A researcher wants to determine if facets of emotional judgment predict counselor self-efficacy among professional counselors. Three scales of the Emotional Judgment Inventory (EJI) are used to measure one's perceived skill in understanding and using emotions effectively. Higher scores on the EJI scales reflect better emotional judgment. The three EJI scales used are: (1) Identifying Own Emotions (idslf), (2) Expressing Emotions Adaptively (expres) and (3) Managing Others' Emotions (mngothr). The total score of the Counseling Self-Estimate Inventory (COSE) was used to measure counselor self-efficacy (cosetot). Higher scores on the COSE reflect more perceived counseling self-efficacy. The study sample was comprised of 118 counselors. The researcher used a sequential MRA entering the predictor variables in the following order: (First) Identifying Own Emotions (idslf), (Second) Expressing Emotions Adaptively (expres) and (Third) Managing Others' Emotions (mngothr). Please use an alpha of = .05 for all analyses. For the a priori power analysis using F tests>Linear multiple regression: Fixed model, R2 increase, the previous effect size Partial R2 = .10 (use in the Determine window and calculate and transfer to main window), = .05, power = .80, Number of tested predictors = 3, Total number of predictors = 3.

When looking at a scatter plot of residuals, if you can visualize a band surrounding the scatter plot of residuals approximating the form of a rectangle, then the underlying assumptions of normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity are likely all met. Specifically, looking at the scatter plot of residuals for linearity, what was the finding?

answer choices

Linearity is evident since the scatter did not form in curvilinear shapes like a u, n, v, s, etc.

Linearity is not evident since the scatter did form a curvilinear shape of a u.

What was the finding relative to homoscedasticity assessing the residual scatter plot?

answer choices

Homoscedasticity was met; the residuals appear to be approximately equal in width at the values of the regression standardized predicted values on the abscissa.

Homoscedasticity was not met; the residuals do not appear to be approximately equal in width at the values of the regression standardized predicted values on the abscissa.

lets now look at results of the sequential MRA and start with the Model Summary table using = .05. The omnibus null hypothesis is stated as: Y_CounSelfEff f (X_idslf, X_expres, X_mngothr) = 0, which is saying that the predictors will not significantly predict the dependent variable of counseling self-efficacy. In Model 1, only assess whether Identifying Own Emotions predicts counseling self-efficacy. What was the multiple correlation (R), coefficient of determination(R), coefficient of determination (R²)?

answer choices

R = .436, R² = .190, so approximately 1.9% of the variance in counseling self-efficacy can be attributed to Indentifying Own Emotions.

R = .436, R² = .190, so approximately 19% of the variance in counseling self-efficacy can be attributed to Indentifying Own Emotions.