The new measurement design try looked at utilizing LISREL (8

The new measurement design try looked at 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.

To have counselor layout, the new rationalist and you can constructivist subscales were somewhat coordinated with the subscales of the PST-Q, all-in the new predict guidelines sitio web de citas ecuestres. With the WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies weren’t rather correlated with all WAI-S subscales (age.g. Task, Thread, and you may Objective); but not, the newest constructivist epistemology is actually significantly definitely coordinated with all about three subscales of your WAI-S and in the new predict guidelines. When examining style of techniques practitioners include in treatment, the rationalist epistemology are notably negatively correlated with the use of constructivist processes (roentgen = – .thirty-two, P ? .001) and you may significantly undoubtedly coordinated by using intellectual behavioral processes (roentgen = 0.43, P ? .001), that has been regarding the predicted information. While you are, constructivist epistemologies was indeed notably certainly correlated through the use of constructivist procedure (r = 0.twenty two, P ? .001), that has been in the predict recommendations; however, constructivist epistemology was not somewhat synchronised which have cognitive behavioral procedure. (Pick Table 2 getting a whole list of correlations).

Regression Analyses

To assess the capabilities of your data getting according to research by the normality assumptions off several regressions, the knowledge are confronted with tests away from skewness and you will kurtosis. Consequence of such analyses indicate that the latest assumptions to possess multivariate normalcy was in fact met. Concurrently, Bonferroni modifications were used.

Theory 1-Counselor Epistemology just like the a great Predictor regarding Treatment Concept

The first hypothesis worried therapist epistemology once the an effective predictor away from cures style. I hypothesized that therapists having intellectual epistemologies would have a therapy layout depicting way more firmness on Instructional subscale, better range with the Expressive subscale, a lower life expectancy amount of Involvement, a good narrower concentrate on the Attentional subscale, and become significantly more planned towards Operative subscale than the practitioners having an effective constructivist epistemology. Separate regression analyses was in fact presented for each and every of your five PST-Q scores calculating medication 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.

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

¿Necesitas ayuda? Comunicate con nosotros