The latest dimensions model 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.

For counselor build, the rationalist and you may constructivist subscales were significantly coordinated toward subscales of your own PST-Q, all in the predict instructions. Into WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies were not somewhat synchronised which have some of the WAI-S subscales (elizabeth.g. Activity, Thread, and you may Purpose); although not, the new constructivist epistemology is actually significantly undoubtedly coordinated with all of about three subscales of WAI-S and also in the new predicted recommendations. When examining brand of process therapists include in cures, the newest rationalist epistemology try significantly adversely coordinated by using constructivist techniques (r = – .thirty two, P ? .001) and you may somewhat surely correlated by using intellectual behavioral processes (roentgen = 0.43, P ? .001), which had been from the forecast guidelines. While, constructivist epistemologies have been significantly surely coordinated by making use of constructivist processes (roentgen = 0.twenty-two, P ? .001), which had been in the forecast direction; yet not, constructivist epistemology wasn’t somewhat coordinated with intellectual behavioral techniques. (Come across Dining table dos for a complete a number of correlations).

Regression Analyses

To measure the capability of one’s studies to get based on the normality presumptions of numerous regressions, the details is confronted with screening of skewness and you will kurtosis. Result of these analyses signify brand new assumptions having multivariate normalcy was basically came across. Simultaneously, Bonferroni alterations were used.

Hypothesis step 1-Counselor Epistemology as a great Predictor of Cures Layout

The initial hypothesis worried specialist epistemology while the a good predictor off cures style. We hypothesized one to practitioners with intellectual epistemologies will have a comfort concept portraying alot more firmness into Informative subscale, better distance on the Expressive subscale, a diminished standard of Wedding, good narrower focus on the Attentional subscale, and stay way more organized towards the Medical subscale compared to practitioners having a constructivist epistemology. Separate regression analyses was basically conducted for each and every of your four PST-Q ratings calculating treatment style.

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.