This new measurement design was looked at using LISREL (8

This new measurement design was looked at using 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.

Having specialist build, new rationalist and you may constructivist subscales was in fact rather coordinated with the subscales of one’s PST-Q, all in the brand new forecast guidelines. For the WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies weren’t notably synchronised with some of the WAI-S subscales (age.g. Task, Thread, and you may Purpose); although not, new constructivist epistemology try somewhat absolutely correlated with about three subscales of one’s WAI-S plus in the brand new forecast assistance. When considering kind of techniques therapists use in treatment, brand new rationalist epistemology are rather adversely synchronised through the use of constructivist procedure (r = – .thirty two, P ? .001) and you may significantly definitely synchronised through the use of intellectual behavioural techniques (roentgen = 0.43, P ? .001), that has been on forecast rules. If you are, constructivist epistemologies was in fact rather seriously synchronised using constructivist techniques (r = 0.twenty two, P ? .001), that has been on the forecast advice; but not, constructivist epistemology was not somewhat correlated having cognitive behavioural procedure. (Come across Desk 2 having a whole variety of correlations).

Regression Analyses

To assess the strength of data to be based on the normality assumptions off several regressions, the details try subjected to tests off skewness and you may kurtosis. Result of such analyses mean that the latest presumptions having multivariate normalcy have been found. On the other hand, Bonferroni modifications were used.

Hypothesis 1-Therapist Epistemology since a great Predictor of Therapy Layout

The first hypothesis alarmed therapist epistemology as the a great predictor off treatment build. I hypothesized you to definitely practitioners which have rational epistemologies could have a reduction concept portraying a great deal more firmness towards Educational subscale, greater distance towards Expressive subscale, a lowered level of Wedding, an excellent narrower concentrate on the Attentional subscale, and stay far more arranged to the Medical subscale compared to the therapists having a great constructivist epistemology. Independent regression analyses had been presented each of the five PST-Q score computing medication design.

The Instructional Subscale The epistemology scores accounted for significant variation in Instructional scores, F(2, Kelowna hookup sites 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