176 The Professional Counselor | Volume 12, Issue 2 I made the linearity and homoscedasticity assumptions using the zpred vs. zresid plot, which did not show a systematic relationship between the predicted values and the errors in the model (Field, 2017). Provided that participants independently filled out the study survey, I held the assumption of independence that the errors in the model were not dependent on each other. Further screening detected 12 missing values scattered across the three scales, which accounted for 0.13% of the entire 9,266 possible values. To determine the nature of these missing values, I performed the Little’s test (1988), and the results signified that these values were missing completely at random (MCAR; χ2 = 884.185, df = 890, p = .549). Because multiple imputation (MI; Schafer, 1999) can provide unbiased and valid estimates of associations based on information from the available data and can handle MCAR (Pedersen et al., 2017), I adopted MI to replace the missing values before performing further analyses in this study. Results Results of this study in part supported my broad hypothesis that the positive relationship between supervisory styles and the supervisory working alliance would be more sensitive for supervisees at earlier stages of development, compared to their more experienced counterparts. Examining each supervisory style and each indicator of supervisee levels independently revealed the intricacy of the relationship between the two constructs. There were two groups of major findings. First, supervisee levels as a whole were a significant moderator between the interpersonally sensitive style and the supervisory working alliance according to supervisees’ perceptions, ΔR2 = .0272, F(1, 109) = 7.8551, p = .006, with a small to medium effect size (f 2 = .07; Lorah & Wong, 2018). Specifically, the strength of the relationship between the interpersonally sensitive style and the supervisory working alliance differed based on supervisee levels (see Table 3). Table 3 Linear Model of Predictors of the Supervisory Working Alliance With Supervisee Levels as the Moderator B SE B 95% CI for B t p LL UL Constant 11.3966 .1295 11.1399 11.6534 87.9771 .0000 Interpersonally sensitive style 1.4019 .1070 1.1897 1.6140 13.0961 .0000 Supervisee levels .0146 .0074 −.0001 .0293 1.9684 .0516 aInterpersonally sensitive style × Supervisee levels −.0114 .0041 −.0195 −.0034 −2.8027 .0060 Note. N = 113. CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit. aProduct terms (interpersonally sensitive style and supervisee levels) were mean centered prior to analysis.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDU5MTM1