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 own specialist design, the fresh new rationalist and you will constructivist subscales have been rather coordinated towards the subscales of the PST-Q, all in new predicted instructions. With the WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies weren’t somewhat correlated that have any of the WAI-S subscales (age.grams. Activity, Bond, and you may Purpose); but not, the constructivist epistemology try rather absolutely correlated with three subscales of the WAI-S and in the newest predicted guidelines. When looking at sort of procedure practitioners include in procedures, this new rationalist epistemology are rather adversely synchronised by making use of constructivist techniques (roentgen = – .thirty-two, P ? .001) and you can somewhat undoubtedly synchronised using intellectual behavioral procedure (roentgen = 0.43, P ? .001), that has been about predict instructions. If you are, constructivist epistemologies was in fact notably positively coordinated using constructivist processes (roentgen = 0.twenty-two, P ? .001), which had been from the predicted guidelines; although not, constructivist epistemology was not somewhat coordinated with cognitive behavioural processes. (Get a hold of Desk 2 having a complete directory of correlations).

Regression Analyses

So you’re able to gauge the potential of your investigation getting based on the normality assumptions off multiple regressions, the knowledge try confronted with evaluation out-of skewness and you may kurtosis. Result of such analyses signify brand new assumptions having multivariate normalcy have been satisfied. Likewise, Bonferroni manipulations were used.

Theory step one-Specialist Epistemology just like the a good Predictor away from Medication Design

The first theory alarmed therapist epistemology since a predictor regarding cures build. We hypothesized you to therapists that have mental epistemologies would have a reduction build depicting so much more tightness to the Informative subscale, greater distance to your Expressive subscale, a lower life expectancy standard of Engagement, an excellent narrower focus on the Attentional subscale, and stay far more arranged towards the Medical subscale versus therapists having a great constructivist epistemology. Independent regression analyses was basically miglior sito incontri detenuti conducted for every single of four PST-Q ratings calculating procedures 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.