New measurement design try looked at using LISREL (8

/ / Uncategorized

New measurement design try looked at using 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.

To own therapist design, the new rationalist and constructivist subscales was indeed notably coordinated to the subscales of PST-Q, all-in the newest forecast rules. Into WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies just weren’t somewhat correlated having the WAI-S subscales (age.g. Activity, Thread, and you may Goal); although not, the fresh new constructivist epistemology was somewhat definitely coordinated with all around three subscales of your WAI-S and in new predict advice. When considering variety of process practitioners use in therapy, the latest rationalist epistemology are somewhat negatively correlated by making use of constructivist techniques (r = – .32, P ? .001) and notably positively correlated with the use of cognitive behavioural process (r = 0.43, P ? .001), which had been throughout the predict guidelines. Whenever you are, constructivist epistemologies have been notably certainly synchronised by using constructivist process (roentgen = 0.twenty-two, P ? .001), which was on forecast guidelines; not, constructivist epistemology wasn’t rather coordinated with cognitive behavioural processes. (Pick Desk dos getting a whole set of correlations).

Regression Analyses

So you can measure the ability of your data to be in line with the normality presumptions off several regressions, the knowledge is exposed to examination off skewness and you will kurtosis. Results of such analyses signify the latest assumptions to possess multivariate normalcy was indeed met. Concurrently, Bonferroni modifications were utilized.

Hypothesis step 1-Therapist Epistemology while the an excellent Predictor of Cures Design

The initial hypothesis alarmed counselor epistemology as the a predictor out-of medication build. We hypothesized one to therapists with intellectual epistemologies would have a therapy style depicting way more firmness into Informative subscale, deeper range towards Expressive subscale, a reduced level of Involvement, good narrower focus on the Attentional subscale, and become a great deal more arranged for the Medical subscale as compared to practitioners which have an effective constructivist epistemology. Independent regression analyses have been conducted for every of the four PST-Q score computing treatment design.

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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *