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 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 FKK-Bewertung < .001.
Having counselor design, the brand new rationalist and constructivist subscales had been rather correlated toward subscales of the PST-Q, all in this new predicted directions. For the WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies just weren’t notably coordinated having any of the WAI-S subscales (elizabeth.g. Task, Bond, and you may Goal); but not, the fresh constructivist epistemology try rather surely correlated along with three subscales of your WAI-S plus this new predict assistance. When looking at version of process therapists include in cures, the newest rationalist epistemology try somewhat negatively correlated by making use of constructivist processes (roentgen = – .thirty two, P ? .001) and you may notably certainly synchronised by making use of cognitive behavioural processes (roentgen = 0.43, P ? .001), that was about predict information. When you are, constructivist epistemologies was in fact significantly definitely coordinated by making use of constructivist techniques (r = 0.twenty-two, P ? .001), which had been regarding predict direction; although not, constructivist epistemology was not significantly correlated with intellectual behavioural techniques. (Discover Desk dos getting a complete list of correlations).
To gauge the potential of your own research become based on the normality assumptions of several regressions, the knowledge are exposed to examination out-of skewness and you can kurtosis. Outcome of these types of analyses mean that the fresh assumptions to have multivariate normalcy was indeed came across. At exactly the same time, Bonferroni modifications were used.
The initial theory concerned specialist epistemology once the a beneficial predictor out-of therapy style. I hypothesized that therapists with rational epistemologies would have a cure layout portraying way more tightness on the Instructional subscale, deeper range into Expressive subscale, a lower level of Involvement, a great narrower focus on the Attentional subscale, and become even more prepared towards the Operative subscale compared to practitioners that have a good constructivist epistemology. Independent regression analyses were conducted per of the five PST-Q results computing procedures 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.