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 < .001.
To own specialist style, the rationalist and you can constructivist subscales was basically notably coordinated for the subscales of the PST-Q, all in the newest forecast information. With the WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies just weren’t notably coordinated with some of the WAI-S subscales (age.g. Activity, Bond, and you can Objective); although not, the fresh new constructivist epistemology was notably absolutely correlated along with around three subscales of your own WAI-S plus the latest predict assistance. When considering style of techniques practitioners use in therapy, new rationalist epistemology was notably negatively coordinated by making use of constructivist processes (roentgen = – .thirty two, P ? .001) and you will notably surely synchronised by making use of intellectual behavioral process (r = 0.43, P ? .001), that has been about predict rules. When you find yourself, constructivist epistemologies were somewhat surely coordinated by making use of constructivist processes (r = 0.twenty-two, P ? .001), that was from the predict advice; yet not, constructivist epistemology was not rather synchronised having intellectual behavioural techniques. (Come across Table 2 to have a complete range of correlations).
To help you measure the capacity of studies is according to the normality assumptions of numerous regressions, the content is actually exposed to evaluating out-of skewness and kurtosis. Result of such analyses indicate that the swipe new assumptions having multivariate normalcy was indeed came across. On the other hand, Bonferroni changes were utilized.
Theory step 1-Therapist Epistemology because an excellent Predictor of Cures Style
The first hypothesis worried specialist epistemology once the an excellent predictor away from treatment style. We hypothesized one therapists that have rational epistemologies might have a therapy build depicting alot more rigidity on Informative subscale, better length towards Expressive subscale, a lower life expectancy level of Wedding, a narrower concentrate on the Attentional subscale, and stay significantly more arranged into the Surgical subscale as compared to practitioners with an effective constructivist epistemology. Separate regression analyses was indeed presented per of four PST-Q results calculating 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.