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 Birmingham hookup profiles 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.
Getting counselor design, the new rationalist and you can constructivist subscales was basically rather correlated into subscales of one’s PST-Q, all-in the latest predicted advice. On WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies weren’t rather correlated with any of the WAI-S subscales (elizabeth.grams. Task, Thread, and you will Objective); but not, the fresh new constructivist epistemology try significantly certainly coordinated with all three subscales of one’s WAI-S along with the brand new forecast assistance. When considering type of techniques therapists use in medication, the latest rationalist epistemology are notably negatively synchronised by using constructivist processes (r = – .32, P ? .001) and you will significantly definitely synchronised with the use of intellectual behavioral process (r = 0.43, P ? .001), that has been on the predict tips. When you’re, constructivist epistemologies have been rather definitely coordinated with the use of constructivist techniques (r = 0.22, P ? .001), that has been throughout the predicted guidelines; however, constructivist epistemology wasn’t significantly correlated with cognitive behavioural techniques. (Come across Desk 2 to possess an entire variety of correlations).
Regression Analyses
To help you measure the capacity of the data to get according to the normality assumptions from multiple regressions, the knowledge is actually subjected to assessment of skewness and you may kurtosis. Consequence of such analyses signify this new assumptions getting multivariate normalcy had been satisfied. At the same time, Bonferroni variations were utilized.
Theory 1-Therapist Epistemology just like the good Predictor of Cures Style
The original hypothesis concerned counselor epistemology because the an effective predictor away from treatment concept. I hypothesized one to practitioners which have intellectual epistemologies could have a relief style portraying so much more rigidity with the Educational subscale, deeper length to the Expressive subscale, a lower level of Involvement, a great narrower focus on the Attentional subscale, and start to become a whole lot more prepared into the Operative subscale than the therapists which have a constructivist epistemology. Separate regression analyses was basically conducted for each of your four PST-Q scores calculating cures 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.
