۷) 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 incontrare persone di nicchia 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 = – ۰٫۳۶, 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 = –.۰۹, p < .001.
To have specialist design, new rationalist and you will constructivist subscales had been somewhat correlated with the subscales of PST-Q, all in the newest forecast advice. Towards WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies just weren’t significantly coordinated having the WAI-S subscales (e.grams. Activity, Bond, and you may Purpose); not, the fresh new constructivist epistemology is actually notably positively correlated with all of about three subscales of one’s WAI-S plus in brand new forecast guidance. When looking at style of procedure practitioners use in medication, the brand new rationalist epistemology was significantly negatively correlated using constructivist procedure (r = – .thirty two, P ? .001) and you can rather undoubtedly coordinated through the use of intellectual behavioral techniques (roentgen = 0.43, P ? .001), which had been on the predict instructions. Whenever you are, constructivist epistemologies was basically notably definitely correlated using constructivist processes (roentgen = 0.22, P ? .001), which was regarding forecast assistance; but not, constructivist epistemology was not somewhat coordinated having intellectual behavioural techniques. (Find Dining table 2 to own a complete variety of correlations).
Regression Analyses
So you’re able to gauge the capabilities of your own study as according to research by the normality assumptions away from numerous regressions, the information and knowledge is subjected to screening away from skewness and you will kurtosis. Consequence of this type of analyses mean that new assumptions for multivariate normalcy have been met. Simultaneously, Bonferroni corrections were utilized.
Theory 1-Specialist Epistemology as the a Predictor out-of Therapy Design
The first hypothesis concerned therapist epistemology as the good predictor out of procedures style. I hypothesized one therapists that have intellectual epistemologies will have a cure build depicting far more tightness with the Informative subscale, better point toward Expressive subscale, less level of Engagement, good narrower concentrate on the Attentional subscale, and become more organized to your Operative subscale compared to practitioners with a good constructivist epistemology. Independent regression analyses have been presented for every of your own five PST-Q ratings computing therapy 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.
