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 specialist concept, the latest rationalist and you will constructivist subscales was notably correlated with the subscales of PST-Q, all in the newest predicted instructions. With the WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies weren’t notably coordinated having any of the WAI-S subscales (age.grams. Activity, Thread, and you may Purpose); but not, the new constructivist epistemology are rather absolutely coordinated with three subscales of your own WAI-S along with the new predict guidelines. When looking at form of processes therapists include in medication, the rationalist epistemology was significantly adversely synchronised through the use of constructivist processes https://datingranking.net/es/citas-sapiosexual/ (roentgen = – .32, P ? .001) and somewhat definitely synchronised using intellectual behavioral procedure (r = 0.43, P ? .001), that was in the predicted information. If you’re, constructivist epistemologies have been somewhat definitely coordinated by using constructivist processes (roentgen = 0.22, P ? .001), that was on the predicted guidelines; not, constructivist epistemology wasn’t rather coordinated that have intellectual behavioural processes. (Select Dining table 2 to possess a complete listing of correlations).

Regression Analyses

So you’re able to gauge the capabilities of your research are according to research by the normality presumptions of several regressions, the info is confronted with assessment regarding skewness and you can kurtosis. Results of this type of analyses signify brand new presumptions to have multivariate normalcy had been found. Concurrently, Bonferroni corrections were used.

Hypothesis 1-Counselor Epistemology due to the fact a Predictor from Treatment Design

The first hypothesis concerned therapist epistemology while the a beneficial predictor out of procedures build. We hypothesized that practitioners that have intellectual epistemologies will have a therapy build portraying significantly more rigidity toward Academic subscale, deeper range into the Expressive subscale, a diminished standard of Wedding, good narrower focus on the Attentional subscale, and start to become so much more prepared into Medical subscale as compared to therapists having an excellent constructivist epistemology. Independent regression analyses was basically used for every of your five PST-Q ratings measuring 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.