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.
To own therapist build, the latest rationalist and you may constructivist subscales were rather correlated to the subscales of the PST-Q, all in the new predicted instructions. Towards WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies just weren’t somewhat coordinated with the WAI-S subscales (age.g. Task, Thread, and you can Goal); yet not, the latest constructivist epistemology was notably absolutely coordinated with around three subscales of your own WAI-S and also in the latest predicted assistance. When looking at style of procedure practitioners include in treatment, the latest rationalist epistemology is actually somewhat negatively correlated with the use of constructivist techniques (roentgen = – .32, P ? .001) and you may notably absolutely coordinated with the use of intellectual behavioural processes (roentgen = 0.43, P ? .001), that has been throughout the forecast directions. If you are, constructivist epistemologies was basically notably certainly coordinated by making use of constructivist procedure https://datingranking.net/local-hookup/belfast/ (roentgen = 0.twenty-two, P ? .001), which was from the forecast assistance; yet not, constructivist epistemology wasn’t rather coordinated that have cognitive behavioural processes. (Select Table dos for a whole variety of correlations).
Regression Analyses
To help you assess the capacity of the study to-be according to research by the normality assumptions away from several regressions, the knowledge is confronted with screening of skewness and you will kurtosis. Results of these analyses mean that the new presumptions to possess multivariate normalcy have been found. As well, Bonferroni variations were utilized.
Theory step 1-Specialist Epistemology due to the fact a beneficial Predictor out-of Treatment Build
The original hypothesis worried counselor epistemology while the a predictor from cures concept. We hypothesized that therapists that have rational epistemologies could have a comfort build depicting more firmness on the Educational subscale, better distance into Expressive subscale, a lesser level of Wedding, an effective narrower concentrate on the Attentional subscale, and stay a lot more planned with the Surgical subscale compared to therapists which have an effective constructivist epistemology. Separate regression analyses was used per of one’s five PST-Q ratings 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.