Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

To what extent is coaching a reasonable adjustment for dyslexia

148 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

To what extent is coaching a reasonable adjustment for dyslexia

  1. 1. 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?
  2. 2. 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?
  3. 3. Scoping study of the literature 11,117 2010 802 463 41 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Basic terms: Dyslex*, 1995+, English Language Adult limitations added to basic terms Excl. HE, child, student or education Additional terms: treatments, interventions, coaching, tuition Additional terms: work, employment, career, occupation *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
  4. 4. 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%)
  5. 5. Pilot Study: practitioner-based, longitudinal dyad data Does the number of sessions improve the magnitude of effect? No. Number of sessions N Mean Statistic Statistic Low = 3 or less Cdistance 21 2.3667 Mdistance 5 .8800 Valid N (listwise) 5 med = 4-7 Cdistance 61 2.3721 Mdistance 33 1.4879 Valid N (listwise) 31 high = 8 + Cdistance 11 2.1091 Mdistance 3 1.1000 Valid N (listwise) 3
  6. 6. 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?
  7. 7. 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
  8. 8. Study 2: double blind control, QE design 3 conditions: G1 1:1 coaching (n22); G2 control group (n 22); G3 group coaching (n 23) 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) T1, T2, T3 Job performance (participant & manager rated) (Based on Mcloughlin & Leather, 2013) T1, T2, T3 Job Satisfaction (control variable) (Greenhaus, 1990)
  9. 9. 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 men Weighted 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
  10. 10. Study 2: Working memory rating scales example Adapted, 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
  11. 11. Study 2: results so far, Baseline – T2 – T3 Coachee ratings of job satisfaction 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Baseline T2 T3 1:1 control group No significant differences
  12. 12. Baseline – T2 – T3 Coachee ratings of own work performance T2 compared to baseline: groups t (13) = -7.242, p < .001, d = 0.91 T3 compared to baseline: group t (11) = -5.399, p < .001, d = 1.21 T2 compared to baseline: 1:1 t (15) = -3.647, p = .002, d = 1.94 T3 compared to baseline: 1:1 t (11) = -3.799, p < .004, d = 1.56 Between groups One Way ANOVA @ T3 F (2,31)= 7.626, p = .002 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 Baseline T2 T3 1:1 control group
  13. 13. 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. 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Baseline T2 T3 Control 1:1 Group No significant differences
  14. 14. 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 (14) = 2.833, p = .013, d = .73 T3 compared to baseline: group t (11) = 3.354, p = .006, d = .99 T2 compared to baseline: 1:1 t (15) = 2.934, p = .01, d = 0.73 T3 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
  15. 15. Study 2: Baseline – T2 – T3 Line manager ratings of working memory behaviour impact 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 Baseline T2 T3 1:1 control group No significant differences
  16. 16. Baseline – T2 – T3 Neuro-cognitive (working memory) comparisons 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 Baseline T2 T3 1:1 control group ANCOVA at T3 controlling for Baseline differences F (2,39)= 5.275, p = .027 Partial η2 = .12
  17. 17. Baseline – T2 – T3 Coachee ratings of self-efficacy T2 compared to baseline: groups Not Significant T3 compared to baseline: groups Not Significant T2 compared to baseline: 1:1 Not Significant T3 compared to baseline: 1:1 t (10) = 4.194, p = .002, d = 1.26 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 Baseline T2 T3 1:1 control group Between groups One Way ANOVA @ T3 F (2,32)= 5.495, p = .009
  18. 18. 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
  19. 19. 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
  20. 20. 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
  21. 21. To what extent is coaching a reasonable adjustment for dyslexia? Time: 3 months duration Cost: Average £700 plus VAT 1:1/ £200 workshop Risk: Coaching quality and ‘chemistry’ Likely improvement on productivity Improvement 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
  22. 22. "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)

×