ACT Informed Coaching: Examining Outcomes and Mechanisms of Change - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
act informed coaching examining outcomes and mechanisms
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

ACT Informed Coaching: Examining Outcomes and Mechanisms of Change - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Sep 28, 2023 103 likes •344 views

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

slide-1
SLIDE 1

ACT Informed Coaching: Examining Outcomes and Mechanisms of Change

Dr Rachael Skews, Dr Jo Lloyd, Prof Frank Bond Institute of Management Studies

slide-2
SLIDE 2

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

slide-3
SLIDE 3

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

slide-4
SLIDE 4

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

slide-5
SLIDE 5

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

slide-6
SLIDE 6

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 Study - Method

slide-7
SLIDE 7

RCT Results

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 1 2 3 4

Self-rated Individual Performance

ACT CONTROL

7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8

1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 1 2 3 4

General Mental Health

ACT CONTROL

RCT Results

slide-9
SLIDE 9

9

3.1 3.15 3.2 3.25 3.3 3.35 3.4 3.45 1 2 3 4

Generalised Self-Efficacy

ACT CONTROL

RCT Results

slide-10
SLIDE 10

10

5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6 6.2 6.4 1 2 3 4

Goal-Directed Thinking

ACT CONTROL

RCT Results

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 1 2 3 4

Goal Attainment

ACT CONTROL

RCT Results

slide-12
SLIDE 12

12

4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 1 2 3 4

Psychological Flexibility

ACT CONTROL

RCT Results

slide-13
SLIDE 13

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

slide-14
SLIDE 14

RCT Mediation Analyses

14

Outcome Variable Mediator Variable Bootstrap Estimate BCa 95% CI Effect SE Lower Upper 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
slide-15
SLIDE 15

15

Outcome Variable Mediator Variable Bootstrap Estimate BCa 95% CI Effect SE Lower Upper

RCT Mediation Analyses

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

slide-16
SLIDE 16

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

slide-17
SLIDE 17

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

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Parallel Mediation Study

Comparing the indirect effects of two mediators representing different explanations

  • f 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

slide-19
SLIDE 19

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 Study - Method

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Parallel Mediation Analyses

20

Outcome Variable Mediator Variables Bootstrap Estimate BCa 95% CI Effect SE Lower Upper 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- efficacy Psychological Flexibility 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

slide-21
SLIDE 21

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

Parallel Mediation Analyses

21

Outcome Variable Mediator Variables Bootstrap Estimate BCa 95% CI Effect SE Lower Upper

slide-22
SLIDE 22

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

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Thanks!

23

Dr Rachael Skews Lecturer in Occupational Psychology Institute of Management Studies r.skews@gold.ac.uk @RachaelSkews