The fresh new dimensions design is actually checked utilizing 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.

Getting therapist design, the newest rationalist and you may constructivist subscales was indeed somewhat synchronised towards subscales of your PST-Q, all in the latest predicted advice. Into WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies were not significantly synchronised which have any of the WAI-S subscales (age.grams. Task, Bond, and you will Goal); although not, the fresh constructivist epistemology is notably positively coordinated with three subscales of your own WAI-S plus brand new forecast guidance. When examining variety of processes practitioners include in therapy, new rationalist epistemology is actually notably adversely coordinated by making use of constructivist procedure (roentgen = – .thirty two, P ? .001) and you will somewhat surely synchronised using cognitive behavioural techniques (r = 0.43, P ? .001), which had been from the predicted instructions. If you are, constructivist epistemologies had been rather undoubtedly synchronised by making use of constructivist processes (roentgen = 0.22, P ? .001), which was regarding the predict recommendations; although not, constructivist epistemology was not rather coordinated having intellectual behavioral process. (See Desk 2 to possess an entire a number of correlations).

Regression Analyses

So you’re able to assess the skill of your own studies becoming in line with the normality assumptions of several regressions, the details is confronted with examination from skewness and you will kurtosis. Result of such analyses mean that the new presumptions to have multivariate normalcy were met. Simultaneously, Bonferroni variations were utilized.

Hypothesis 1-Specialist Epistemology due to the fact a good Predictor out of Procedures Concept

sitio de citas real heterosexual solteros

The original hypothesis worried counselor epistemology while the an excellent predictor out of treatment concept. I hypothesized one practitioners that have intellectual epistemologies will have a comfort build depicting even more tightness toward Informative subscale, higher point on Expressive subscale, a reduced amount of Involvement, a good narrower concentrate on the Attentional subscale, and get so much more organized on the Surgical subscale than the practitioners which have an effective constructivist epistemology. Separate regression analyses was in fact conducted for every of your own five PST-Q scores calculating treatment build.

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.