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 design, brand new rationalist and you may constructivist subscales was in fact notably correlated toward subscales of one’s PST-Q, all in the newest predicted rules. To the WAI-S, rationalist epistemologies were not notably coordinated having the WAI-S subscales (age.grams. Task, Thread, and you may Objective); although not, the latest constructivist epistemology is significantly absolutely correlated along with about three subscales of your own WAI-S along with brand new predict direction. When examining types of techniques therapists include in medication, the new rationalist epistemology is rather negatively coordinated with the use of constructivist procedure (r = – .thirty-two, P ? .001) and notably certainly synchronised with the use of cognitive behavioral process (roentgen = 0.43, P ? .001), which had been on predict directions. When you find yourself, constructivist epistemologies was in fact notably surely coordinated using constructivist procedure (roentgen = 0.twenty two, P ? .001), that was regarding predicted 
advice; although not, constructivist epistemology wasn’t rather correlated which have cognitive behavioural processes. (Discover Table dos for a whole list of correlations).
Regression Analyses
So you’re able to assess the strength of one’s analysis becoming based on the normality presumptions of several regressions, the knowledge try subjected to tests out-of skewness and kurtosis. Result of these types of analyses signify the presumptions to possess multivariate normalcy was basically came across. On top of that, Bonferroni alterations were used.
Theory step one-Specialist Epistemology since the a great Predictor out-of Procedures Layout
The original hypothesis concerned counselor epistemology due to the fact a great predictor regarding medication concept. I hypothesized that practitioners which have intellectual epistemologies might have a relief layout portraying more tightness with the Instructional subscale, greater point for the Expressive subscale, a lowered amount of Engagement, a beneficial narrower focus on the Attentional subscale, and become a great deal more prepared to the Operative subscale compared to the practitioners having a good constructivist epistemology. Separate regression analyses had been conducted for every single of one’s four PST-Q results measuring cures concept.
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.