The fresh dimension model try checked utilizing LISREL (8يوسف الذيب
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 once hookup 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 counselor build, the rationalist and constructivist subscales was indeed notably correlated to your subscales of PST-Q, all in the brand new predicted guidelines. With the WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies weren’t notably synchronised which have some of the WAI-S subscales (e.grams. Activity, Bond, and you may Purpose); although not, the brand new constructivist epistemology are somewhat seriously correlated along with three subscales of your WAI-S plus in the fresh new forecast guidelines. When looking at particular techniques therapists use in therapy, the fresh new rationalist epistemology was rather adversely coordinated with the use of constructivist techniques (r = – .32, P ? .001) and significantly absolutely correlated through the use of cognitive behavioural procedure (r = 0.43, P ? .001), which was on the forecast tips. When you are, constructivist epistemologies was indeed notably positively synchronised with the use of constructivist procedure (roentgen = 0.22, P ? .001), that was from the predict direction; but not, constructivist epistemology was not rather correlated with cognitive behavioural process. (Find Table dos to own a whole selection of correlations).
To help you measure the capacity of data to be according to the normality presumptions of multiple regressions, the data is exposed to evaluation regarding skewness and you can kurtosis. Consequence of such analyses imply that brand new presumptions having multivariate normalcy were satisfied. In addition, Bonferroni variations were utilized.
Hypothesis 1-Counselor Epistemology because a great Predictor away from Procedures Concept
The initial hypothesis worried specialist epistemology since a good predictor away from therapy design. I hypothesized one to therapists having intellectual epistemologies would have a therapy design depicting much more firmness toward Educational subscale, deeper point to the Expressive subscale, a lesser standard of Wedding, an effective narrower concentrate on the Attentional subscale, and be alot more structured for the Surgical subscale versus practitioners with a beneficial constructivist epistemology. Separate regression analyses have been used for each of your four PST-Q ratings computing treatment concept.
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.