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.

For therapist concept, this new rationalist and you will constructivist subscales was in fact somewhat correlated into subscales of the PST-Q, all-in the predict information. For the WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies just weren’t somewhat correlated having the WAI-S subscales sito incontri persone interrazziali (e.grams. Task, Thread, and you will Goal); although not, the fresh new constructivist epistemology is somewhat positively coordinated with all of three subscales of the WAI-S as well as in the forecast guidance. When looking at style of procedure practitioners include in cures, the newest rationalist epistemology was significantly negatively synchronised with the use of constructivist techniques (roentgen = – .thirty two, P ? .001) and you can somewhat absolutely synchronised through the use of intellectual behavioral techniques (roentgen = 0.43, P ? .001), that has been throughout the predicted information. While, constructivist epistemologies was significantly definitely coordinated by making use of constructivist techniques (roentgen = 0.22, P ? .001), that was from the forecast direction; however, constructivist epistemology wasn’t somewhat synchronised which have cognitive behavioral processes. (Look for Desk 2 to possess a complete directory of correlations).

Regression Analyses

So you’re able to gauge the capabilities of analysis as based on the normality assumptions off multiple regressions, the details is actually confronted with examination out of skewness and you can kurtosis. Outcome of these analyses mean that brand new presumptions to have multivariate normalcy was fulfilled. Concurrently, Bonferroni variations were used.

Hypothesis 1-Therapist Epistemology since the good Predictor away from Therapy Build

The original hypothesis worried counselor epistemology because the a beneficial predictor away from procedures concept. We hypothesized you to therapists that have mental epistemologies could have a comfort style depicting significantly more rigidity toward Academic subscale, higher point toward Expressive subscale, a diminished amount of Wedding, a narrower focus on the Attentional subscale, and start to become much more prepared into the Surgical subscale than the therapists with a good constructivist epistemology. Independent regression analyses was basically used for each and every of the five PST-Q results calculating therapy 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.