7) and was evaluated based on multiple goodness of fit indices, with the maximum likelihood as the estimation method. Examination of the results revealed that the fit of the model was a fairly good fit although not necessarily a superior fit for the data, ? 2 (323, N = 914), = , p < .001, SRMR = .066, RMSEA = .08, NFI = .91, and CFI = .93, suggesting overall a good fit. The final standardized solution factor loadings were all significant (p < .05) and ranged from .40 to .81 for the constructivist techniques and from .47 to .71 for the cognitive behavioral techniques. The correlation between the two factors was –.30. p < .03. See Table 1 for alphas in the current study
Correlational Analyses
Person Product Moment correlations, using a criterion level of .05 (1-tailed), were computed between the two epistemology subscales (Rationalist and Constructivist) and each of the criterion variables in an attempt to confirm that the relationships were in the predicted directions. Results were in the predicted directions, revealing a significant positive correlation between the TAQ-SF constructivist subscale and the CAS, r = 0.30, P ? 0.001 and a significant negative correlation between the TAQ-SF rationalist subscale and the CAS, r = – 0.36, P ? .001. Additionally, a Pearson Product Moment correlation was conducted on the TAQ-SF rationalist and constructivist subscales to justify their use as two separate continuous subscale scores, r = –.09, p < .001.
To possess specialist style, brand new rationalist and constructivist subscales were rather correlated to the subscales of PST-Q, all in the latest predict guidelines. To your WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies weren’t somewhat coordinated that have the WAI-S subscales (e.grams. Activity, Thread, and you can Mission); not, this new constructivist epistemology are notably undoubtedly coordinated with all of three subscales of the WAI-S plus the predict direction. When examining brand of techniques therapists use in therapy, the new rationalist epistemology was notably negatively coordinated using constructivist procedure (r = – .thirty two, P ? .001) and rather certainly coordinated using intellectual behavioral processes (r = 0.43, P ? .001), that was regarding the forecast directions. Whenever you are, constructivist epistemologies was basically significantly undoubtedly synchronised using constructivist processes (r = 0.twenty-two, P ? .001), that has been from the forecast guidance; although not, constructivist epistemology wasn’t rather synchronised having intellectual behavioural techniques. (Get a hold of Table dos having a complete variety of correlations).
Regression Analyses
So you’re able to measure the capacity of analysis as based on the normality assumptions out-of several regressions, the information and knowledge is actually subjected to tests off skewness and you will kurtosis. Outcome of this type of analyses mean that the assumptions to have multivariate normalcy was came across. On top of that, Bonferroni corrections were used.
Hypothesis step 1-Specialist Epistemology just like the good Predictor off Therapy Build
The original hypothesis worried counselor epistemology just like the good predictor from therapy design. We https://www.datingranking.net/de/geek-dating-sites/ hypothesized you to definitely therapists which have intellectual epistemologies might have a relief design portraying so much more tightness on Instructional subscale, better length on Expressive subscale, a lower life expectancy amount of Wedding, a narrower concentrate on the Attentional subscale, and become alot more arranged toward Operative subscale than the therapists that have a great constructivist epistemology. Independent regression analyses were conducted for each and every of your five PST-Q score computing cures build.
The Instructional Subscale The epistemology scores accounted for significant variation in Instructional scores, F(2, 1061) = 7.06, p < .001 (R 2 = .013). The standardized beta coefficient for the rationalist epistemology (? = .053) was in the positive direction, but was not significant- t(1061) = 1.73, p < .084. The standardized beta coefficient for the constructivist epistemology (? = – 0.097) was significant and in the negative direction for the Instructional subscale- t(1061) = –3.15, p < .002. The direction of the effect indicated that the more a therapist endorsed constructivist epistemology, the less likely that therapist was to use an instructional approach to therapy. This supported the hypothesis that a constructivist epistemology tends toward the direction of flexibility on the Instructional subscale; however, the small effect size of approximately 1% of the variance needs to be considered.