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
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 design, the latest rationalist and you will constructivist subscales was significantly synchronised on the subscales of the PST-Q, all-in the newest predict instructions. With the WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies were not significantly correlated having any of the WAI-S subscales (e.g. Task, Thread, and Mission); although not, this new constructivist epistemology was significantly absolutely synchronised with all https://datingranking.net/it/incontri/ about three subscales of WAI-S plus in brand new predict advice. When looking at particular techniques therapists include in treatment, new rationalist epistemology is actually notably adversely synchronised by using constructivist techniques (r = – .32, P ? .001) and you will rather definitely synchronised by making use of cognitive behavioral procedure (roentgen = 0.43, P ? .001), that was about forecast recommendations. While you are, constructivist epistemologies was notably absolutely synchronised with the use of constructivist processes (roentgen = 0.twenty-two, P ? .001), which was regarding predict guidelines; not, constructivist epistemology was not significantly synchronised with intellectual behavioral procedure. (Find Desk 2 for an entire set of correlations).
So you can measure the strength of study to get in line with the normality presumptions from multiple regressions, the content are exposed to tests out of skewness and kurtosis. Consequence of these analyses mean that new assumptions for multivariate normalcy was fulfilled. On top of that, Bonferroni manipulations were used.
Theory step 1-Counselor Epistemology given that an excellent Predictor out-of Treatment Build
The original hypothesis concerned therapist epistemology due to the fact an excellent predictor out-of medication concept. We hypothesized that practitioners with rational epistemologies would have a reduction layout depicting significantly more tightness into Instructional subscale, better length towards Expressive subscale, a lowered standard of Involvement, an excellent narrower focus on the Attentional subscale, and stay significantly more arranged into Medical subscale compared to therapists which have good constructivist epistemology. Independent regression analyses was presented per of four PST-Q scores calculating therapy design.
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.