The new dimensions design was tested 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.

Having therapist concept, the new rationalist and you may constructivist subscales was indeed significantly synchronised on subscales of your PST-Q, all in the fresh predicted information. Into WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies weren’t somewhat correlated having all WAI-S subscales (e.g. Task, Thread, and Objective); but not, the constructivist epistemology try notably undoubtedly correlated with all of about three subscales of one’s WAI-S along with the newest predicted assistance. When looking at sorts of techniques therapists include in cures, brand new rationalist epistemology are rather adversely correlated with the use of constructivist process (roentgen = – .thirty-two, P ? .001) and you will rather surely synchronised by using cognitive behavioural process (roentgen = 0.43, P ? .001), which was regarding predict tips. When you find yourself, constructivist epistemologies polyamorydate review was basically somewhat seriously coordinated with the use of constructivist processes (roentgen = 0.22, P ? .001), which was on predicted guidelines; however, constructivist epistemology was not somewhat synchronised that have cognitive behavioural process. (Look for Table dos having an entire listing of correlations).

Regression Analyses

So you can gauge the strength of your analysis become in line with the normality assumptions off numerous regressions, the information is actually subjected to evaluation out-of skewness and you may kurtosis. Result of this type of analyses indicate that the fresh assumptions to have multivariate normalcy had been met. At the same time, Bonferroni modifications were used.

Hypothesis 1-Specialist Epistemology just like the a good Predictor off Therapy Build

The original theory concerned therapist epistemology while the an excellent predictor of treatment style. We hypothesized that practitioners that have intellectual epistemologies would have a therapy layout portraying more firmness to the Academic subscale, deeper distance on the Expressive subscale, a lower level of Involvement, a good narrower concentrate on the Attentional subscale, and start to become a great deal more arranged for the Medical subscale as compared to therapists with good constructivist epistemology. Separate regression analyses was indeed held each of the five PST-Q ratings calculating therapy 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.

Category: Uncategorized