The new aspect design try checked utilizing LISREL (8
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 possess counselor build, the fresh russian brides tips new rationalist and you will constructivist subscales have been somewhat coordinated to the subscales of the PST-Q, all-in this new predicted instructions. On the WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies were not somewhat coordinated that have any of the WAI-S subscales (elizabeth.grams. Task, Bond, and you will Purpose); however, the fresh constructivist epistemology is rather absolutely correlated with all of around three subscales of your WAI-S and in this new forecast advice. When considering kind of process therapists include in procedures, brand new rationalist epistemology is actually rather negatively synchronised by using constructivist techniques (r = – .thirty two, P ? .001) and you may notably definitely correlated through the use of intellectual behavioural techniques (roentgen = 0.43, P ? .001), that has been throughout the forecast advice. If you are, constructivist epistemologies were somewhat positively correlated with the use of constructivist procedure (roentgen = 0.twenty-two, P ? .001), that has been regarding forecast assistance; however, constructivist epistemology wasn’t rather synchronised that have intellectual behavioral techniques. (Select Desk dos having a whole list of correlations).
Regression Analyses
So you’re able to assess the capability of your own study become according to the normality assumptions away from multiple regressions, the details try exposed to evaluation from skewness and you can kurtosis. Result of these types of analyses indicate that the latest presumptions to own multivariate normalcy was fulfilled. While doing so, Bonferroni manipulations were utilized.
Hypothesis step 1-Specialist Epistemology as the a good Predictor regarding Medication Layout
The initial hypothesis alarmed therapist epistemology as a predictor off cures style. We hypothesized one practitioners with rational epistemologies will have a cure layout depicting way more tightness on the Educational subscale, deeper length towards Expressive subscale, a diminished standard of Wedding, an effective narrower concentrate on the Attentional subscale, and get a whole lot more prepared into the Medical subscale than the therapists which have a good constructivist epistemology. Independent regression analyses was presented for each of the four PST-Q results measuring procedures 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.