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.
Having specialist concept, the fresh rationalist and you can constructivist subscales have been rather correlated on subscales of your own PST-Q, all-in the latest predicted recommendations. To the WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies just weren’t rather coordinated having some of the WAI-S subscales (elizabeth.grams. Task, Thread, and Mission); not, the fresh constructivist epistemology try notably seriously coordinated with all three subscales of your own WAI-S plus this new predict guidelines. When considering style of process therapists include in therapy, the fresh rationalist epistemology was notably adversely correlated by making use of constructivist process (r = – .thirty-two, P ? .001) and you can notably definitely correlated with the use of cognitive behavioural process (r = 0.43, P ? .001), which was throughout the predict instructions. If you are, constructivist epistemologies have been notably definitely synchronised by using constructivist processes (r = 0.twenty two, P ? .001), that has been from the forecast advice; but not, constructivist epistemology wasn’t notably correlated having intellectual behavioral procedure. (Get a hold of Dining table dos getting a whole selection of correlations).
Regression Analyses
So you can assess the ability of one’s study are according to the normality presumptions out of multiple regressions, the content is confronted with examination off skewness and kurtosis. Result of this type of analyses signify the presumptions to own multivariate normalcy have been satisfied. Simultaneously, Bonferroni manipulations were used.
Theory step one-Specialist Epistemology because a great Predictor https://datingranking.net/es/citas-en-el-pais/ away from Medication Build
The initial hypothesis concerned counselor epistemology since the a predictor away from treatment layout. We hypothesized that therapists having mental epistemologies could have a cure layout depicting even more firmness with the Instructional subscale, higher distance towards Expressive subscale, a lesser level of Engagement, a narrower concentrate on the Attentional subscale, and stay a whole lot more arranged with the Surgical subscale versus practitioners having an excellent constructivist epistemology. Independent regression analyses was basically presented for each of the five PST-Q results calculating therapy 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.
