The Professional Counselor | Volume 12, Issue 2 175 Table 2 Tested Moderation Models (n = 16) Round Predictor Moderator Outcome p-value of the interaction term 1 Supervisory styles Supervisee levels Supervisory working alliance .1741 2 Attractive Supervisee levels Supervisory working alliance .9838 Interpersonally sensitive Supervisee levels Supervisory working alliance .0060** Task-oriented Supervisee levels Supervisory working alliance .0702 Supervisory styles Self and other awareness Supervisory working alliance .2663 Supervisory styles Motivation Supervisory working alliance .0830 Supervisory styles Autonomy Supervisory working alliance .0558 3 Attractive Self and other awareness Supervisory working alliance .9018 Attractive Motivation Supervisory working alliance .9149 Attractive Autonomy Supervisory working alliance .6965 Interpersonally sensitive Self and other awareness Supervisory working alliance .0147* Interpersonally sensitive Motivation Supervisory working alliance .0041** Interpersonally sensitive Autonomy Supervisory working alliance .0014** Task-oriented Self and other awareness Supervisory working alliance .0264* Task-oriented Motivation Supervisory working alliance .1780 Task-oriented Autonomy Supervisory working alliance .2281 Note. N = 113. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. I followed up each significant moderation effect (n = 5) with a simple slopes analysis (Aiken & West, 1991) to interpret the nature of the interaction effect. The PROCESS v4.0 tool in SPSS was employed to perform all these analyses. A total of 166 potential participants accessed the survey, but only 113 of them completed all the study instruments (SSI, SWAI, and SLQ-R) in the present study. To alleviate the impact of significantly incomplete responses, I removed the 53 respondents who left at least one instrument unanswered. The a priori power analysis via G*Power 3.1.9.7 indicated that the minimum sample size would be 55 to detect an interaction effect with a medium effect size (f 2 = .15), given the desired statistical power level of .80 and type I error rate of .05. As such, the ultimate sample size of 113 meets this requirement.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDU5MTM1