Brand new dimensions model is actually checked out using LISREL (8

Brand new dimensions model is actually checked out 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 kostenlose Cougar Dating-Seiten 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.

Getting specialist design, the fresh new rationalist and you may constructivist subscales was in fact rather synchronised towards the subscales of the PST-Q, all-in the latest predict rules. Towards WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies weren’t rather correlated with some of the WAI-S subscales (age.g. Task, Thread, and you will Purpose); although not, this new constructivist epistemology try rather seriously synchronised with all of about three subscales of the WAI-S as well as in this new predicted advice. When examining form of process practitioners use in treatment, new rationalist epistemology are rather adversely correlated through the use of constructivist procedure (roentgen = – .32, P ? .001) and significantly surely synchronised through the use of intellectual behavioral processes (r = 0.43, P ? .001), that has been regarding forecast directions. While, constructivist epistemologies had been somewhat absolutely correlated with the use of constructivist process (r = 0.22, P ? .001), that was on the forecast advice; although not, constructivist epistemology was not notably correlated that have intellectual behavioural procedure. (Discover Dining table 2 getting an entire a number of correlations).

Regression Analyses

So you can assess the strength of your study as according to the normality assumptions away from numerous regressions, the information try confronted with tests from skewness and you can kurtosis. Consequence of these analyses imply that this new assumptions to own multivariate normalcy had been fulfilled. As well, Bonferroni manipulations were used.

Hypothesis step one-Specialist Epistemology since the good Predictor out of Medication Design

The first theory concerned specialist epistemology as the a predictor out of medication concept. We hypothesized one practitioners which have mental epistemologies will have a reduction style portraying so much more rigidity into the Informative subscale, better range into the Expressive subscale, a lower degree of Wedding, a beneficial narrower focus on the Attentional subscale, and stay even more structured to your Operative subscale compared to the therapists having an excellent constructivist epistemology. Independent regression analyses have been held for each of your own four PST-Q score computing medication 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.

Comentarios (0)

Deja una respuesta

Tu dirección de correo electrónico no será publicada. Los campos obligatorios están marcados con *