The new measurement design is actually tested utilizing 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 specialist style, the newest rationalist and you may constructivist subscales was in fact significantly coordinated for the subscales of one’s PST-Q, all-in brand new forecast instructions. With the WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies were not significantly synchronised having any of the WAI-S subscales (elizabeth.g. Task, Thread, and Mission); however, the latest constructivist epistemology are significantly certainly synchronised along with about three subscales of your WAI-S plus in the newest predicted assistance. When looking at version of techniques practitioners use in treatment, the latest rationalist epistemology was somewhat adversely synchronised through the use of constructivist procedure (r = – .thirty two, P ? .001) and you may notably positively correlated by using intellectual behavioral procedure (r = 0.43, P ? .001), which was in the forecast tips. When you are, constructivist epistemologies were notably certainly correlated using constructivist techniques (r = 0.22, P ? .001), that was in the forecast assistance; but not, constructivist epistemology wasn’t significantly coordinated having intellectual behavioral process. (Pick Desk dos to possess an entire range of correlations).

Regression Analyses

So you can assess the capability of your own study to be according to the normality presumptions out of numerous regressions, the data is subjected to assessment out-of skewness and you may kurtosis. Result of these types of analyses migliori app incontri eterosessuali signify brand new presumptions to own multivariate normalcy was met. While doing so, Bonferroni alterations were used.

Hypothesis step one-Specialist Epistemology due to the fact an effective Predictor of Therapy Layout

The first theory alarmed counselor epistemology since the a great predictor from medication concept. We hypothesized one to therapists which have rational epistemologies will have a comfort layout portraying a great deal more tightness with the Educational subscale, greater distance on Expressive subscale, a lower life expectancy standard of Involvement, a narrower focus on the Attentional subscale, and stay a whole lot more arranged for the Medical subscale as compared to therapists with a great constructivist epistemology. Separate regression analyses were held for each and every of your four PST-Q score calculating cures build.

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.

Date posted: December 17, 2022 | Author: | No Comments »

Categories: incontri-eterosessuali visitors

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *