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
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 sito incontri sobrio 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.
For counselor layout, the fresh rationalist and constructivist subscales have been significantly correlated towards subscales of one’s PST-Q, all in the latest forecast rules. To the WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies just weren’t rather synchronised that have the WAI-S subscales (age.g. Task, Bond, and you can Goal); however, brand new constructivist epistemology is significantly positively coordinated along with about three subscales of your WAI-S as well as in the fresh predict assistance. When considering form of processes practitioners use in therapy, this new rationalist epistemology was notably negatively synchronised by using constructivist process (r = – .thirty-two, P ? .001) and you can significantly definitely correlated by using cognitive behavioural processes (roentgen = 0.43, P ? .001), that has been on predicted guidelines. When you are, constructivist epistemologies have been notably undoubtedly correlated by using constructivist procedure (r = 0.22, P ? .001), that has been on the predict assistance; however, constructivist epistemology wasn’t notably correlated which have intellectual behavioural techniques. (Select Table dos to own an entire a number of correlations).
So you’re able to measure the capacity of your research becoming in line with the normality presumptions out of several regressions, the information are confronted with evaluation regarding skewness and you will kurtosis. Consequence of such analyses signify new presumptions having multivariate normalcy were came across. Concurrently, Bonferroni adjustments were used.
Hypothesis step 1-Specialist Epistemology because a beneficial Predictor away from Therapy Layout
The first theory worried counselor epistemology as the a beneficial predictor out-of treatment style. We hypothesized that practitioners having mental epistemologies could have a therapy style portraying a whole lot more tightness for the Educational subscale, better range to the Expressive subscale, less level of Wedding, good narrower focus on the Attentional subscale, and be a lot more structured towards Medical subscale versus practitioners that have a constructivist epistemology. Separate regression analyses was in fact presented each of your five PST-Q ratings measuring medication layout.
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.