ACT Informed Coaching: Examining Outcomes and Mechanisms of Change Dr Rachael Skews, Dr Jo Lloyd, Prof Frank Bond Institute of Management Studies
Rationale for the Research Limitations in the coaching evidence-base highlighted by meta-research: 1. Lack of theoretical underpinning in coaching research 2. Lack of methodological rigour in coaching research studies 3. Inconsistency in outcomes measured 4. Limited explanation for processes of change in coaching 2
Key Research Aims 1. Test a theoretically underpinned coaching approach (ACT) 2. Use a methodologically rigorous research design (RCT) 3. Test research outcomes identified from theory and meta-analytic data 4. Investigate processes of change in coaching 3
RCT Study Hypothesis 1 - ACT-informed coaching will lead to significant increases in: – Individual performance (Model of Positive Work Role Behaviours) – General mental health (GHQ) – Generalised self-efficacy (GSE) – Job satisfaction (GJSS) – Intrinsic job motivation (IJMS) – Goal-directed thinking (Hope State Scale) – Goal attainment (GAS) 4
RCT Study Hypothesis 2 - ACT-informed coaching will lead to significant increases in psychological flexibility Hypothesis 3 - Increases in psychological flexibility that result from the ACT- informed coaching will mediate increases in other study outcomes 5
RCT Study - Method N = 126 (ACT = 65, control = 61) Participants: UK civil service; grade 6/7 (middle management); 71% female; mean age 41 3 x 90-minute coaching sessions Measures taken: – T1 completed 1 week prior to session 1 – T2 completed 1 week prior to session 2 – T3 completed 1 week prior to session 3 – T4 completed 4 weeks after session 3 6
RCT Results Self-rated Individual Performance 3.7 3.6 3.5 ACT 3.4 CONTROL 3.3 3.2 3.1 1 2 3 4 7
RCT Results General Mental Health 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 2 ACT 1.9 CONTROL 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1 2 3 4 8
RCT Results Generalised Self-Efficacy 3.45 3.4 3.35 3.3 ACT CONTROL 3.25 3.2 3.15 3.1 1 2 3 4 9
RCT Results Goal-Directed Thinking 6.4 6.2 6 ACT 5.8 CONTROL 5.6 5.4 5.2 1 2 3 4 10
RCT Results Goal Attainment 35 30 25 20 ACT CONTROL 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 11
RCT Results Psychological Flexibility 5.5 5.4 5.3 5.2 5.1 ACT 5 CONTROL 4.9 4.8 4.7 4.6 1 2 3 4 12
RCT Study - Results – Maintenance effect on performance – Improved general mental health – Increased self-efficacy, goal-directed thinking, and goal attainment – Increased psychological flexibility – No changes in job satisfaction or job motivation 13
RCT Mediation Analyses Bootstrap BCa 95% CI Estimate Effect SE Lower Upper Outcome Variable Mediator Variable General mental health Psychological flexibility T1 – T3 T1 – T3 -.0724 .0387 -.1550 -.0035 T1 – T4 T1 – T3 -.0267 .0173 -.0708 -.0001 T1 – T4 T1 – T4 -.0897 .0378 -.1817 -.0297 T2 – T4 T1 – T3 -.0041 .0103 -.0375 .0089 T2 – T4 T2 – T3 -.0046 .0150 -.0460 .0208 T2 – T4 T2 – T4 -.0740 .0319 -.1477 -.0221 General self-efficacy Psychological flexibility T1 – T4 T1 – T3 -.0462 .0225 -.0937 -.0440 T1 – T4 T1 – T4 -.0903 .0348 -.1693 -.0310 T2 – T4 T1 – T3 -.0355 .0182 -.0754 -.0033 T2 – T4 T2 – T3 -.0354 .0170 -.0796 -.0092 T2 – T4 T2 – T4 -.0769 .0273 -.1348 -.0305 Goal-directed thinking Psychological flexibility T1 – T4 T1 – T3 -.0982 .0572 -.2430 -.0119 T1 – T4 T1 – T4 -.2671 .0858 -.4552 -.1236 T2 – T4 T1 – T3 -.0651 .0414 -.1802 -.0036 T2 – T4 T2 – T3 -.0757 .0447 -.1910 -.0127 T2 – T4 T2 – T4 -.2552 .0851 -.4408 -.0945 14
RCT Mediation Analyses Bootstrap BCa 95% CI Estimate Effect SE Lower Upper Outcome Variable Mediator Variable Goal attainment Psychological flexibility T1 – T3 T1 – T3 -.8363 .4862 -2.1074 -.1373 T1 – T4 T1 – T3 -.5332 .4133 -1.6578 .0382 T1 – T4 T1 – T4 -.9433 .5078 -2.3019 -.1884 T2 – T3 T1 – T3 -.7252 .4899 -1.8955 .0200 T2 – T3 T2 – T3 -.8363 .4825 -2.0796 -.1182 T2 – T4 T1 – T3 -.5377 .3774 -1.7709 -.0430 T2 – T4 T1 – T4 -.8738 .4380 -2.0195 -.2324 T2 – T4 T2 – T3 -.7235 .4527 -2.0139 -.1031 T2 – T4 T2 – T4 -1.0406 .5462 -2.4600 -.2452 T3 – T4 T1 – T3 -.1880 .2998 -.9175 .2647 T3 – T4 T1 – T4 -.2392 .3080 -.9895 .2405 T3 – T4 T2 – T3 -.3231 .3792 -1.2285 .2787 T3 – T4 T2 – T4 -.3681 .4042 -1.3683 .2676 15
An Alternative Explanation – To enhance our understanding of processes of change, research studies should investigate more than one potential mediator (Johansson & Høglend, 2007; Kazdin; 2007) – Specificity is an unnecessary condition for change in psychotherapy if all treatments are equally efficacious (Wampold & Imel, 2015) – Contextual Model (Wampold & Budge, 2012): The relationship (i.e. working alliance) is the variable that accounts for change 16
The Relationship From a CBS Perspective – What is important is the function of the relationship in satisfying the goals and values of the therapist and the client, rather than the properties or form of the relationship itself (Vilardaga & Hayes, 2010) – The impact of the relationship occurs, not as a result of the properties of the relationship, but through reinforcing specific targeted behaviours in interpersonal interactions between the therapist and the client (Follette, Naugle, & Callaghan, 1996) 17
Parallel Mediation Study Comparing the indirect effects of two mediators representing different explanations of the process of change in ACT-informed coaching Hypothesis - Increases in general mental health, generalised self-efficacy, goal-directed thinking, and goal attainment that result from ACT-informed coaching will be mediated by increases in psychological flexibility but not by working alliance 18
Parallel Mediation Study - Method N = 65 (the intervention arm of the RCT study) Participants: UK civil service; grade 6/7 (middle management); 72% female; mean age 41 3 x 90-minute coaching sessions No T1 measure of WA as no relationship at baseline. – T2 completed 1 week prior to session 2 – T3 completed 1 week prior to session 3 – T4 completed 4 weeks after session 3 19
Parallel Mediation Analyses Bootstrap BCa 95% CI Estimate Effect SE Lower Upper Outcome Variable Mediator Variables General mental health Psychological Flexibility T2 – T4 T2 – T3 -.0194 .0307 -.0720 .0501 T2 – T4 T2 – T4 -.0425 .0356 -.1231 .0170 Working Alliance T2 – T3 .0263 .0333 -.0400 .0924 T2 – T4 -.0383 .0418 -.1222 .0406 Generalised self- Psychological Flexibility efficacy T2 – T3 T2 – T3 -.0290 .0156 -.0676 -.0043 T2 – T4 T2 – T3 .0453 .0158 .0170 .0792 T2 – T4 T2 – T4 -.0690 .0235 -.1229 -.0302 T3 – T4 T2 – T3 .0163 .0148 -.0139 .0454 T3 – T4 T2 – T4 .0517 .0238 .0114 .1046 Working Alliance T2 – T3 .0006 .0199 -.0385 .0401 T2 – T3 .0242 .0182 -.0161 .0571 T2 – T4 -.0468 .0254 -.0977 .0039 T2 – T3 .0248 .0185 -.0128 .0614 T2 – T4 .0490 .0251 -.0060 .0943 20
Parallel Mediation Analyses Bootstrap BCa 95% CI Estimate Effect SE Lower Upper Outcome Variable Mediator Variables Goal-directed thinking Psychological Flexibility T2 – T4 T2 – T3 .1329 .0653 .0331 .2821 T2 – T4 T2 – T4 -.2787 .0730 -.4501 -.1563 Working Alliance T2 – T3 -.0352 .0792 -.2072 .1092 T2 – T4 -.0575 .0870 -.2368 .0991 Goal attainment Psychological Flexibility T2 – T3 T2 – T3 -.3535 .3377 -1.0943 .2427 T2 – T4 T2 – T3 .8356 .5447 .0381 2.1028 T2 – T4 T2 – T4 -1.1322 .6245 -2.6741 -.1562 T3 – T4 T2 – T3 .4821 .5835 -.4588 1.8341 T3 – T4 T2 – T4 .1754 .6450 -.9980 1.5562 Working Alliance T2 – T3 -.7683 .6180 -2.0199 .4361 T2 – T3 -.2494 .4979 -1.2756 .6996 T2 – T4 -.0487 .6764 -1.2209 .4180 T2 – T3 -1.0178 .6325 -2.3744 .1213 T2 – T4 -.3851 .6867 -1.8476 .8723 21
Some Questions Posed by the Research – How to control for working alliance? – No baseline measure at Time 1 – Coaching-as-usual condition? – How to isolate goal-setting effects? – Changes in control group as well as intervention group – Goal setting is a motivational process in and of itself 22
Thanks! Dr Rachael Skews Lecturer in Occupational Psychology Institute of Management Studies r.skews@gold.ac.uk @RachaelSkews 23
Recommend
More recommend
