Pilot study results from my PhD studies at City University

1. Academic excellence for business and the professions
Nancy Doyle
MSc. C. Psychol, AFBPsS
Is coaching a ‘reasonable adjustment’
for dyslexic adults in employment?

2. Background to the field of research
• 3000 dyslexic clients PA through Access to Work (Gifford 2011)
• Employers obliged to make reasonable adjustment
• 8% of the working population (Rose, 2009)
• 20% of entrepreneurs and 1% of corporate managers (Logan,
2006)
• Coaching and Assistive Tech commonly recommended by
psychologists and lay assessors
• No evidence base for reasonable adjustments
• Wide variations in coaching pedagogy and coach training
• No reporting on ROI, longitudinal evaluation or content
benchmarking

3. Scoping study of the literature
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
Journals and basic
terms
dyslexi* or
reading
disabilit*
Adult or
Adults or
19+
added to search
parameters
Excl. HE, child,
student or
education
Interven*;
Improv*; remedial;
remediation;
support; treatment;
achievement;
success; evaluation
Additional terms
Employment
career
Psych Info
Business Source
Complete
CJ Abstracts
Behavioural Science
collection
1995+
English
11,117* 2010 802 463 41**
*A sample of 100 papers revealed 61% neuro based
**18 education based

4. Pilot Study: practitioner based
Genius Within CIC, providing 1:1 coaching to around 1000 individuals per year
1) Recorded which work related topics were raised by coachees and managers to be
addressed through coaching.
Memory (92%)
Organisation (82%)
Time Management (78%)
Stress management (67%)
Spelling (67%)
Reading (54%)
2) Compared coachee and manager ratings of performance on the above topics before
and 2-4 months after coaching intervention
Coachees:
t (92) = 19.35, p < .001, d = 1.94;
Line managers:
t (40) = 10.72, p < .001, d = 0.85
Doyle and McDowall (2015)

5. Study 2: sample
"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)
Hampshire County Council:
Over 40,000 employees covering a range of unskilled, semi-skilled, administrative,
professional and managerial staff. Volunteers recruited following an short workshop
and briefing from all staff grades and disciplines.
Wave 1: May 2014 – Jan 2015 Control and group coaching intervention
Wave 2: Nov 2014 – July 2015 Group coaching and 1:1 intervention
Wave 3: May 2015 – Nov 2015 1:1, group and control

6. Study 2: double blind control, QE design
3 conditions: G1 control group; G2 group coaching; G3 1:1 coaching
Neuro-cognitive
testing
Behavioural Psycho-social
3 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)
TOMAL 2 & WRAML 2
T1, T2, T3
Job performance
(participant &
manager rated)
(Based on Mcloughlin & Leather,
2013)
T1, T2, T3
Job Satisfaction
(control variable)
(Greenhaus, 1990)

7. Study 2: Working memory rating scales
example
Adapted, adult-focused items
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

8. T1: baseline control variables
Control (n=16) 1:1 (n=14) Action Learning
(n=17)
Parametric
assumption
1 way ANOVA
M SD M SD M SD
Age (yrs) 41 10 38 10 42 9  F (2, 45) = .837, p = .439
Gender 2M 15F 6M 9F 7M 11F Weighted towards women, more so in
control group
Age left
education
(yrs)
19 3.7 20 2.5 19 3.8  F (2, 44) = .427, p = .655
VCIQ 99 11.7 103 11.8 103 12  F (2, 44) = .714, p = .495
WMIQ 95 14.4 92 13 91 10.6  F (2, 44) = .528 , p = .594
PRIQ 104 11.5 107 12 106 7.9  F (2, 44) = .370 p = .693
PSIQ 92 12.5 91 9.4 92 11.3  F (2, 44) = .085, p = .918

9. T1: baseline
Control ( n = 16) 1:1 ( n = 14 ) Action Learning
( n = 17 )
Parametri
c
assumptio
n
1 way ANOVA
M SD M SD M SD
Coachee WMRS 1.41 .53 1.40 .55 1.41 .49  F (2, 42) = .237, p = .993
Coachee
performance
2.89 .43 2.86 .40 2.94 .67  F (2, 40) = .113, p = .894
Line manager
WMRS
.77 .45 .98 .62 1.05 .56  F (2, 31) = .813, p = .453
Line manager
performance
3.64 .68 3.25 .51 3.26 .79  F (2, 33) = 1.312, p = .283
Self efficacy 2.58 .49 2.34 .41 2.62 .70  F (2, 42) = 1.081, p = .348
Job satisfaction 3.48 .52 3.41 .53 3.14 .57  F (2, 41) = 1.665, p = .202

10. Study 2: results so far, Baseline – T2 – T3
Coachee ratings of own work performance
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
Baseline T2 T3
Control
1:1
Group
T2 compared to baseline: groups t (15) = 5.392, p = <.001, d = 1.3
T3 compared to baseline: group t (15) = 5.758, p = <.001, d = 1.53
T2 compared to baseline: 1:1 t (9) = 2.380, p = .04, d = 0.73
T3 compared to baseline: 1:1 N.S. too many dropouts to calculate
Between groups
F (2,26)= 5.911, p = .008

11. Study 2: results so far, Baseline – T2 – T3
Line 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.
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Baseline T2 T3
Control
1:1
Group

12. Study 2: results so far, Baseline – T2 – T3
Coachee ratings of working memory behaviour
impact
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Baseline T2 T3
Control
1:1
Group
T2 compared to baseline: groups t (15) = 2.389, p = .031, d = .6
T3 compared to baseline: group t (11) = 2.88, p = .015, d = .83
T2 compared to baseline: 1:1 t (12) = 2.312, p = .039, d = 0.64
T3 compared to baseline: 1:1 N.S. too many dropouts to calculate
Between groups 1 way
ANOVA at T3
F (2,25)= 4.387, p = .023

13. Study 2: results so far, Baseline – T2 – T3
Line manager ratings of working memory behaviour
impact
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Baseline T2 T3
Control
1:1
Group

14. Study 2: results so far, Baseline – T2 – T3
Neuro-cognitive (working memory) comparisons
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
9.5
10
Baseline T2 T3
Control
1:1
Group
•Groups only T3 compared to baseline: t (16) = 2.161, p = <.05, d = 0.53
•Not significantly different from control at end, but significantly different to 1:1!

15. Study 2: results so far, Baseline – T2 – T3
Coachee ratings of self-efficacy
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Baseline T2 T3
Control
1:1
Group

16. Study 2: results so far, Baseline – T2 – T3
Coachee ratings of job satisfaction
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Baseline T2 T3
Control
1:1
Group

17. Summary of results
•Methodological issues – sample sizes not generating enough
power in study 2
•Volunteers rather than people who need coaching
Coaching in a QE design not as
effective as longitudinal dyad
study. Why?
•Social Cognitive Learning Theory?
•However no impact noted on self –efficacy – a more specific
self-efficacy measure required, general not sensitive enough
Group coaching demonstrating
a greater effect than 1:1. Why?
•Is the ‘coaching alliance’ as vital for line managers as it is for
coachees?
•Manager buy in – employee doesn’t need coaching
Managers’ results insignificant
•Event the control group are improving on self ratings – why?
Metacognitive influence of having a discussion with a
psychologist?
Hawthorne Effect

18. Next questions
• It’s not generalised self-efficacy!
• Work related / WM related self-efficacy?
• Metacognitive awareness
What is happening in
group coaching that
isn’t happening in 1:1?
• Before, during and after
• Written feedback / face-to-face
• Training for LMs or just feedback on coachee
What kind of manager
involvement is
required?
• 4 sessions 1:1 vs 6 sessions group – reflects
practice
Does the contact time
make a difference?

19. Is coaching a reasonable adjustment for
dyslexia?
Time
Cost
Likely improvement
on productivity
More evidence
required!