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 https://datingranking.net/spotted-review/ 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 design, the fresh new rationalist and you can constructivist subscales was in fact somewhat correlated on the subscales of your own PST-Q, all in new predicted information. Into the WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies were not significantly synchronised that have all WAI-S subscales (age.grams. Activity, Thread, and Goal); not, the fresh constructivist epistemology was rather positively correlated with all three subscales of your own WAI-S and also in this new predict guidance. When examining kind of process practitioners use in therapy, this new rationalist epistemology are rather negatively correlated by using constructivist process (roentgen = – .thirty-two, P ? .001) and notably seriously correlated with the use of intellectual behavioural techniques (roentgen = 0.43, P ? .001), which had been about forecast advice. If you’re, constructivist epistemologies was notably seriously coordinated with the use of constructivist techniques (roentgen = 0.22, P ? .001), that was on the predicted direction; not, constructivist epistemology was not rather correlated that have intellectual behavioral process. (Select Dining table 2 getting a whole variety of correlations).
Regression Analyses
In order to assess the capacity of your own data as according to research by the normality presumptions out of multiple regressions, the information was subjected to evaluation from skewness and you can kurtosis. Consequence of this type of analyses indicate that the newest presumptions for multivariate normalcy was found. Likewise, Bonferroni modifications were utilized.
Theory 1-Specialist Epistemology once the a beneficial Predictor away from Cures Design
The original hypothesis worried therapist epistemology given that an excellent predictor out of medication concept. We hypothesized you to practitioners which have mental epistemologies will have a comfort concept depicting alot more firmness into the Educational subscale, higher range towards Expressive subscale, less amount of Wedding, good narrower focus on the Attentional subscale, and be way more prepared on Medical subscale versus practitioners with a beneficial constructivist epistemology. Separate regression analyses was basically presented for each and every of your four PST-Q score calculating procedures design.
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.
