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.
Having counselor build, the newest rationalist and you will constructivist subscales was basically rather synchronised to the subscales of one’s PST-Q, all in new predicted recommendations. Into the WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies were not somewhat coordinated which have any of the WAI-S subscales (elizabeth.g. Task, Bond, and you may Goal); not, new constructivist epistemology try somewhat definitely correlated with around three subscales of the WAI-S plus in the predicted guidelines. When considering types of process practitioners use in cures, this new rationalist epistemology is actually rather negatively synchronised by using constructivist processes (r = – .thirty two, P ? .001) and you will notably certainly correlated with the use of intellectual behavioural techniques (r = 0.43, seniorpeoplemeet coupons P ? .001), which had been in the predict instructions. When you’re, constructivist epistemologies was in fact notably absolutely coordinated by using constructivist techniques (roentgen = 0.twenty two, P ? .001), which was throughout the predicted guidance; although not, constructivist epistemology was not notably coordinated having cognitive behavioural procedure. (Discover Dining table 2 getting an entire set of correlations).
So you can gauge the ability of analysis getting based on the normality assumptions off several regressions, the information and knowledge is confronted with assessment off skewness and you can kurtosis. Consequence of these analyses mean that the latest assumptions to have multivariate normalcy had been met. Concurrently, Bonferroni adjustments were utilized.
Theory step 1-Counselor Epistemology just like the good Predictor regarding Cures Layout
The first hypothesis worried therapist epistemology because good predictor from cures concept. I hypothesized one practitioners having mental epistemologies would have a comfort style portraying significantly more firmness towards the Instructional subscale, deeper point with the Expressive subscale, a lesser amount of Engagement, an effective narrower concentrate on the Attentional subscale, and become more prepared on the Medical subscale as compared to practitioners that have an effective constructivist epistemology. Separate regression analyses had been held for every of your five PST-Q ratings measuring 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.