New dimension design is actually checked out making use of 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 own counselor concept, new rationalist and you may constructivist subscales were significantly coordinated into the subscales of your PST-Q, all-in the fresh predict tips. To your WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies just weren’t notably synchronised which have all WAI-S subscales (e.g. Activity, Bond, and you can Objective); not, the fresh new constructivist epistemology try significantly undoubtedly coordinated with all around three subscales of your own WAI-S along with the new forecast recommendations. When looking at sorts of techniques therapists use in cures, brand new rationalist epistemology is significantly adversely correlated with the use of constructivist techniques (r = – .thirty two, P sitios de citas sobrios gratis ? .001) and you may rather absolutely synchronised by making use of cognitive behavioral procedure (roentgen = 0.43, P ? .001), that was throughout the predict instructions. If you are, constructivist epistemologies was basically notably positively synchronised by making use of constructivist processes (roentgen = 0.twenty-two, P ? .001), that has been from the predicted guidance; although not, constructivist epistemology wasn’t notably synchronised with intellectual behavioral processes. (Look for Table 2 to own an entire variety of correlations).
Regression Analyses
So you can assess the strength of your research become in line with the normality assumptions away from numerous regressions, the information was confronted with testing from skewness and you can kurtosis. Results of these analyses signify the latest assumptions to have multivariate normalcy was basically met. At exactly the same time, Bonferroni changes were used.
Hypothesis step one-Specialist Epistemology given that a great Predictor from Treatment Concept
The initial theory worried therapist epistemology while the a predictor from procedures build. We hypothesized one practitioners that have rational epistemologies could have a cure build portraying alot more rigidity towards the Instructional subscale, deeper distance on Expressive subscale, less level of Wedding, a beneficial narrower focus on the Attentional subscale, and start to become a whole lot more planned for the Medical subscale compared to the therapists that have a constructivist epistemology. Independent regression analyses was indeed used each of the five PST-Q score measuring cures 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.