7) and was evaluated based on multiple goodness of fit indices, with the maximum likelihood as the https://datingranking.net/senior-match-review/ 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 own counselor concept, the newest rationalist and you can constructivist subscales was indeed somewhat coordinated with the subscales of your PST-Q, all in the fresh new forecast rules. For the WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies were not rather coordinated that have all WAI-S subscales (elizabeth.g. Task, Thread, and you can Purpose); although not, the brand new constructivist epistemology is rather certainly correlated with three subscales of your own WAI-S and also in the forecast advice. When considering version of process therapists include in treatment, the newest rationalist epistemology are rather adversely coordinated by making use of constructivist process (r = – .32, P ? .001) and you will rather definitely correlated through the use of cognitive behavioural processes (roentgen = 0.43, P ? .001), which was about predict guidelines. When you’re, constructivist epistemologies was in fact rather absolutely synchronised by making use of constructivist process (r = 0.twenty two, P ? .001), that has been from the forecast guidelines; but not, constructivist epistemology wasn’t rather correlated with cognitive behavioural processes. (Pick Desk 2 getting a complete set of correlations).
Regression Analyses
So you can gauge the capability of one’s study become according to the normality assumptions of several regressions, the details is actually subjected to evaluation away from skewness and you can kurtosis. Results of these types of analyses indicate that the fresh assumptions to own multivariate normalcy was basically met. While doing so, Bonferroni corrections were utilized.
Hypothesis 1-Specialist Epistemology due to the fact an effective Predictor of Therapy Design
The original hypothesis worried counselor epistemology due to the fact good predictor regarding medication concept. I hypothesized you to definitely practitioners having rational epistemologies might have a cure design depicting a great deal more rigidity with the Educational subscale, greater range toward Expressive subscale, a lowered level of Involvement, a good narrower concentrate on the Attentional subscale, and start to become significantly more planned towards the Surgical subscale than the therapists having a great constructivist epistemology. Separate regression analyses were held for every single of your five PST-Q results computing medication style.
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.