1. Academic excellence for business and the professions
Nancy Doyle
MSc. C. Psychol, AFBPsS
To what extent is coaching a
‘reasonable adjustment’ for dyslexic
adults in employment?

2. Coaching commonly used in practice, but!
No evidence base for
reasonable
adjustments
Wide variations in
coaching pedagogy
and coach training
No reporting on ROI,
longitudinal
evaluation or content
benchmarking
Does it work?
Could we prevent
difficulties?

3. Scoping study of the literature
11,117
2010
802 463 41
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
Basic terms:
Dyslex*, 1995+,
English
Language
Adult limitations
added to basic
terms
Excl. HE, child,
student or
education
Additional
terms:
treatments,
interventions,
coaching, tuition
Additional
terms: work,
employment,
career,
occupation
*A sample of 100 papers revealed 61% neuro based
Of the 41 work-related papers, 18 were education based, 1
mgmt, 1 HR , 1 OH, the rest from unrelated fields such as
Social Work

4. Pilot Study: practitioner-based, longitudinal dyad data
Clients rate workplace performance in all key areas before and 3 mo after coaching
Coachees: 3.98/10 → 6.0/10
t (92) = 19.35, p < .001, d = 1.94;
Line managers: 4.9/10 → 6.1/10
t (40) = 10.72, p < .001, d = 0.85
Doyle and McDowall (2015)
Memory
(92%)
Organisation
(82%)
Time
Management
(78%)
Stress
management
(67%)
Spelling
(67%)
Reading
(54%)

5. Pilot Study: practitioner-based, longitudinal dyad data
Does the number of sessions improve the magnitude of effect? No.
Number of sessions
N Mean
Statistic Statistic
Low = 3 or
less
Cdistance 21 2.3667
Mdistance 5 .8800
Valid N
(listwise)
5
med = 4-7 Cdistance 61 2.3721
Mdistance 33 1.4879
Valid N
(listwise) 31
high = 8 + Cdistance 11 2.1091
Mdistance 3 1.1000
Valid N
(listwise) 3

6. So it worked. What next?
The strategies which evolve
from the coaching is the
adjustment, not the coaching
itself. What are the ‘active
ingredients’?
Reactive approach = higher
stress levels before coaching.
Is there a way to prevent
crises through early strategy
implementation?

7. 1) Does coaching stand up to a
double blind controlled trial?
2) Can workshops be as
effective? More effective?
3) Are Working Memory and /
or Self-Efficacy the key
variables?
Study 2: research questions

8. Study 2: double blind control, QE design
3 conditions:
G1 1:1 coaching (n22); G2 control group (n 22); G3 group coaching (n 23)
Neuro-cognitive
testing
Behavioural Psycho-social
3 intervals:
T1 Before
T2 Immediately
after
T3 3 months after
Working memory
(T1) and full WAIS
profile
(Weschler, 2008)
T1, T2, T3 Working
memory rating
scales (participant
& manager rated)
(WMRS, Alloway et al., 2008)
T1, T2, T3
Individual Self-
Efficacy
(Judge et al., 1998)
Working memory
(T2, T3)
T1, T2, T3
Job performance
(participant &
manager rated)
(Based on Mcloughlin & Leather,
2013)
T1, T2, T3
Job Satisfaction
(control variable)
(Greenhaus, 1990)

9. T1: baseline control variables
Group 1 (coaching):
N = 22
Group 2 (control)
N = 22
Group 3
(workshops)
N = 23
Parametric
assumption
1 way ANOVA
M SD M SD M SD
Age (yrs) 39.5 9.34 39.4 10.17 42.6 9.46  F (2,61) = 0.751, p = .476
Gender 1.72:1 1.9:1 1.6:1 Ratio of women to men
Weighted towards women
Age left
education
(yrs)
20.6 5.2 18.9 3.6 19.4 3.6 No K (2,63) = 1.421, p = .491
Tenure 2.9 1.5 3.9 1.66 3.8 1.75 No K (2,64) = 4.530, p = .104
VCIQ 102.00 10.96 96.95 8.94 104.63 11.06  F (2,62) = 3.024, p = .056
WMIQ 91.45 10.55 91.90 10.49 91.68 10.96  F (2,62) = 0.010, p = .990
PRIQ 109.2 12.06 105.57 11.57 105.59 9.96  F (2,62) = 1.284, p = .284
PSIQ 92.68 11.54 90.95 15.04 91.27 10.71  F (2,62) = 0.117, p = .890
Housekeeping

10. Study 2: Working memory rating scales example
Adapted, adult-focused items (from Alloway et al., 2008)
I need help to stay on track with activities that have lots of steps
I find group discussions difficult and can interrupt too much, or I stay quiet because I don’t know
when to speak
I find it hard to remember instructions
I abandon activities or get distracted before I finish
I find it hard to find the ‘right’ word when asked direct questions, particularly during interviews or
in busy environments.
My ideas jump around from one thought to another
I have difficulty concentrating in busy environments – I prefer quiet space and smaller offices for
talking and working

11. Study 2: results so far, Baseline – T2 – T3
Coachee ratings of job satisfaction
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Baseline T2 T3
1:1
control
group
No significant
differences

12. Baseline – T2 – T3
Coachee ratings of own work performance
T2 compared to baseline: groups t (13) = -7.242, p < .001, d = 0.91
T3 compared to baseline: group t (11) = -5.399, p < .001, d = 1.21
T2 compared to baseline: 1:1 t (15) = -3.647, p = .002, d = 1.94
T3 compared to baseline: 1:1 t (11) = -3.799, p < .004, d = 1.56
Between groups One
Way ANOVA @ T3
F (2,31)= 7.626, p = .002
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Baseline T2 T3
1:1
control
group

13. Baseline – T2 – T3
Line manager ratings of coachee work performance
Major departure from study 1:
This MAY be a reflection of line manager engagement rather than a review of
performance.
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Baseline T2 T3
Control
1:1
Group
No significant
differences

14. Baseline – T2 – T3
Coachee ratings of working memory behaviour impact
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Baseline T2 T3
Control
1:1
Group
T2 compared to baseline: groups t (14) = 2.833, p = .013, d = .73
T3 compared to baseline: group t (11) = 3.354, p = .006, d = .99
T2 compared to baseline: 1:1 t (15) = 2.934, p = .01, d = 0.73
T3 compared to baseline: 1:1 t (12) = 2.668, p = .024, d = 0.8
ANCOVA at T3
controlling
for baseline differences
F (2,29)= 7.48, p = .003
Partial η2 = .37

15. Study 2: Baseline – T2 – T3
Line manager ratings of working memory behaviour
impact
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Baseline T2 T3
1:1
control
group
No significant
differences

16. Baseline – T2 – T3
Neuro-cognitive (working memory) comparisons
7.5
8
8.5
9
9.5
10
10.5
Baseline T2 T3
1:1
control
group
ANCOVA at T3 controlling
for Baseline differences
F (2,39)= 5.275, p = .027
Partial η2 = .12

17. Baseline – T2 – T3
Coachee ratings of self-efficacy
T2 compared to baseline: groups Not Significant
T3 compared to baseline: groups Not Significant
T2 compared to baseline: 1:1 Not Significant
T3 compared to baseline: 1:1 t (10) = 4.194, p = .002, d = 1.26
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
Baseline T2 T3
1:1
control
group
Between groups One
Way ANOVA @ T3
F (2,32)= 5.495, p = .009

18. Summary of results
Self-Efficacy is impacted
by 1:1 coaching…. But not
how we thought
Working memory does
appear to be a key
variable
Managers’ results not
significant when not
engaged
Group coaching is as
effective as 1:1 and in
some cases more
Coaching does stand
up to a controlled
trial condition

19. Recommendations for Practice
• Before, during and after
• Written feedback / face-to-face per session
• Training for LMs or co-coaching session
Include line managers
in coaching
interventions
• To reduce dependency on external help
• Install a legacy of peer support
• Reduce cost and create proactive service to
prevent difficulties arising
Consider the use of
pre-emptive
workshops
• 4 sessions 1:1 vs 6 sessions group
• 3 months follow up = bedding in time
• Assess impact on job sustainability 1 year on
Consider time allowed
for reasonable
adjustments

20. More research planned
• Qualitative interviews with LMs who
have had AtW referrals vs those
involved in the study
Investigate LM
impact
• More sensitive work-efficacy
questionnaire
• Metacognition/synaesthesia
questionnaire
• What occurs in the space between
sessions?
Process analysis
of key variable
changes

21. To what extent is coaching a reasonable adjustment for
dyslexia?
Time: 3 months duration
Cost: Average £700 plus VAT 1:1/ £200
workshop
Risk: Coaching quality and ‘chemistry’
Likely improvement on productivity
Improvement in LM relationship*
Employee turnover cost £5000**
**reported by Oxford Economics, 2015. does not include loss of productivity during transition
* If delivered with LM engagement

22. "Coaching: this is a partnership and more androgogical
approach, in which the learner ultimately takes control
of their own learning and progression. The aim is to
help and increase the individuals' awareness of what
they need to do to improve their performance or
develop a particular skill.“
(McLoughlin & Leather, 2013)