I agree with Omers that so much of it depends on the T themselves--their personality, how they choose to practice, etc. My T has mentioned studies showing it's more the strength of the therapeutic relationship than the specific modality that determines success in therapy.


My ex-marriage counselor was a PhD who was pyschodynamically trained, but he didn't believe in the "blank slate" thing and shared quite a bit about himself. He was also very warm and caring (current T, who used to work with him, says he's "squishy"). Current T lists his methodology as "eclectic" (mixes stuff like CBT, mindfulness, some training from different types of marriage counseling, etc.). And I thought I wanted someone warm and fuzzy like ex-MC. As T would say, he's caring, but not warm and fuzzy, which is something I miss at times. He's more boundaried (doesn't disclose much about himself) and progress-oriented. However, I feel I've made considerable progress with him because he will push me on things, such as examining my role in, say, an argument with my husband. There are times when he pushes me too much, or gives "feedback" (his word) when what I just need at times is support and/or reassurance. So we've had a few conflicts. But I've given him my own feedback and times when he's helped and times he's missed the mark, and he has, over time, generally adapted to my needs.

So, I guess what I'm saying is, don't go by therapeutic orientation alone. I think sometimes you have to see what a T is like in person, probably over more than one session (as first session is often intake), unless in your very first meeting (or initial phone call, if they offer that), you're like, "Nope!" (Which has happened with me.) I find it can also be helpful to look at the T's website, if they have one, to see how they present themselves.