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 thea priori power analysisusingF 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.

1. The three predictor (or independent) variables are operationally defined as scores on the Indentifying Own Emotions, Expressing Emotions Adaptively, and Managing Others' Emotions scales of the Emotional Judgment Inventory (EJI) How do you interpret the scores on the scales?

Higher scores on the EJI scales reflect better emotional judgment.

Lower scores on the EJI scales reflect better emotional judgment.

2. The dependent (outcome) variable counselor self-efficacy is operationally defined by scores on the Counseling Self-Estimate Inventory (COSE). How do you interpret the scores on the scale?

Higher scores on the COSE reflect more perceived counseling self-efficacy.

Lower scores on the COSE reflect more perceived counseling self-efficacy.

3. What was the Actual Power and the Total sample size needed from the a priori power analysis using G*Power?

Power = .8093103, Total sample size = 99

Power = 11.4444433, Total sample size = 99

Power = 11.4444433, Total sample size = 103

Power = .8039103, Total sample size = 103

4. Does the a priori power analysis suggest that we should proceed with the study?

Yes

No