Postoperative spinal patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment conditions and were taught five adaptive movements by occupational therapists. The Control group received routine hospital occupational therapy; the Placebo group participated in an imagery relaxation task unrelated to the mental practice task of the Imagery group, which was shown line drawings of the adaptive movements under study, provided movement instructions, and asked to mentally practice each movement in a familiar, daily living situation. Thirty-five patients returned for follow-up, and a measure of outcome was obtained through the use of a quantified movement assessment instrument. Subjective ratings for anxiety, rumination, and imagery were made by the occupational therapists. An occupational motoric-symbolic rating scale was developed to assess the symbolic portion of the patient's job experience. Statistical procedures including chi square, analysis of variance, and Pearson correlation were performed. Results were in the predicted direction although statistical significance was not achieved. Possible explanations for the obtained results were discussed.

The possibility that faulty expectations about success and relapse recovery contributed to poor adherence was examined in this study. Support for such an expectancy model was sought through comparing an index of relative task magnitude to adherence rates. Instructions designed to improve adherence through changing expectations about relapse and relapse recovery were also administered to 46 clients in two clinical nutritional programs. Their adherence rates <in days) were compared to the rates obtained from the records of 64 other clients who did not receive the instructions. To further understand the adherence phenomenon, several other measures were obtained from the treatment subjects. These data were compared to adherence rates in an attempt to identify potential co-variate relationships. Statistical procedures including analysis of variance to determine comparability of subject groups, Pearson Product Moment correlations, t tests of the difference between means, and the Lawshe—Baker Nomograph comparing per cent adherence rates were performed on the data. Obtained results did not support the predicted relationship between relative task magnitude and adherence. This may have been due to differences between subjective assessments of task magnitude and the objective measure used in this study. Although improvement in adherence was noted in both treatment groups, statistical significance …