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?
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?
Scoping study of the literature
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000 11117
2010802 463 41
*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
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%)
Pilot Study: practitioner-based, longitudinal dyad data
Does the number of sessions improve the magnitude of effect? No.
Number of sessions
N Mean
Statistic StatisticLow = 3 or
lessCdistance 21 2.3667Mdistance 5 .8800Valid N (listwise) 5
med = 4-7 Cdistance 61 2.3721Mdistance 33 1.4879Valid N (listwise) 31
high = 8 + Cdistance 11 2.1091Mdistance 3 1.1000Valid N (listwise) 3
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?
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
Study 2: double blind control, QE design3 conditions:
G1 1:1 coaching (n22); G2 control group (n 22); G3 group coaching (n 23)Neuro-cognitive testing
Behavioural Psycho-social3 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)
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 menWeighted 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
Study 2: Working memory rating scales exampleAdapted, 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
Study 2: results so far, Baseline – T2 – T3Coachee ratings of job satisfaction
Baseline T2 T31
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
1:1controlgroup
No significant differences
Baseline – T2 – T3Coachee ratings of own work performance
T2 compared to baseline: groups t (13) = -7.242, p < .001, d = 0.91T3 compared to baseline: group t (11) = -5.399, p < .001, d = 1.21T2 compared to baseline: 1:1 t (15) = -3.647, p = .002, d = 1.94T3 compared to baseline: 1:1 t (11) = -3.799, p < .004, d = 1.56
Between groups One Way ANOVA @ T3F (2,31)= 7.626, p = .002
Baseline T2 T32
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1:1controlgroup
Baseline – T2 – T3Line 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.
Baseline T2 T31
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Control1:1Group
No significant differences
Baseline – T2 – T3Coachee ratings of working memory behaviour impact
Baseline T2 T30.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Control1:1Group
T2 compared to baseline: groups t (14) = 2.833, p = .013, d = .73T3 compared to baseline: group t (11) = 3.354, p = .006, d = .99T2 compared to baseline: 1:1 t (15) = 2.934, p = .01, d = 0.73T3 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
Study 2: Baseline – T2 – T3Line manager ratings of working memory behaviour impact
Baseline T2 T30
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
1:1controlgroup
No significant differences
Baseline – T2 – T3Neuro-cognitive (working memory) comparisons
Baseline T2 T37.5
8
8.5
9
9.5
10
10.5
1:1controlgroup
ANCOVA at T3 controlling for Baseline differences
F (2,39)= 5.275, p = .027
Partial η2 = .12
Baseline – T2 – T3Coachee ratings of self-efficacy
T2 compared to baseline: groups Not SignificantT3 compared to baseline: groups Not SignificantT2 compared to baseline: 1:1 Not SignificantT3 compared to baseline: 1:1 t (10) = 4.194, p = .002, d = 1.26
Baseline T2 T31.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
1:1controlgroup
Between groups One Way ANOVA @ T3F (2,32)= 5.495, p = .009
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
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
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
To what extent is coaching a reasonable adjustment for dyslexia?
Time: 3 months durationCost: Average £700 plus VAT 1:1/ £200
workshopRisk: Coaching quality and ‘chemistry’
Likely improvement on productivityImprovement 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
"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)