This new dimension model try tested utilizing LISREL (8

7) and was evaluated based on multiple goodness of fit indices, sitio de citas de fitness gratis 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 specialist build, the rationalist and you may constructivist subscales was significantly correlated into subscales of PST-Q, all-in the latest predicted advice. To your WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies were not significantly coordinated that have all WAI-S subscales (elizabeth.grams. Task, Thread, and you may Purpose); but not, new constructivist epistemology is actually notably certainly coordinated with around three subscales of the WAI-S plus the new predicted assistance. When looking at style of processes practitioners include in therapy, this new rationalist epistemology is significantly negatively coordinated by using constructivist procedure (r = – .thirty-two, P ? .001) and you will rather positively synchronised through the use of intellectual behavioral process (r = 0.43, P ? .001), which was on predict recommendations. If you are, constructivist epistemologies was significantly absolutely coordinated with the use of constructivist processes (r = 0.22, P ? .001), which was regarding predicted guidance; however, constructivist epistemology wasn’t rather coordinated that have intellectual behavioural procedure. (Discover Dining table 2 to own an entire selection of correlations).

Regression Analyses

So you can assess the capacity of your own analysis to get in line with the normality presumptions of several regressions, the knowledge is actually confronted with tests of skewness and you may kurtosis. Consequence of such analyses signify the brand new assumptions getting multivariate normalcy was in fact met. Likewise, Bonferroni manipulations were utilized.

Theory step 1-Specialist Epistemology since the a good Predictor of Procedures Concept

The first theory worried counselor epistemology as the a predictor off cures concept. We hypothesized that therapists which have mental epistemologies could have a cure style portraying a great deal more firmness for the Academic subscale, greater range into Expressive subscale, less standard of Wedding, a good narrower focus on the Attentional subscale, and stay alot more organized into Operative subscale than the practitioners which have a constructivist epistemology. Separate regression analyses was held each of one’s four PST-Q results measuring procedures layout.

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.