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, how does sugar faddy for me work 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.
Getting counselor build, the brand new rationalist and you will constructivist subscales have been rather correlated towards subscales of one’s PST-Q, all-in this new predict recommendations. On the WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies were not notably correlated having all WAI-S subscales (age.g. Activity, Thread, and you may Purpose); although not, the fresh new constructivist epistemology are significantly seriously correlated along with about three subscales of one’s WAI-S and also in the newest forecast recommendations. When looking at type of process therapists include in therapy, the rationalist epistemology was rather adversely synchronised with the use of constructivist procedure (r = – .thirty-two, P ? .001) and notably surely synchronised with the use of intellectual behavioral processes (r = 0.43, P ? .001), that has been from the forecast information. When you’re, constructivist epistemologies was in fact notably undoubtedly coordinated through the use of constructivist techniques (roentgen = 0.22, P ? .001), which had been in the predicted recommendations; not, constructivist epistemology was not notably coordinated which have intellectual behavioral techniques. (Discover Dining table dos having an entire listing of correlations).
So you’re able to measure the capability of your own studies as according to research by the normality presumptions of multiple regressions, the data is exposed to assessment from skewness and you will kurtosis. Outcome of these analyses signify the presumptions for multivariate normalcy was found. As well, Bonferroni variations were utilized.
The first theory concerned specialist epistemology as a beneficial predictor of therapy style. We hypothesized you to definitely practitioners with rational epistemologies will have a relief build depicting alot more rigidity towards Academic subscale, higher length to the Expressive subscale, a reduced degree of Involvement, a narrower concentrate on the Attentional subscale, and stay even more organized on Operative subscale versus practitioners having a beneficial constructivist epistemology. Separate regression analyses were conducted for each of five PST-Q scores computing procedures style.
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.