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 = kostenlos in Ihren 40-er Dating –.09, p < .001.
To own therapist style, the latest rationalist and you will constructivist subscales was in fact significantly synchronised on the subscales of one’s PST-Q, all in the latest predicted instructions. On the WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies just weren’t rather correlated having some of the WAI-S subscales (e.grams. Activity, Bond, and you may Goal); not, the fresh new constructivist epistemology is actually somewhat positively correlated with all of about three subscales of the WAI-S as well as in the newest forecast direction. When looking at type of techniques therapists include in therapy, the fresh new rationalist epistemology is somewhat negatively synchronised by using constructivist procedure (r = – .32, P ? .001) and somewhat positively coordinated by making use of intellectual behavioural procedure (r = 0.43, P ? .001), which was regarding the predict advice. When you find yourself, constructivist epistemologies was indeed significantly surely synchronised with the use of constructivist processes (r = 0.22, P ? .001), that has been from the predict direction; yet not, constructivist epistemology was not significantly correlated having intellectual behavioural procedure. (See Desk dos getting a whole directory of correlations).
Regression Analyses
So you can assess the skill of your analysis to-be in accordance with the normality assumptions out of several regressions, the information and knowledge was confronted with tests out-of skewness and you can kurtosis. Results of these analyses signify the fresh new assumptions getting multivariate normalcy have been fulfilled. Concurrently, Bonferroni manipulations were utilized.
Hypothesis step 1-Specialist Epistemology since good Predictor out of Treatment Layout
The first hypothesis worried counselor epistemology as good predictor out-of cures layout. We hypothesized that practitioners having rational epistemologies might have a therapy concept depicting alot more tightness to your Educational subscale, greater range into Expressive subscale, a lower level of Engagement, good narrower concentrate on the Attentional subscale, and become significantly more structured towards the Surgical subscale as compared to therapists with a good constructivist epistemology. Separate regression analyses was conducted for each of the five PST-Q scores computing cures concept.
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.