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 https://datingranking.net/local-hookup/lancaster/ 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 possess specialist style, the fresh rationalist and you will constructivist subscales was basically somewhat correlated towards the subscales of your PST-Q, all in the predict guidelines. On the WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies were not significantly synchronised which have all WAI-S subscales (age.g. Activity, Thread, and you may Mission); but not, the fresh new constructivist epistemology try rather positively correlated with all three subscales of WAI-S along with brand new predict recommendations. When examining particular techniques practitioners include in procedures, the rationalist epistemology is significantly adversely coordinated by making use of constructivist process (roentgen = – .thirty-two, P ? .001) and you will somewhat absolutely correlated by making use of cognitive behavioural techniques (r = 0.43, P ? .001), that has been from the predict directions. If you’re, constructivist epistemologies had been notably absolutely coordinated by making use of constructivist processes (r = 0.twenty two, P ? .001), which had been on predicted recommendations; but not, constructivist epistemology wasn’t significantly coordinated with intellectual behavioral process. (Discover Dining table 2 to have a complete range of correlations).
Regression Analyses
So you can gauge the capability of your own research getting based on the normality assumptions out-of numerous regressions, the details try subjected to evaluating off skewness and you will kurtosis. Result of this type of analyses mean that the new presumptions to possess multivariate normalcy was in fact met. Concurrently, Bonferroni alterations were used.
Hypothesis 1-Therapist Epistemology as a Predictor of Treatment Concept
The initial theory concerned specialist epistemology since the a predictor out-of treatment design. I hypothesized you to therapists which have rational epistemologies will have a cure design portraying alot more firmness with the Educational subscale, greater point with the Expressive subscale, less standard of Involvement, an effective narrower focus on the Attentional subscale, and become so much more arranged towards the Operative subscale compared to therapists which have an effective constructivist epistemology. Separate regression analyses had been used for every single of your own five PST-Q scores computing cures 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.
