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 rationalist and you may constructivist subscales was indeed rather synchronised for the subscales of your own PST-Q, all in new predicted rules. To your WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies weren’t rather correlated which have some of the WAI-S subscales (age.grams. Task, Thread, and you may Goal); not, the fresh new constructivist epistemology was rather certainly coordinated with about three subscales of one’s WAI-S and also in new predicted recommendations. When considering particular processes therapists include in therapy, the new rationalist epistemology are significantly negatively correlated by using constructivist techniques (roentgen = – .thirty two, P ? .001) and you may notably certainly coordinated through the use of cognitive behavioural process (roentgen = 0.43, P ? .001), which had been regarding the predicted tips. While, constructivist epistemologies was notably best free hookup sites Baltimore surely synchronised through the use of constructivist techniques (roentgen = 0.twenty two, P ? .001), that was in the forecast recommendations; not, constructivist epistemology wasn’t somewhat correlated having intellectual behavioural process. (Pick Desk 2 to possess a complete variety of correlations).
Regression Analyses
So you’re able to assess the capacity of the data become in accordance with the normality assumptions of numerous regressions, the knowledge are subjected to evaluation from skewness and you may kurtosis. Result of this type of analyses mean that the fresh new assumptions having multivariate normalcy was indeed came across. Likewise, Bonferroni variations were used.
Hypothesis 1-Counselor Epistemology just like the a good Predictor off Medication Build
The original theory alarmed therapist epistemology as a good predictor regarding procedures style. I hypothesized you to therapists with intellectual epistemologies would have a comfort build depicting even more rigidity to the Instructional subscale, better point on the Expressive subscale, a lesser degree of Engagement, an effective narrower concentrate on the Attentional subscale, and stay far more planned for the Medical subscale as compared to therapists with an excellent constructivist epistemology. Independent regression analyses was held for each and every of the four PST-Q ratings calculating treatment 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.
