O slideshow foi denunciado.
Utilizamos seu perfil e dados de atividades no LinkedIn para personalizar e exibir anúncios mais relevantes. Altere suas preferências de anúncios quando desejar.
Development and evaluation of 
an intervention program based 
on Solution Focused Coaching 
(SFC) 
:The relationship betwe...
【Objective】 
Solution Focused Coaching (SFC) is a 
coaching method for assisting in Coachee’s goal 
achievement and Person...
Method of the experiment 
(1)Participants (N=37) were randomly 
assigned to Coachee, Coach and Control. 
(2)Conditions of ...
Interview Sheet of the SFC 
We made an Interview Sheet of the SFC. 
Applying the Practice model (Palmer, 2007; 2009; 2011)...
PRACTICE model(Palmer, 2007; 2008; 2011) 
P:(Problem identification) 
R:(Realistic, relevant goals developed) 
(EX:SMART m...
Personal Growth Initiative Scale-II 
(Robitscheck et al., 2012) 
■PGIS-II was made for a purpose of the Counseling that 
n...
Figure Flow chart of this study. 
Pre-Test 
Participants : University Student 
Intervention of the Solution 
Focoused Coac...
Result N=37, Mean Age=21.8 (SD=1.35) 
◆3 condition & Sex :χ2(2)= .01, p = 0.99 (no significance) 
Woman Man 
Coachee 11 4 ...
◆PGIS-II Total Score 
** p<.01 *** p<.001 
Control Coach Coachee 
6.0 
5.0 
4.0 
3.0 
2.0 
1.0 
0.0 
Pre 3.7 3.5 3.7 
Post...
◆PGIS-II 「Intentional Behavior」 
6.0 
5.0 
4.0 
3.0 
2.0 
1.0 
0.0 
Intentional Behavior Control Coach Coachee 
Cohen'd -0...
◆PGIS-II 「Readiness for Change」 
Control Coach Coachee 
6.0 
5.0 
4.0 
3.0 
2.0 
1.0 
0.0 
Pre 3.8 3.3 3.7 
Post 3.5 3.7 4...
◆PGIS-II 「Planfulness」 
** p<.01(t-test) 
Control Coach Coachee 
6.0 
5.0 
4.0 
3.0 
2.0 
1.0 
0.0 
Pre 3.5 3.4 3.6 
Post ...
◆PGIS-II 「Using Resource」 
Control Coach Coachee 
6.0 
5.0 
4.0 
3.0 
2.0 
1.0 
Pre 3.5 3.4 3.7 
Post 3.3 3.8 4.4 
Using R...
◆Self-esteem Scale (Yamamoto et al., 1982). 
Control Coach Coachee 
5.0 
4.0 
3.0 
2.0 
1.0 
Pre 3.0 3.0 2.9 
Post 2.9 3.1...
Discussion 
■On the part of Coachee, The scores of Self-esteem, PGIS-II 
total and PGIS-II Subscales were statistically si...
Future Directions 
(1)Using the intervention to achieve a concrete goal. 
(Career education, Health education program, 
Mo...
Why is this research important? 
• The intervention led to "maximum effect with 
minimum intervention“. Therefore, this 
i...
Reference material Research in Japan 2013.2 ~ 4 N=475 
The relationship PGIS-II and SFI (Grant et al., 2012).
Reference material Research in Japan 2013.2 ~ 4 N=475 
The relationship PGIS-II and SFI (Grant et al., 2012).
Solution-focused Inventory (Grant et al., 2012) 
■SFI was made for a purpose of 
a Solution focused approach. 
【12 items w...
Main Reference 
• Grant, A. M., Cavanagh, M. J., Kleitman, S., Spence, G.B., Lakota, M. & 
Yu, N. (2012). Development and ...
Próximos SlideShares
Carregando em…5
×

Development and evaluation of an intervention program based on Solution Focused Coaching (SFC) :The relationship between SFC and PGIS-II

585 visualizações

Publicada em

Development and evaluation of an intervention program based on Solution Focused Coaching (SFC) :The relationship between SFC and PGIS-II

Publicada em: Educação
  • Seja o primeiro a comentar

  • Seja a primeira pessoa a gostar disto

Development and evaluation of an intervention program based on Solution Focused Coaching (SFC) :The relationship between SFC and PGIS-II

  1. 1. Development and evaluation of an intervention program based on Solution Focused Coaching (SFC) :The relationship between SFC and PGIS-II Yoga TOKUYOSHI Syoichi IWASAKI Tohoku University
  2. 2. 【Objective】 Solution Focused Coaching (SFC) is a coaching method for assisting in Coachee’s goal achievement and Personal Growth using their Resources. However, there have been few studies that evaluate the relationship between SFC and Personal Growth. This study reports on the development and evaluation of an intervention for the SFC which takes account of the Personal Growth and the direct effect model.
  3. 3. Method of the experiment (1)Participants (N=37) were randomly assigned to Coachee, Coach and Control. (2)Conditions of the intervention ◆Coachee filled out the interview sheet and then was interviewed by the Coach. ◆Coach interviewed the coachee using the SFC. ◆Control did not do anything during the intervention. (3) The effect of the intervention was assessed with PGIS-II by comparing pre- and post-intervention scores. ◆Analysis Strategy : ANOVA, Effect Size (Cohens’d, Δ)
  4. 4. Interview Sheet of the SFC We made an Interview Sheet of the SFC. Applying the Practice model (Palmer, 2007; 2009; 2011). ◆What is the difference between this Interview sheet and Practice model? The rule of wanting to be more is "maximum effect with minimum intervention“ GF-PRACTICE model (1) It is used within one coaching session. (2) The imagery technique was added to run a simulation. (3) The Flow (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1990) concept was added. (4) The evaluation of Confidence, Self-efficacy of SF was added.
  5. 5. PRACTICE model(Palmer, 2007; 2008; 2011) P:(Problem identification) R:(Realistic, relevant goals developed) (EX:SMART model) A:(Alternative solutions generated ) C:(Consideration of consequence) T:(Target most feasible solution(s)) IC:(Implementation of Chosen solution(s) E:(Evaluation) 5
  6. 6. Personal Growth Initiative Scale-II (Robitscheck et al., 2012) ■PGIS-II was made for a purpose of the Counseling that necessitates an approach based on a Personal Growth. 【16 items with 6-point Likert scale. 4 subscales】 ◆【Using Resources】: 3 items (e.g., “I ask for help when I try to change myself.”), ◆【Readiness for Change】: 4 items (e.g., “I can tell when I am ready to make specific changes in myself.”) ◆【Intentional Behavior】:4 items (e.g., “I take every opportunity to grow as it comes up.”) ◆【Planfulness】: 5 items (e.g., “I set realistic goals for what I want to change about myself.”)
  7. 7. Figure Flow chart of this study. Pre-Test Participants : University Student Intervention of the Solution Focoused Coaching ◆Coachee (n=15) Coachee filled out the interview sheet (20 minute) . He / She was Interviewed by the coach (20 minute). 【Questionnaire】 (1)PGIS-II(Robitscheck, 2012) (Personal Growth Initiative Scale- II) (2)Self-esteem Scale ◆Control (n=7) Not do anything ◆Allocation Randomized (n=37) Mean age=21.8 (SD=1.35) Interview & Support Post-Test ◆Coach (n=15) Interviewed and Supported the coachee using coachee’s interview sheet using the SFC. 【Questionnaire】 (1)PGIS-II (2)Self-esteem Scale ◆Data analysis 1: ANOVA: 3 conditions:Coachee,Coach,Control & 2 intervention phase (Pre, Post) 2: Effect Size (Cohen’s d, Glass Δ) :It was derived from & Intervention phase (Pre, Post)
  8. 8. Result N=37, Mean Age=21.8 (SD=1.35) ◆3 condition & Sex :χ2(2)= .01, p = 0.99 (no significance) Woman Man Coachee 11 4 Coach 11 4 Control 5 2 ◆The ANOVA between PGIS-II total score and 3 conditions: F(2,34)=.043, p=0.65 (no significance) ◆The ANOVA between Self-esteem and 3 conditions: F(2,34)=.17, p=0.85 (no significance) Results showed no significance differences in 3 conditions.
  9. 9. ◆PGIS-II Total Score ** p<.01 *** p<.001 Control Coach Coachee 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Pre 3.7 3.5 3.7 Post 3.7 3.8 4.3 PGIS-II Total Score Total score Control Coach Coachee Cohen'd -0.08 0.40 0.64 Δ -0.08 0.41 0.68 ◆Main effect:significance(F(1,34)=23.4, p<.001, ηG Middle 2=.03) ◆Interaction:significance(F(2,34)=8.2, p<.01, ηG 2=.02)
  10. 10. ◆PGIS-II 「Intentional Behavior」 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Intentional Behavior Control Coach Coachee Cohen'd -0.03 0.33 0.42 Δ -0.04 0.33 0.44 ◆ Main effect:significance (F(1,34)=12.6, p<.001, ηG 2=.01) ◆ Interaction:significance (F(2,34)=3.4, p<.05, ηG 2=.008) ** p<.01 *** p<.001 Control Coach Coachee Pre 4.2 3.7 3.8 Post 4.2 4.0 4.3 IB Score
  11. 11. ◆PGIS-II 「Readiness for Change」 Control Coach Coachee 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Pre 3.8 3.3 3.7 Post 3.5 3.7 4.2 READINESS CHANGE SORE Readiness Change Control Coach Coachee Cohen'd -0.63 0.36 0.50 Δ -0.55 0.36 0.50 ◆Main effect:significance (F(1,34)=4.5, p<.05, ηG 2=.008) ◆ Interaction:significance (F(2,34)=7.6, p<.01, ηG 2=.03) ** p<.01 * p<.05 ** p<.01 Middle
  12. 12. ◆PGIS-II 「Planfulness」 ** p<.01(t-test) Control Coach Coachee 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Pre 3.5 3.4 3.6 Post 3.7 3.8 4.3 Planfulness Control Coach Coachee Cohen'd 0.20 0.41 0.76 Δ 0.19 0.41 0.78 Plan fulness Score ◆ Main effect:significance (F(1,34)=19.9, p<.001, ηG 2=.05) ◆ Interaction:no significance (p=0.16) Almost High ** p<.01(t-test)
  13. 13. ◆PGIS-II 「Using Resource」 Control Coach Coachee 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 Pre 3.5 3.4 3.7 Post 3.3 3.8 4.4 Using Resource Control Coach Coachee Cohen'd -0.23 0.31 0.59 Δ -0.24 0.34 0.61 ◆ Main effect:significance (F(2,28)=11.2, p<.01, ηG 2=.02) ◆ Interaction:significance (F(2,28)=7.8, p<.01, ηG 2=.02) 0.0 Using Resource Score Middle * p<.05 *** p<.001
  14. 14. ◆Self-esteem Scale (Yamamoto et al., 1982). Control Coach Coachee 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 Pre 3.0 3.0 2.9 Post 2.9 3.1 3.1 ◆ Main effect:no significance (n.s.) ◆ Interaction:significance (F(2,34)=4.5 p<.05, ηG 2=.009) 0.0 Self esteem Score **p<0.01 Self-esteem Control Coach Coachee Cohen'd -0.18 0.07 0.29 Δ -0.19 0.08 0.29 Smallll
  15. 15. Discussion ■On the part of Coachee, The scores of Self-esteem, PGIS-II total and PGIS-II Subscales were statistically significant. ◆Middle effect: Planfulness, Readiness for Change, Using Resource. ◆Small effect: Intentional Behavior, Self-esteem ■On the part of Coach, The scores of PGIS-II total and PGIS-II Subscales; Planfulness, Readiness for Change and Using Resource were statistically significant, small increases. 【Subject of investigation】 Why did the scores of Coach change? (Countertransference?) Could we say that Coaches were affected by the good effect of the intervention?
  16. 16. Future Directions (1)Using the intervention to achieve a concrete goal. (Career education, Health education program, Motivational education, Business situation) (2)Longitudinal assessment of outcomes including follow-up. (3)Develop intervention programs and tools to create more effective, efficient organizations. (4)Further assess the need for the interview sheet and Coaching intervention programs. (5)It is necessary to confirm whether scores of the intervention improves more if we will provide the practices of the coach. (Ex, practices some psychological theory, leadership skills, Thinking Skills, Attentive hearing, Questioning skills, etc.)
  17. 17. Why is this research important? • The intervention led to "maximum effect with minimum intervention“. Therefore, this intervention might easily be adapted by a wide variety of populations. • Results of Coachee showed a statistically significant increase in the scores of the PGIS-II without having the participants receive a special training of coaching skills (If we educate and give them exercises to practice, scores of coachee may have increased more. or, Participants already have skills.) • This study established the validity of the tools based on Coaching Psychology (ex, the Interview sheet, PGIS-II) .
  18. 18. Reference material Research in Japan 2013.2 ~ 4 N=475 The relationship PGIS-II and SFI (Grant et al., 2012).
  19. 19. Reference material Research in Japan 2013.2 ~ 4 N=475 The relationship PGIS-II and SFI (Grant et al., 2012).
  20. 20. Solution-focused Inventory (Grant et al., 2012) ■SFI was made for a purpose of a Solution focused approach. 【12 items with 6-point Likert scale. 3 subscales】 ◆【Goal Orientation】: 4 items A focus towards desired goal states. ◆【Resource activation】: 4 items A focus on recognizing and utilizing strengths and resources. ◆【Problem disengagement】:4 items A focus on disengaging from problems and problems-focus thinking.
  21. 21. Main Reference • Grant, A. M., Cavanagh, M. J., Kleitman, S., Spence, G.B., Lakota, M. & Yu, N. (2012). Development and validation of the solution-focused inventory. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7 (4), 334-348. • Palmer, S. & Whybrow, A. (2007). Handbook of Coaching Psychology: A guide for practitioners. Routledge. • Robitschek, C., Ashton, M. W., Spering, C. C., Geiger, N., Byers, D., Schotts, G. C., & Thoen, M. (2012). Development and psychometric properties of the Personal Growth Initiative Scale – II. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 274-287. doi: 10.1037/a0027310 • Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper and Row.

×