chiesa, M., Drahorad, C., & Longo, S. (2000) Early termination of treatment in personality disorder treated in a psychotherapy hospital: Quantitative and qualitative study. British Journal of Psychiatry, 177, 107-111. Clarkin, J.F., & Levy, K.N. (2004). The influenc e of client variables on psychotherapy. In M.J., Lambert (Eds.), Bergin & Garfield’s Handb ook of psychotherapy and behavior change (5th ed., pp.194-226). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Crits-Christoph, P., Connolly, M.B., Gallop, R., Barber, J.P., Tu, X., Gladis, M., & Siqueland, L. (2001). Early improvement during manual-guided cognitive and dynamic psychotherapies predicts 16-week remission status. Journal of psychotherapy: Practice and Research, 10, 145-154.

PAGE 115

105 Curry, S., Wagner, E.H., & Grothaus, L.C. ( 1990). Intrinsic and extr insic motivation for smoking cessation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 58, 310-316. Devilly, G.J., & Borkovec, T.D. ( 2000). Psychometric properties of the credibility/expectancy questionnaire. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 31, 73-86. DiClemente, C.C., Prochaska, J.O., Fairhurst S.K., Velicer, W.F., Velasquez, M.M., & Rossi, J.S. (1991). The process of smoking cessation: An analysis of precontemplation, contemplation, and preparation stages of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 295-304. Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2002). Will money increase subjective well-being? Social Indicators Research 57, 119-169. Diener, E., Oishi, S., Lucas, R.E. (2003). Pers onality, culture, and subjective well-being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 403425. Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Seidlitz, L. & Di ener, M. (1993). The relationship between income and subjective well-being: Relative or absolute? Social Indicators Research 28, 195-223. Division 12 Task Force. (1995) Training in and disseminatio n of empirically-validated psychological treatments: Re port and recommendations. The Clinical Psychologist 48, 3-23. Elkin, I., Shea, T., Watkins, J.T., Imber, S.D., Sotsky, S.M., Collins, J.F., Glass, D.R., Pilkonis, P.A, Leber, W.R., Docherty, J.P ., Fiester, S.J., & Parloff, M.B. (1989). National Institute of Mental Health treatme nt of depression collaborative research program: General effectiveness of treatments. Archives of General Psychiatry, 46, 971-982. Eysenck, H.J. (1952). The effects of psychotherapy: An evaluation. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 16, 319-324. Fennell, M.J.V., & Teasdale, J.D. (1987). C ognitive therapy for depression: Individual differences and the process of change. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 11, 253271. Finch, A.E., Lambert, M.J., & Schaalje, B. G. (2001). Psychotherapy quality control: The statistical generation of exp ected recovery curves for integration into an early warning system. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy 8, 231-242. Firth-Cozens, J., & Hardy, G.E. (1992) Occ upational stress, clin ical treatment and changes in job perceptions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 81-88.

PAGE 116

106 Flaskerud, J.H. & Liu, P.Y. (1991). Effects of an Asia n client-therapist language, ethnicity and gender match on utili zation and outcome of therapy. Community Mental Health Journal 27, 31-42. Fletcher, B.C., & Payne, R. L. (1980a). St ress at work: A review and theoretical framework, Part 1. Personnel Review, 9, 19-29. Fletcher, B.C., & Payne, R. L. (1980b). Stre ss at work: A review and theoretical framework, Part 2. Personnel Review, 9, 5-8. Foley, S.H., O’Malley, S., Rounsaville, B., Pr usoff, B.A., & Weissman, M.M. (1987). The relationship of client difficulty to therapist performance in interpersonal psychotherapy of depression. Journal of Affective Disorders 12, 207-217. Frank, J.D., & Frank, J.B. (1991). Persuasion and healing (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Fujino, D.C. Okazaki, S ., & Young, K (1994). Asian-American women in the mental health system: An examination of ethnic and gender match between therapist and client. Journal of Community Psychology 22, 164-176. Garfield, S.L. (1978). Research on client variab les in psychotherapy. In A.E. Bergin & S. L. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (2nded., pp. 191-232). New York: Wiley. Garfield, S.L. (1986). Research on client vari ables in psychotherapy. In S.L. Garfield & A.E. Bergin (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (3rd ed., pp. 213-256). New York: Wiley. Garfield, S.L. (1994). Research on client variab les in psychotherapy. In A.E. Bergin & S. L. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (4th ed., pp. 190-228). New York: Wiley. Garfield, S.L. (1996). Some problems with “validated ” forms of psychotherapy. Clinical Psychology: Science & Practice 3, 218-229. Gaston, L., Marmar, C.R., Gallagher, D ., & Thompson, L.W. (1989). Impact of confirming patient expectation of change processes in behavioral, cognitive, and brief dynamic psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 26, 296-302. Gaston, L., Marmar, C.R., Thompson, L.W., & Gallagher, D. (1988). Relation of patient pretreatment characteristics to the therap eutic alliance in diverse psychotherapies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 36, 483-489. Gatchel, R.J., Polatin, P.B., & Kinney, R.K. (1995). Predicting outcome o chronic back pain using clinical predictors of psychopathology: A prospective analysis. Health Psychology, 14, 415-420.

PAGE 117

107 Gelhart, R.O. Hand-Ronga, N., & King, H.L. (2002). Group cognitive-behavioral treatment of depression and the interaction of demographic variables. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 16, 469-486. George, L., Blazer, D.G., & Hughes, D.C., & Fowler, N. (1989). So cial support and the outcome of major depression. British Journal of Psychiatry, 154, 478-485. Ginexi, E.M., Foss, M.A., & Scott, C.K. (2003). Transition from treatment to work: Employment patterns following publicly funded substance abuse treatment. Journal of Drug Issues, 33, 497-518. Glass, G.V. (2001). Foreward. In B.E. Wampold, The great psychotherapy debate: Models, methods and findings (pp. ix-x). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gleaves, D.H., & Eberenz, K.P. (1994). Sexua l abuse histories among treatment-resistant bulimia nervosa patients. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 15, 227-231. Gomes-Schwartz, B. (1978). Effective ingred ients in psychotherapy: Predictions of outcome from process variables. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 1023-1035. Gonzales, L.R., Lewinsohn, & Clarke, G.N. (1985). Longitudinal follow-up of unipolar depressives: An investigation of predictors of relapse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 461-469. Gore, S. (1978). The effect of social support in moderating the health consequences of unemployment. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19, 157-165. Gottschalk, L.A., Mayerson, P., & Gottlieb, A. A. (1967). Prediction and evaluation of outcome in an emergency brief psychotherapy clinic. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 144, 77-96. Greenberger, E., & O’Neil, R. (1993). Spouse, parent, worker role commitments and role-related experiences in the construction of adults’ well-being. Developmental Psychology, 29, 181-197. Haas, E., Hill, R.D., Lambert, M.J., & Mo rrell, B. (2002). Do early responders to psychotherapy maintain treatment gains. Journal of Clinical Psychology 58, 11571172. Henderson, A.S. (1984). Interpreting the evidence on social support. Social Psychiatry, 19, 49-52. Hill, C.E. & Lambert, M.J. (2004). Met hodological issues in studying psychotherapy processes and outcomes. In M.J., Lambert (Eds.), Bergin & Garfield’s Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (5th ed.) (pp. 84-136). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

PAGE 118

108 Hoberman, H.M., Lewinsohn, & Tilson, M. ( 1988). Group treatment of depression: Individual predictors of outcome. Journal of Consulting an d Clinical Psychology, 36, 393-398. Holt, R.R. (1982). Occupational stress. In L. Goldberger and S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of stress: Theoreti cal and clinical aspects (pp. 419-444). New York: Free Press. Hooley, J.M., Orley, J., & Teasdale, J.D. (1986) Levels of expresse d emotion and relapse in depressed patients. British Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 642-647. Hooley, J.M., & Teasdale, J.D. (1989). Predic tors of relapse in unipolar depressives: Expressed emotion, marital distre ss, and perceived criticism. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 98, 229-235. Horowitz, L.M, Rosenberg, S.E., Baer, B.A., Ureno, G., & Villesenor, V.S. (1988). Inventory of Interpersonal Problems: Psychometric properties and clinical applications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61, 68-79. Howard, K. I., Kopta, S. M., Krause, M. S., & Orlinsky, D. E. (1986). The dose-effect relationship in psychotherapy. American Psychologist 41, 159-164. Howard, K. I., Moras, K., Brill, P. L., Mart inovich, Z., & Lutz, W. (1996). Evaluation of psychotherapy: Efficacy, effectiv eness, and patient progress. American Psychologist 51, 1059-1064. Hubble, M. A., Duncan, B. L., & Miller, S. D. (1999a). Introduction. In M. A. Hubble, B. L. Duncan, & S. D. Miller (Eds.), The heart and soul of c hange: What works in therapy (pp. 1-19). Washington, DC: Amer ican Psychological Association. Hubble, M. A., Duncan, B. L., & Miller, S. D. (1999b). The heart and soul of change: What works in therapy Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hubble, M. A., Duncan, B. L., & Miller, S. D. (1999c). Directi ng attention to what works. In M. A. Hubble, B. L. Duncan, & S. D. Miller (Eds.), The heart and soul of change: What works in therapy (pp. 407-447). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Ilardi, S.S., & Craighead, W.E. (1994). The role of nonspecific factors in cognitivebehavior therapy for depression. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 1, 138-156. Ilardi, S.S., & Craighead, W. E. (1999). Commentary. Rapi d early response, cognitive modification, and nonspecific factors in c ognitive behavior therapy for depression: a reply to Tang and DeRubeis. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 6, 295299.

PAGE 119

109 Jackson, D. (1984). Personality Research Form manual (3rd ed.). Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press. Jacobson, N.S., & Truax, P. (1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 12-19. Johnson, L.D., & Shaha, S. (1996). Improving quality in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy 33, 225-236. Kadera, S.W., Lambert, M.J., & Andrews, A.A. (1996). How much therapy is really enough: A session-by-session analysis of the psychotherapy dose-effect relationship. Psychotherapy: Research and Practice 5, 132-151. Karasek, R.A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285-308. Keller, M.B., Shapiro, R.W., Lavori, P.W ., & Wolfe, N. (1982). Relapse in major depressive disorder. Archives of General Psychiatr y, 39, 911-915. Kelly, P.J., Blacksin, B., & Mason, E. ( 2001). Factors affecting substance abuse treatment completion for women. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 22, 287-304. Kerns, R.D., & Jacob, M.C. (1993). Psychological aspects of back pain. Bailliere’s Clinical Rheumatology, 7, 337-356. Koenigsberg, H.W., & Handley, R. (1986). Expr essed emotion: From predictive index to clinical construct. American Journal of Psychiatry, 143, 1361-1373. Krantz, S.E., & Moos, R. H. (1988). Risk f actors at intake predict nonremission among depressed patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 863-869. Laffaye, C., Kennedy, C., & Stein, M.B. (2003) Post-traumatic stress disorder and health-related quality of life in female victims of intimate partner violence. Violence and Victims, 18, 227-238. Lambert, M.J. (1976). Spontaneous remission in adult neurotic diso rders: A revision and summary. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 107-119. Lambert, M. J. (1992). Psychotherapy outcome research: Implications for integrative and eclectic therapists. In J.C. Norcross & M.R. Goldfried (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy integration (pp. 94-129). New York: Basic Books. Lambert, M.J. (2001). Psychotherapy outcome and quality improvement: Introduction to the special section on pa tient-focused research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 69, 147-149.

PAGE 120

110 Lambert, M.J. (Ed.). (2004). Bergin & Garfield’s Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (5th edition). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Lambert, M.J., & Bergin, A.E. (1994). The effectiveness of psychotherapy. In A.E. Bergin & S.L. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (4th ed., pp. 143-189). New York: Wiley. Lambert, M. J., & Cattani-Thompson, K. (1996). Current findings regarding the effectiveness of counseling: Implications for practice. Journal of Counseling and Development 74, 601-608. Lambert, M. J., Hansen, N. B., & Finch, A. E. (2001). Patient-focused research: Using patient outcome data to enhance treatment effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 159-172. Lambert, M. J., Hansen, N. B., Umpress, V., Lunnen, K., Okiishi, & Burlingame, G. (2003). Administration and scoring manual for the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ45.2). American Professional Credentialing Services LLC. Lambert, M.J., & Hill, C.E. (1994). Assessing psychotherapy outcomes and processes. In A. E. Bergin & S.L. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (4th ed., pp.72-113), New York: Wiley. Lambert, M. J., Lunnen, K., Umpress, V. Hansen, N. B., & Burlingame, G. (1994). Administration and scoring manual for the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45.1). Salt Lake City, UT: IHC Center for Behavioral Healthcare Efficacy. Lambert, M.J. & Ogles, B.M. (2004). The effi cacy and effectiveness of psychotherapy. In M.J., Lambert (Eds.), Bergin & Garfield’s Handb ook of psychotherapy and behavior change (5th ed., pp. 139-193). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Lambert, M. J., Whipple, J.L., Bishop, M.J ., Vermeersch, D.A., Gray, G.V., & Finch, A. E. (2002). Comparison of empirically-deriv ed and rationally-derived methods for identifying patients at risk for treatment failure. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 9, 149-164. Landerman, R., George, L., Campbell, R.T., & Blazer, D.G. (1989). Alternative models of the stress buffering hypothesis. American Journal of Community Psychology, 17, 625-642. Leibert, T.W., Archer, J.A., Munson, J., & Yor k, G. (in press). An exploratory study of client perceptions of Internet couns eling and the therapeutic alliance. Journal of Mental Health Counseling Lewinsohn, P.M., Zeiss, A.M., Duncan, E.M. (1989). Probability of relapse after recovery from an episode of depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 98, 107116.

PAGE 121

111 Longabaugh, R., Beattie, M., Noel, N., Stout, R., & Malloy, P. (1993) The effect of social investment on treatment outcome. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 54, 465-478. Luborsky, L., Chandler, M., Auerbach, A.H., Cohen, J., & Bachrach, H. (1971). Factors influencing the outcome of psychotherapy: A review of quantitative research. Psychological Bulletin, 75, 145-185. Luborsky, L., Crits-Christoph, P., Mi ntz, J., & Auerbach, A. (1988). Who will benefit from psychotherapy? Predic ting therapeutic outcomes. NY: Basic Books. Luborsky, L., & DeRubeis, R.J. (1984). The use of psychotherapy treatment manuals: A small revolution in psychot herapy research style. Clinical Psychology Review 4, 514. Luborsky, L., McLellan, A. T., Woody, G.E ., O’Brien, C.P., & Auerbach, A. (1985). Therapist success and its determinants. Archives of General Psychiatry, 42, 602611. Luborsky, L., Singer, B., & Luborsky, L. (1975). Comparative studies of psychotherapies. Archives of General Psychiatry, 32, 995-1008. Lunnen, K.M., & Ogles, B.M. (1998). A multi-pe rspective, multi-variable evaluation of reliable change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 66, 400-410. Magni, G., Moreschi, C., Rigatti-Luchini, S ., & Merskey, H. (1994). Prospective study on the relationship between depr essive symptoms and chronic musculoskeletal pain. Pain, 56, 289-297. Mann, A.H., Jenkins, R., & Belsey, E. (1981). The twelve-month outcome of patients with neurotic illness in general practice. Psychological Medicine, 11, 535-550. McCaul, M.E., Svikis, D.S., & Moore, R.D. (2001). Predictors of outpatient treatment retention: Patient versus substance use characteristics. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 62, 9-17. McConnaughy, E.N., DiClemente, C.C., Prochaska, J.O., & Velicer, W.F. (1989). Stages of change in psychotherapy: A follow-up report. Psychotherapy, 26, 494-503. McConnaughy, E.N., Prochaska, J.O., & Velicer W.F. (1983). Stages of change in psychotherapy: Measurement and sample profiles. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice 20, 368-375. Mermelstein, R.J., Lichtenstein, E., & McInty re, K. (1983). Partner support and relapse in smoking cessation programs. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 465-466.

PAGE 122

112 Meyer, B., Pilkonis, P.A., Krupnick, J.L., Egan, M.K., Simmens, S.J., & Sotsky, S.M. (2002). Treatment expectancies, patient al liance, and outcome further analyses from the National Institute of Ment al Health Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Program. Journal of Consulting an d Clinical Psychology, 70, 1051-1055. Miller, S.D., Duncan, B.L., & Johnson, L.D. (1999). The verdict is the key. Family Therapy Networker 23, 46-55. Mi-Young, J. (2001). Study on the correlation between depression and quality of life for Korean women. Nursing and Health Sciences, 3, 131-137. Mohr, D.C. (1995). Negative outcome in psychotherapy. Clinical Psychology Review 2, 1-27. Mohr, D.C., Beutler, L.E., Engle, D., Shoha m-Salomon, V., Bergan, J., Kaszniak, A.W. & Yost, E. (1990). Identification of patie nts at risk for non-response and negative outcome in psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 58, 622-628. Moos, R.H. (1990). Depressed outpatients’ life contexts, amount of treatment, and treatment outcome. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 178(2), 105112. Myers, J.L., & Well, A.D. (1991). Research design and statistical analysis New York: Harper Collins. Murphy, E. (1983). The prognosis of depression in old age. British Journal of Psychiatry, 142, 111-119. Nathan, P.E. (1998). Practice guidelines not yet an ideal. American Psychologist 53, 290-299. Ogles, B. M., Lambert, M.J., & Fields, S.A. (2002). Essentials of outcome assessment New York: John Wiley & Sons. Okasha, A., El Akabawi, A.S., Snyder, K.S., Wilson, A.K., Youssef, I., & El Dawla, A.S. (1994). Expressed emotion, perceived cri ticism, and relapse in depression: A replication in an Egyptian community. American Journal of Psychiatry, 151, 10011005. Orlinsky, D.E., Grawe, K., & Parks, B.K. (1994). Process and outcome in psychotherapynoch einmal. In A.E. Bergin & S. L. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (4th ed., pp. 270-376). New York: Wiley. Oswald, A.J. (1997). Happiness and economic performance. The Economic Journal, 107, 1815-1831.

PAGE 123

113 Paul, G. L. (1967). Strategy of out come research in psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 31, 109-118. Paul, G. L. (1969). Behavior modification research: Design an d tactics. In C.M. Franks (Ed.), Behavior therapy: Appraisal and status (pp. 29-62). New York: McGrawHill. Paykel, E.S., Cooper, Z., Ramana, R., & Hayhur st, H. (1996). Life ev ents, social support and marital relationships in th e outcome of severe depression. Psychological Medicine, 26, 121-133. Pedhazur, E.J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (2nd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Petry, N.M., Tennen, H., & Affleck, G. (2000). Stalking the elusive cl ient variable in psychotherapy research. In C.R. Snyder & R.E. Ingram (Eds.), Handbook of psychological change: Psychotherapy processes and practices for the 21st century (pp. 88-108). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Plante, T.G., Couchman, C.E., & Hoffman, C.A. (1998). Measuring treatment outcome and client satisfaction among children and families: A case report. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 29, 52-55. Platt, J.J. (1995). Vocational re habilitation of drug abusers. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 416-433. Platt, S., & Kreitman, N. (1985). Para-s uicide and unemployment among men in Edinburgh 1968-82. Psychological Medicine 291, 1563-1566. Polatin, P.B., Kinney, R.K., Gatchel, R.J., L illo, E., & Mayer, T.G. (1993). Psychiatric illness and chronic low-back pain. Spine, 18, 66-71. Prochaska, J.O. (1999). How do people change and how can we change to help many more people? In M. A. Hubble, B. L. Duncan, & S. D. Miller (Eds.), The heart and soul of change: What works in therapy (pp. 227-255). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Prochaska, J.O., & DiClemente, C.C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 51, 390-395. Prochaska, J.O., DiClemente, C.C., Velicer W.F., & Rossi, J.S. (1993). Standardized, individualized, interactive, and persona lized self-help prog rams for smoking cessation. Health Psychology, 12, 399-405. Prochaska, J., Norcross, J., Fowler, J., Fo llick, M., & Abrams, D. (1992). Attendance and outcome in a worksite weight control progr am: Processes and stages of change as process and predictor variables. Addictive Behaviors 17, 35-45.

PAGE 124

114 Project MATCH Research Group. (1997). Matc hing alcoholism treatments to client heterogeneity: Project MATCH pos ttreatment drinking outcomes. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 58, 7-29. Rainer, J.P. (1996). The pragmatic rele vance and methodological concerns of psychotherapy outcome research related to co st effectiveness and cost-offset in the emerging health care environment. Psychotherapy 33, 216-224. Ray, W.J. (2000). Methods: Toward a science of behavior and experience (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Renshaw, K.D., Chambless, D.L., & Steketee, G. (2001). Comorbidity fails to account for the relationship of expressed emoti on and perceived criticism to treatment outcome in patients with anxiety disorders. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 32, 145-158. Renshaw, K.D., Chambless, D.L., & Steketee G. (2003). Perceived criticism predicts severity of anxiety symptoms after behavi oral treatment in patients with obsessivecompulsive disorder and panic disorder with agoraphobia. Journal of Clinical Psychology 59, 411-421. Riso, L.P., Klein, D.N., Anderson, R.L., Ouimette, P.C., & Lizardi, H. (1996). Convergent and discriminant validity of perceived criticism from spouses and family members. Behavior Therapy, 27, 129-137. Robinson, L.A., Berman, J.S., & Neimeyer, R. A. (1990). Psychotherapy for the treatment of depression: A comprehensive revi ew of controlled outcome research. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 30-49. Rodgers, C.S., & Norman, S.B. (2004). Considering PTSD in the treatment of female victims of intimate partner violence. Psychiatric Times, 21, 68-71. Rosenzweig, S. (1936). Some implicit co mmon factors in diverse methods of psychotherapy: “At last the Dodo said, ‘Everybody has won and all must have prizes.’” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 6, 412-415. Rounsaville, B.J., Weissman, M.M., & Pr usoff, B.A. (1981). Psychotherapy with depressed outpatients: Patient and proce ss variables as predictors of outcome. British Journal of Psychiatry, 138, 67-74. Rude, S.S., & Rehm, L.P. (1991). Response to treatments for depression: The role of initial status on targeted cogni tive and behavioral skills. Clinical Psychology Review 11, 493-514. Rudy, T.E., Kerns, R.D., & Turk, D.C. (1988) Chronic pain and depression: Toward a cognitive-behavioral mediation model. Pain, 35, 129-140.

PAGE 125

115 Safren, S.A., Juster, H.R., & Heimberg, R.G. (1997). Clients’ expectations and their relationship to pretreatment symptomato logy and outcome of cognitive-behavioral group treatment for social phobia. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 694-698. Sansone, R.A., Whitecar, P., Meier, B.P ., & Murry, A. (2001). The prevalence of borderline personality among primary care patients with chronic pain. General Hospital Psychiatry, 23, 193-197. Seibel, C.A., & Dowd, E.T. (1999). R eactance and therapeutic noncompliance. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 23, 373-379. Shapiro, D.A., & Shapiro, D. (1982). Meta-a nalysis of comparative therapy outcome studies: A replication and refinement. Psychological Bulletin 92, 581-604. Sherbourne, C.D., Hays, R.D., & Wells, K.B. (1995). Personal and psychosocial risk factors for physical and mental health outcomes and course of depression among depressed patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 345-355. Sherrington, J. M., Hawton, K., Fagg, J., A ndrew, B., & Smith, D. (2001). Outcome of women admitted to hospital for depressive illness: F actors in the prognosis of severe depression. Psychological Medicine, 31, 115-125. Silverman W. H. (1996). Cookbooks, Manuals, and paint-by-numbers: Psychotherapy in the 90’s. Psychotherapy 33, 207-215. Smith, M.L., & Glass, G.V. (1977). Meta-a nalysis of psychotherapy outcome studies. American Psychologist 32, 752-760. Smith, M.L., Glass, G.V., & Miller, T.I. (1980). The benefits of psychotherapy Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Snyder, C.R., Michael, S.T., & Cheavens, J.S. (1999). Hope as a psychotherapeutic foundation of common factors, placebos, and e xpectancies. In M. A. Hubble, B. L. Duncan, & S. D. Miller (Eds.), The heart and soul of change: What works in therapy (pp. 179-200). Washington, DC: Am erican Psychological Association. Sotsky, S.M., Glass, D.R., Shea, T.M., Pilkonis, P.A., Collins, J.F., Elkin, I., Watkins, J.T., Imber, S.D., Leber, W.R., Moyer, J., & Oliveri, M.E. (1991). Patient predictors of response to psychothera py and pharmacotherapy: Findings in the NIMH treatment of depression collaborative research program. American Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 997-1008. Spanier, G. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment : New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family 38, 15-28. Spiegel, D., & Wissler, T. (1986). Family e nvironment as a predictor of psychiatric rehospitalization. American Journal of Psychiatry, 143, 56-60.

PAGE 126

116 Spielberger, C.D., Gorsuch, R.L., & Lushene, R.E. (1970). The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Self-Evaluation Questionnaire Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Spitzer, R.L., Endicott, J., & Robins, E. (1978). Research diagnostic criteria. Archives of General Psychiatry, 36, 773-782. Stafford, E.M., Jackson, P.R., & Banks, M. H. (1980). Employment, work involvement and mental health in less qualified young people. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 291-304. Steinmetz, J.L., Lewinsohn, P.M., & Antonucci o, D.O. (1983). Pred iction of individual outcome in a group intervention for depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 331-337. Stiles, W.B., Shapiro, D.A., & Elliott, R. ( 1986). “Are all psychotherapies equivalent?” American Psychologist, 41, 165-180. Stoolmiller, M., Duncan, T., Bank, L., & Pa tterson, G.R. (1993). Some problems and solution in the study of change: Signifi cant patterns in client resistance. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61, 920-928. Strupp, H.H., Wallach, M.S., Wogan, M., & Je nkins, J.W. (1963). Psychotherapists’ assessments of former patients. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 137, 222230. Surtees, P.G. (1980). Social support, resi dual adversity and depressive outcome. Social Psychiatry, 15, 71-80. Tait, M., Padgett, M.Y., & Baldwin, T.T. (1989) Job and life satisfaction: A reevaluation of the strength of the relati onship and gender effects as a function of the date of the study. Journal of Applied Psychology 74, 502-507. Tallman, K., & Bohart, A.C. (1999). The clie nt as a common factor: Clients as selfhealers. In M. A. Hubble, B. L. Duncan, & S. D. Miller (Eds.), The heart and soul of change: What works in therapy (pp. 91-132). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Tang, T.Z., & DeRubeis, R.J. (1999). Reconsid ering rapid early response in cognitive behavioral therapy for depression. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 6, 283-288. Tompson, M.C., Goldstein, M.J., Lebell, M.B., Mintz, L.I., Marder, S.R. & Mintz, J. (1995). Schizophrenic patients’ percepti ons of their relatives’ attitudes. Psychiatry Research, 57, 155-167. Vaillant, G.E. (1988). What can long-term follow-up teach us about relapse and prevention of relapse in addiction? British Journal of Addiction, 83, 1147-1157.

PAGE 127

117 Vaughn, C.E., & Leff, J.P. (1976). The influenc e of family and social factors on the course of psychi atric illness. British Journal of Psychiatry, 129, 125-137. Wampold, B.E. (2001). The great psychotherapy debate: Models, methods and findings Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Wampold, B.E., Mondin, G.W., Moody, M., S tich, F., Benson, K., & Ahn, H. (1997). A meta-analysis of outcome studies co mparing bona fide psychotherapies: Empirically, “All must have prizes.” Psychological Bulletin, 122, 203-215. Ware, J.E. (1999). SF-36 health survey. In M.E. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment pla nning and outcomes assessment (2nd ed., pp. 1227-1246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ware, J.E., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S.D. (1994). SF-36 Physical and Mental Health Summary scales: A user’s manual. Boston: The Health Institute. Ware, J.E., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S.D. (1996). A 12-item short-form health survey: Construction of scales and prelimin ary tests of reliability and validity. Medical Care, 34, 220-233. Ware, J.E., Kosinski, M., Turner-Bowker, D.M., & Gandek, B. (2002). How to score version 2 of the SF-12 health survey : With a supplement documenting version 1 Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric. Warr, P.B. (1978). A study of psychological well-being. British Journal of Psychology, 69, 111-121. Weissman, M.M., & Bothwell, S. (1976). Asse ssment of social adjustment by patient self-report. Archives of General Psychiatry 33, 1111-1115. Whipple, J.L., Lambert, M.J., Vermeersch, D.A., Smart, D.W., Nielsen, S.L., & Hawkins, E.J. (2003). Improving the effects of psychot herapy: The use of early identification of treatment and problem-solving st rategies in routine practice. Journal of Counseling Psychology 50, 59-68. Wierzbicki, M., & Pekarik, G. (1993). A meta-analysis of psychotherapy dropout. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 24, 190-195. Willer, B., & Miller, G. H. (1978). On the relationship of client satisfaction to client characteristics and outcome of treatment. Journal of Clinical Psychology 34(1), 157-160. Wilson, T.G. (1999). Rapid response to cognitive behavior therapy. Clinical Psychology: Science & Practice 6, 289-292. Wilson, K.G., Eriksson, M.Y., D’Eon, J.L., Mi kail, S.F., & Emery, P.C. (2002). Major depression and insomnia in chronic pain. Clinical Journal of Pain, 18, 77-83.

PAGE 128

118 Wilson, T.G., Fairburn, C.C., Agras, S. W., Walsh, T.B., & Kraemer, H. (2002). Cognitive-behavioral therapy for bulimia nervosa time courses and mechanisms of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 267-274.

PAGE 129

119 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Todd William Leibert was born October 8, 1964, in Syracuse New York, the last of the three children. His parents, Bob and Di xie, moved to Kansas City, Missouri, the following year where his father assumed a pos ition at the University of Missouri as a Professor of Reading Education. In high school, Todd’s primary academic interest was art and one painting won a national award and was displayed in a Ne w York art show. He did not engage academically until his mid-20s when he pursued psychology as his major and anthropology as his minor. He earned his B.A. in 1991. Intrigued with human consciousness, he continued hi s education in a PhD program in experimental psychology at the University of South Fl orida in Tampa. He studied hum an memory for nearly three years, and earned a master’s degree, despite realizing that it was not the career for him. His interest had grown away from the in ternal workings of the human mind to interpersonal relations and personality. He had volunteered on a suicide hotline and had applied to the University of Florida in Gainesville in the Counselor Education Department. He earned his M.E.D./ED.S. in Decem ber of 1998 and in the spring of 1999 became a nationally certified counselor. He worked toward mental health counseling licensure in Florida working with male, ad olescent sex offenders and later, adult substance dependence in-patient clients. He returned for his PhD in counselor education in the fall of 2001 and soon after acquired his licensure. His aim was to blend his earlier

PAGE 130

120 interests in research with his newer interest s in mental health. He has developed a strong interest in promoting the re spect of the field of counse ling through empirical research. His dissertation marks the first step in his inte rest to further describe what factors make mental health counseling so benefici al to people in the community.