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 https://datingranking.net/it/incontri-country-it/ 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 have specialist style, the newest rationalist and you can constructivist subscales was indeed significantly coordinated on the subscales of one’s PST-Q, all-in the new predicted instructions. Into the WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies were not rather correlated having some of the WAI-S subscales (e.g. Activity, Thread, and you may Purpose); although not, brand new constructivist epistemology are notably positively synchronised with all of around three subscales of your own WAI-S and also in the newest predict advice. When considering variety of procedure therapists include in therapy, brand new rationalist epistemology was somewhat adversely synchronised using constructivist processes (roentgen = – .32, P ? .001) and significantly definitely correlated by making use of cognitive behavioural processes (roentgen = 0.43, P ? .001), that has been regarding forecast recommendations. If you are, constructivist epistemologies have been notably certainly coordinated through the use of constructivist processes (r = 0.22, P ? .001), that has been in the predicted recommendations; but not, constructivist epistemology wasn’t somewhat coordinated with intellectual behavioural procedure. (Get a hold of Dining table 2 for a complete directory of correlations).
Regression Analyses
To assess the capabilities of your own analysis becoming according to research by the normality presumptions off multiple regressions, the data was confronted with evaluation away from skewness and you can kurtosis. Result of this type of analyses indicate that brand new assumptions to own multivariate normalcy was in fact satisfied. Simultaneously, Bonferroni variations were used.
Theory step one-Specialist Epistemology as the a beneficial Predictor from Medication Build
The first theory alarmed specialist epistemology given that an effective predictor away from medication concept. We hypothesized one practitioners with mental epistemologies could have a cure build depicting significantly more tightness with the Instructional subscale, higher point on Expressive subscale, a lowered standard of Engagement, a good narrower focus on the Attentional subscale, and become a whole lot more arranged to your Operative subscale compared to therapists which have a great constructivist epistemology. Independent regression analyses was indeed held for every single of the five PST-Q results computing cures 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.