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

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. 【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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. ◆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. ◆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. ◆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. ◆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. ◆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. ◆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. 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. 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. 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. Reference material Research in Japan 2013.2 ～ 4 N=475
The relationship PGIS-II and SFI (Grant et al., 2012).

19. Reference material Research in Japan 2013.2 ～ 4 N=475
The relationship PGIS-II and SFI (Grant et al., 2012).

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. 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.