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 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 brand new rationalist and you can constructivist subscales was indeed rather correlated to your subscales of your own PST-Q, all in the fresh predicted instructions. To the WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies were not significantly coordinated that have any of the WAI-S subscales (elizabeth.g. Task, Thread, and you may Objective); but not, new constructivist epistemology was significantly surely coordinated along with about three subscales of your WAI-S and also in the fresh predicted guidelines. When examining version of procedure practitioners use in treatment, the latest rationalist epistemology try notably adversely synchronised using constructivist techniques (r = – .thirty-two, P ? .001) and you will significantly positively correlated with the use of intellectual behavioural techniques (roentgen = 0.43, P ? .001), that was on the forecast rules. If you find yourself, constructivist epistemologies was rather certainly coordinated by using constructivist procedure (r = 0.twenty two, P ? .001), that has been on the predict direction; not, constructivist epistemology wasn’t somewhat coordinated having intellectual behavioural processes. (Get a hold of Table 2 to possess a whole listing of correlations).
Regression incontri tatuati Analyses
In order to measure the skill of one’s studies to get according to research by the normality presumptions from several regressions, the knowledge are exposed to evaluation off skewness and you will kurtosis. Result of these types of analyses signify the newest presumptions to possess multivariate normalcy was basically satisfied. In addition, Bonferroni changes were utilized.
Theory step 1-Therapist Epistemology because an effective Predictor out of Treatment Build
The original theory worried therapist epistemology since a great predictor out of therapy build. We hypothesized you to definitely practitioners with intellectual epistemologies might have a reduction style portraying so much more rigidity to your Academic subscale, deeper range with the Expressive subscale, a lesser level of Wedding, a great narrower concentrate on the Attentional subscale, and get way more organized to your Operative subscale versus practitioners which have a great constructivist epistemology. Independent regression analyses was basically held each of your own five PST-Q ratings computing procedures 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.