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 have counselor build, the brand new rationalist and constructivist subscales have been significantly coordinated with the subscales of one’s PST-Q, all in the forecast tips. On the WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies weren’t significantly synchronised with any of the WAI-S subscales (age.g. Task, Thread, and you can Objective); not, new constructivist epistemology are somewhat undoubtedly synchronised with about three subscales of your own WAI-S as well as in the fresh new predicted guidance. When examining types of procedure practitioners use in procedures, the fresh new rationalist epistemology is actually notably negatively synchronised through the use of constructivist processes (roentgen = – .thirty two, P ? .001) and notably seriously correlated using cognitive behavioural process (r = 0.43, P ? .001), that was on the forecast rules. When you are, constructivist epistemologies was in fact significantly absolutely coordinated with the use of constructivist process (roentgen = 0.twenty-two, P ? .001), that has been in the predict recommendations; although not, constructivist epistemology wasn’t rather coordinated that have cognitive behavioural process. (Find Dining table dos having a complete range of correlations).
So you’re able to assess the ability of one’s study is according to research by the normality assumptions out-of several regressions, the information and knowledge is subjected to tests off skewness and you may kurtosis. Result of this type of analyses imply that the fresh assumptions to possess multivariate normalcy was in fact fulfilled. While doing so, Bonferroni variations were used.
Hypothesis 1-Counselor Epistemology since a beneficial Predictor from Procedures Style
The original hypothesis worried counselor epistemology just like the an effective predictor out of therapy concept. I hypothesized that practitioners that have rational epistemologies could have a therapy layout depicting way more rigidity into the Academic subscale, better range toward Expressive subscale, less amount of Engagement, a beneficial narrower concentrate on https://datingranking.net/swingstown-review/ the Attentional subscale, and start to become alot more prepared on the Operative subscale than the therapists that have a constructivist epistemology. Separate regression analyses had been held each of your five PST-Q results measuring treatment 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.