Slides presented at an International congress of coaching psychology 2014 held by the Special Group in Coaching Psychology in the British Psychological Society

1. SGCP 4th International Congress of Coaching Psychology 2014
11-12 Dec 2014, London
Sensitivity of the General
Solution-Focused Attitude Scale
(GSFAS) to Assess the Direct
Effects of a Solution-focused
Intervention at a Workplace
Keita Kiuchi, Tohoku University, Japan
Yasuteru Aoki, Solution Focus Consulting Inc.
www.bps.org.uk

2. Contents
1. Development process of the GSFAS
2. Current research about sensitivity of
the GSFAS
3. Ongoing research projects using the
GSFAS
2

3. Introduction
• Effective SF intervention involved
with changing communication
–Workplace climate (Aoki, 2009)
–Positive culture (McKergow, 2012)
–Problem-solving skills & mental health
(Grant, Curtayne & Burton, 2009)
• Developing the GSFAS
(Kiuchi & Aoki, 2012)
3

4. Development Process
4
A survey of SF practitioners in Japan
(n = 86)
Item creation (69 items)
A survey of Japanese workers
(n = 536)
Factor extraction
- Individual index: 5 factors with 26 items
- Team index: 3 factors with 13 items
This series of studies are supported by the European Brief Therapy Association research grant 2011.

5. The GSFAS: Individual index (26 items)
5
Respect for
others
Sense of
belonging
Self-initiated
action
Invigorating
interaction
Optimistic
orientation
In the workplace, I…

6. Five factors in the individual index
(In the workplace, …)
1. Self-initiated action (7 items)
─ I devise ways to be spontaneous in my work.
─ I take action quickly.
2. Sense of belonging (4 items)
─ I feel peaceful or comfortable in the workplace.
─ I feel vital when working.
3. Respect for others (5 items)
─ I respect each individual as a valuable person.
─ I regard and receive all opinions as valuable.
6

7. Five factors in the individual index
(In the workplace, …)
4. Optimistic orientation (5 items)
─ I deal with challenges believing that they are
going well.
─ I believe there are already positive changes.
happening towards the aimed for direction.
5. Invigorating interactions (5 items)
─ I communicate actively with my coworkers.
─ My colleagues and I work well with each other.
7

8. The GSFAS: Team index (13 items)
Harmony with
others
Forward
moving
interactions
Positive
orientation
8 The people in my workplace…

9. Three factors in the team index
(The people in my workplace…)
1. Harmony with others
─ feel that the workplace is enjoyable.
─ feel vital when working.
2. Positive orientation
─ when taking on a problem, first imagine how the
solution will look.
─ try to discover meaning from even small changes.
3. Forward moving interactions
─ try to utilize lessons learned from past experience.
─ regard and receive all opinions as valuable. 9

10. Objective
• To determine the sensitivity of the GSFAS
–Mediating variable
–How sensitive or reactive is the scale to
interventions?
10

11. Methods
• Subjects:
– 229 employees from 16 departments at a
Japanese manufacturing company
• Interventions (three times – Feb, Jul and Mar):
– Only division managers and some group leaders
(approx. 40 members)
– Three-hour workshop
– Group meeting at workplaces
• Measurement:
– before and after the practical period
– Five point Likert scale (0 - 4)
11

12. Workshop
1. Scaling: “To what extent is your workplace full of
communication and vital?”
─ Sharing “exceptions” and “what works”
─ Re-scaling
2. Conversation exercises
① “The truth is, I like [dislike/think/have] …”
② “What can you do to increase the amount of
communication in your workplace?”
3. Positively prejudiced glasses
4. Solution-oriented vs problem-oriented
─ Sharing “future perfect”
5. Reflecting team
12

13. Result: Confirmatory factor analysis
• Number of data:
– 214 (96.5%) from employees took the pre
practical period survey
• Method:
– Structural equation modeling
• Software:
– Amos.19
13

14. The optimal model of the individual index
14

15. 15
The optimal model of the individual index

16. 16
The optimal model of the individual index

17. 17
The optimal model of the individual index

18. 18
The optimal model of the individual index

19. 19
The optimal model of the individual index
χ2 = 210.57, p = .91 (n.s.),
GFI = .93, AGFI = .90, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00

20. 20
The optimal model of the individual index
χ2 = 210.57, p = .91 (n.s.),
GFI = .93, AGFI = .90, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00

21. The optimal model of the team index
21

22. The optimal model of the team index
χ2 = 51.53, p = .18 (n.s.),
GFI = .97, AGFI = .93, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .03
22

23. Result: Internal consistency
Ind. α Team α
F1 (7) .81 F1 (4) .84
F2 (4) .87 F2 (4) .81
F3 (5) .83 F3 (5) .81
F4 (5) .85
F5 (5) .80
23
( ) represents the number of items

24. Result: Repeated measures ANOVAs
• Number of data:
–Experimental group: 33 (30.8%)
–Control group: 43 (35.2%)
• Software:
–SPSS Statistics 22
24

25. Result: Sensitivity of the individual index
25
20
15
10
5
*: p < .05
**: p < .01
25
20
15
10
5
0
pre post
F1
Exp.
(n = 33)
Cont.
(n = 43)
P = .13
(n.s.)
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
pre post
F2
P = .012
*
0
pre post
F3
P = .08
(tend.)
*
20
15
10
5
0
pre post
F4
P = .10
(n.s.)
**
20
15
10
5
0
pre post
F5
P = .11
(n.s.)

26. Ind. F2: Sense of belonging
pre (SD) post (SD) ηp
26
*: p < .05
2
Exp. 5.55 (3.79) 6.94 (3.95) .09
Cont. 7.14 (4.20) 6.72 (3.91) .01

27. Ind. F3: Self-initiated action
pre (SD) post (SD) ηp
27
*: p < .05
2
Exp. 9.27 (3.65)10.45 (3.46) .06
Cont. 9.81 (3.65) 9.77 (3.74) .00

28. Ind. F4: Optimistic orientation
pre (SD) post (SD) ηp
28
*: p < .05
2
Exp. 6.36 (3.42) 8.09 (3.67) .11
Cont. 7.05 (4.04) 7.51 (3.47) .01

29. Result: Sensitivity of the team index
+: p < .10
*: p < .05
**: p < .01
29
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
pre post
F1
Exp.
(n = 33)
Cont.
(n = 43)
P = .045
*
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
pre post
F2
P = .053
(tend.)
**
20
15
10
5
0
pre post
F3
P = .27
(n.s.)
+

30. Team F1: Harmony with others
pre (SD) post (SD) ηp
30
*: p < .05
2
Exp. 6.33 (3.09) 7.33 (3.41) .07
Cont. 7.58 (3.41) 7.40 (2.91) .00

31. Team F2: Positive orientation
pre (SD) post (SD) ηp
31
**: p < .01
2
Exp. 4.88 (3.37) 6.34 (2.47) .13
Cont. 6.81 (3.34) 7.14 (2.49) .01

32. Team F3: Forward moving interaction
pre (SD) post (SD) ηp
32
+: p < .10
2
Exp. 9.41 (2.95)10.38 (3.35) .04
Cont. 10.47 (3.44)10.63 (3.21) .00

33. Discussion
• In six of eight factors, a significant increase or
tendency was found.
– Suggesting sensitivity of the scale
• Time and group interaction was significant
only in two factors.
– These factors are more sensitive.
– The intervention was related to these factors.
• The inconsistent result between interaction
effects and simple main effects caused by the
intervention style.
33

34. Ongoing projects
1. Relationship with quality of life
2. Relationship with work engagement
34
SF
attitude
Workload
Support
QOL
Physical
Health
Mental
Health
SF
attitude WE
Vigor
Dedication
Absorption

35. Conclusion
• The General Solution-focused Attitude
Scale is a validated psychological scale
designed to assess workers’ solution-focused
interactions,
• and it is probably sensitive enough to
identify the change caused by solution-focused
interventions effectively.
35

36. Factor pattern
Factors
F4 F2 F1 F3 F5
Ind_32 .846 -.012 -.090 -.015 -.043
Ind_33 .827 -.038 -.053 .132 -.107
Ind_30 .689 -.109 -.111 .059 .191
Ind_19 .673 -.117 -.085 .063 .159
Ind_31 .535 .234 .105 .065 -.100
Ind_39 .476 -.034 .462 -.332 .057
Ind_26 -.030 .924 .007 -.056 .010
Ind_52 -.089 .919 -.005 -.117 -.018
Ind_53 -.063 .722 -.202 .058 .169
Ind_45 .124 .710 -.058 .115 -.043
Ind_49 -.174 -.071 .748 .072 -.127
Ind_36 -.271 .023 .686 .135 .133
Ind_37 -.092 -.161 .662 .107 .042
Ind_35 .263 .030 .538 -.169 .054
Ind_57 .336 .058 .442 .085 -.108
Ind_54 .167 .167 .346 .172 -.078
Ind_11 -.063 -.061 .000 .786 .047
Ind_3 .097 -.022 .143 .601 .066
Ind_7 .435 -.076 -.086 .537 .025
Ind_40 .237 .117 .065 .499 -.163
Ind_17 .277 .167 .015 .289 .132
Ind_16 .062 .107 -.120 -.029 .850
Ind_12 -.004 -.072 .108 .273 .576
Ind_15 -.148 .288 .218 .057 .458
Ind_66 .213 .041 .213 -.192 .324
Ind_22 .267 .089 -.033 .196 .271
Factor extraction: maximum-likelihood method
Rotation: promax with kaiser normalization
correlation matrix
F4 F2 F1 F3 F5
F4 1.00 .58 .55 .58 .53
F2 1.00 .43 .48 .61
F1 1.00 .23 .38
F3 1.00 .53
F5 1.00
36

37. Factor pattern
Factor
F3 F2 F1
Team_56 .798 -.084 -.016
Team_54 .640 -.044 .060
Team_39 .615 .113 .060
Team_69 .612 .229 -.137
Team_50 .608 .218 -.071
Team_64 .602 -.093 .112
Team_45 .378 .165 .333
Team_19 -.094 .870 -.036
Team_18 .031 .673 .024
Team_20 .048 .652 .006
Team_13 .009 .632 .078
Team_26 -.072 .001 1.046
Team_52 .345 .002 .484
Factor extraction: maximum-likelihood
method
Rotation: promax with kaiser
normalization
Correlation matrix
F3 F2 F1
F3 1.00 .73 .67
F2 1.00 .50
F1 1.00
37

38. Individual
F1:
Respect
F2:
Belong
F3:
Self-initi.
F4:
Optimi.
F5:
Invigorat.
SF
practitioner
(n = 34)
19.03
(5.35)
9.50
(4.25)
14.21
(3.26)
11.34
(4.72)
13.63
(4.10)
General
employee
(n = 718)
15.46
(4.41)
6.69
(3.58)
10.03
(3.46)
7.80
(3.56)
10.49
(3.61)
Team
F1:
Harmon.
F2:
Positive
F3:
Forward
SF
practitioner
(n = 34)
7.89
(3.49)
5.43
(3.319
10.28
(3.59)
General
employee
(n = 718)
7.16
(3.11)
6.79
(2.68)
10.39
(3.20)
38