New dimension design is examined using LISREL (8

New dimension design is examined 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 possess counselor style, the rationalist and constructivist subscales had been somewhat coordinated toward subscales of your PST-Q, all-in brand new predict rules. For the WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies just weren’t rather coordinated having some of the WAI-S subscales (elizabeth.grams. Task, Bond, and you may Objective); but not, the new constructivist epistemology is actually rather surely coordinated with all of three subscales of your WAI-S along with the new forecast guidelines. When looking at brand of procedure practitioners include in therapy, brand new rationalist epistemology is significantly negatively correlated with the use of constructivist processes (r = – .thirty-two, P ? .001) and notably positively synchronised through the use of intellectual behavioural process (roentgen = 0.43, P ? .001), that was regarding predict guidelines. When you find yourself, constructivist epistemologies have been notably positively synchronised by using constructivist techniques (roentgen = 0.twenty two, P ? .001), which was on predicted recommendations; although not, constructivist epistemology wasn’t notably coordinated with intellectual behavioral process. (Find Desk 2 to own a complete listing of correlations).

Regression Analyses

To gauge the capacity of your analysis is according to research by the normality presumptions away from numerous regressions, the data is subjected to screening out of skewness and you may kurtosis. Results of such analyses signify the fresh new assumptions having multivariate normalcy was came across. Additionally, Bonferroni manipulations were used.

Hypothesis step one-Therapist Epistemology just like the a good Predictor off Treatment Layout

The first hypothesis concerned therapist epistemology because the a beneficial predictor off procedures concept. I hypothesized one to therapists having mental epistemologies could have a cure build portraying even more firmness towards Informative subscale, better length toward Expressive subscale, less standard of Wedding, a great narrower concentrate on the Attentional subscale, and be way more structured towards the Surgical subscale compared to the practitioners having good constructivist epistemology. Separate regression analyses was basically held for each and every of your own five PST-Q results 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.