Development and Evaluation of a Self-Coaching Intervention Program based on theSolution Focused Coaching(SFC)

1. Development and Evaluation
of a Self-Coaching Intervention
Program based on the
Solution Focused Coaching(SFC)
Yoga Tokuyoshi
Syoichi Iwasaki
Tohoku University

2. 【Objective】
Solution Focused Coaching (SFC) is a coaching
method for assisting in Coachee’s goal
achievement and Personal Growth using their
Resources. However, there have been few
studies that evaluate the relationship between
the SFC and the Personal Growth.
This study reports on the development and
evaluation of an intervention for the SFC which
takes account of the Personal Growth
and the direct effect model.

3. Method of the experiment
(1)Participants (N=26) were randomly
assigned to Self-caoching and Control.
(2)Conditions of the intervention
◆Coachee filled out the interview sheet .
◆Control did not do anything during the intervention.
(3) The effect of the intervention was assessed with
PGIS-II by comparing pre- and post-intervention
scores.
◆Analysis Strategy : ANCOVA ANOVA, Effect Size
(Cohens’d, Δ)

4. Interview Sheet of the SFC
We made an Interview Sheet of the SFC.
Applying the Practice model （Palmer, 2007, 2009, 2011）.
◆What is the difference between this Interview sheet
and Practice model?
The rule of wanting to be more is "maximum effect with
minimum intervention"
(1) It is used within one coaching session.
(2) The imagery technique was added to run a simulation.
(3) The Flow concept was added.
(4) The evaluation of Confidence,
Self-efficacy of SF were added.

5. PRACTICE model（Palmer, 2007; 2009; 2011）
P:（Problem identification）
R:（Realistic, relevant goals developed）
(Ex：SMART )
A:（Alternative solutions generated ）
C:（Consideration of consequence）
T:（Target most feasible solution(s)）
IC：（Implementation of Chosen solution(s)
E:（Evaluation）
5

6. Personal Growth Initiative Scale-II
(Robitscheck et al., 2012)
■PGIS-II was made for a purpose of the Counseling that
necessitates an approach based on a Personal Growth.
【16 items with 6-point Likert scale. 4 subscales】
◆【Using Resources】： 3 items
(e.g., “I ask for help when I try to change myself.”),
◆【Readiness for Change】: 4 items
(e.g., “I can tell when I am ready to make specific changes in myself.”)
◆【Intentional Behavior】：4 items
(e.g., “I take every opportunity to grow as it comes up.”)
◆【Planfulness】： 5 items
(e.g., “I set realistic goals for what I
want to change about myself.”)

7. Figure1 Flow chart of this study.
Pre-Test
Participants : University Student
Intervention of the Solution
Focoused Coaching
◆Coachee (n=15)
Coachee filled out the interview
sheet (20 minute) .
【Questionnaire】
PGIS-II(Robitscheck, 2012)
(Personal Growth Initiative Scale- II)
◆Control (n=11)
Not do anything
◆Allocation
Randomized (n=26, Mean age=21.7 (SD=2.1)
Post-Test
【Questionnaire】
PGIS-II
◆Data analysis
1: ANCOVA: Post-test (Bound variables), Pre-test(Covariate) 2 conditons（Fixed Factor）
2：ANOVA： 2 conditions：Coachee，Control & 2 intervention phase (Pre, Post)
3: Effect Size (Cohen’s d, Glass Δ) ：It was derived from & Intervention phase (Pre, Post)

8. Result N=26 Mean Age : 21.7（SD=2.1）
◆2 condition & Sex ：p = 1 (no significance)
Woman Man
Control 6 5
Self-Coaching 7 8
◆The ANOVA between PGIS-II total score and 2 conditions:
F(1,24)=1.22, p=0.28 (no significance)
The ANOVA between Self-esteem and 2 conditions:
F(1,24)=.001, p=0.95 (no significance)
■This Result showed no significance differences in 2 conditions

9. ◆PGIS-II Total Score
* p<.05
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Total score Control Self-Coaching
cohen'd 0.12 0.74
Δ 0.14 0.90
◆Main effect：significance（F（1,23）=17.5, p<.001）
◆Interaction：no significance（p=.11）
Middle
Control Self-Coaching
Pre 4.0 3.8
Post 4.1 4.2
PGIS Total Score

10. ◆PGIS-II 「Intentional Behavior」
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Intentional Behavior Control Self-Coaching
cohen'd 0.11 0.23
Δ 0.12 0.25
◆ Main effect: significance （F（1,23）=32.3, p<.001）
◆ Interaction： no significance （p=.8, n.s.）
Small
Control Self-Coaching
Pre 4.6 4.2
Post 4.7 4.4
PGIS-II Intentional Behavior

11. ◆PGIS-II 「Readiness for Change」
** p<.01
Control Self-Coaching
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Pre 3.8 3.5
Post 3.9 4.0
Readness for Change
Readiness Change Control Self-Coaching
cohen'd 0.03 0.73
Δ 0.03 0.75
◆Main effect：significance（F（1,23）=9.8, p<.01）
◆ Interaction： no significance （p=.20)
Middle

12. ◆PGIS-II 「Planfulness」
** p<.01
Control Self-Coaching
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Pre 3.8 3.7
Post 3.9 4.2
Planfullness Control Self-Coaching
cohen'd 0.03 0.79
Δ 0.03 0.88
Planluness Score
◆Main effect：significance（F（1,23）=15.8, p<.001）
◆Interaction：marginally significance（p=.07）
High
Self > Control †p=.1

13. ◆PGIS-II 「Using Resource」
Control Self-Coaching
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Pre 3.6 3.7
Post 3.8 4.4
Using Resource Control Self-Coaching
cohen'd 0.16 0.66
Δ 0.17 0.70
Using Resource
◆ Main effect：significance （F（1,23）=28.1 p<.001）
◆ Interaction：no significance （p=.11）
Middle

14. ◆Career Planning (Hanai, 2008)
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Career Planning Control Self-Coaching
cohen'd 0.08 0.81
Δ 0.08 0.97
◆ Main effect：significance （F（1,23）=19.7, p<.001）
◆ Interaction： marginally significance （F（1,23）=3.1, p=.09）
High
Control Self-Coachig
Pre 2.7 2.2
Post 2.8 2.8
Career Planning
Score
Self > Control †p=.1 ** p<.01

15. Discussion
■On the part of Self-Coachee, The scores of
PGIS-II total and PGIS-II Subscales were
statistically significant.
◆High effect： Planfulness, Career Planning
◆Middle effect:
PGIS-II total, Using Resource, Readiness for change.
◇Results indicated the Self-Coaching using the sheets
based on the SFC causes significant improvement in level of
PGIS at one coaching session.
◇This intervention and tools might be related to a
Planning.

16. Future Directions
(1)Using the intervention to achieve a concrete goal.
(Career education, Health education program,
Motivational education, Business situation)
(2)Longitudinal assessment of outcomes including follow-up.
(3)Develop intervention programs and tools to create more
effective, efficient organizations.
(4)Further assess the need for the interview sheet and
Coaching intervention programs.
(5)It is necessary to confirm whether scores of the intervention
improves more if we will provide practices of the coach.
(Ex, practices; psychological theory, leadership skills,
Thinking Skills, Attentive listening, Questioning skills, etc.)

17. Why is this research important?
• The intervention led to "maximum effect with
minimum intervention“. Therefore, this
intervention might easily be adapted to use with
wide variety of populations.
• Results of Coachee showed a statistically significant
increase in the scores of the PGIS-II Without
participants receiving special training of coaching
skills.(If we educate and have them to practice, scores
of coachee may have increased more. Or, Participants
already have skills.)
• This study established the validity of the tools based
on Coaching Psychology (ex, the Interview sheet, PGIS-II) .

18. Solution-focused Inventory (Grant et al., 2012)
■SFI was made for a purpose of
a Solution focused approach.
【12 items with 6-point Likert scale. 3 subscales】
◆【Goal Orientation】： 4 items
A focus towards desired goal states.
◆【Resource activation】: 4 items
A focus on recognizing and utilizing strengths and
resources.
◆【Problem disengagement】：4 items
A focus on disengaging from problems and
problems-focus thinking.

19. Reference material2: Research in Japan 2013.5 ～ 7 N=443
The relationship PGIS-II and SFI (Grant et al., 2012).

20. The Relationship PGIS-II and Measurement
Solution
focused
Inventory
Cognitive
Flexibility
Inventory
Self-Control and Self-
Management Scale
Correlation SFI Total Alternative Control
(Reverse)
Self-
Evaluation
Self-
Monitoring
Self-reinforcement
PGIS-II(Total) .77 *** .41 *** -.13 .35 *** .57 *** .42 ***
Intentional
Behavior .72 *** .44 *** -.19 * .35 *** .56 *** .50 ***
Planfulness .74 *** .38 *** -.18 * .39 *** .54 *** .37 ***
Using
Resource .46 *** .17 * .22 *** -.02 .28 *** .13
Readiness
for Change .66 *** .32 *** -.18 * .34 *** .44 *** .32 ***
Cognitive Flexibility Inventory (Dennis et al., 2009) Self-Control and Self-Management Scale (Mezo, 2009). N=443; N=204

21. Main Reference
• Palmer, S. & Whybrow, A. (2007). Handbook of Coaching
Psychology: A guide for practitioners. Routledge.
• Robitschek, C., Ashton, M. W., Spering, C. C., Geiger, N.,
Byers, D., Schotts, G. C., & Thoen, M. (2012).
Development and psychometric properties of the
Personal Growth Initiative Scale – II. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 59, 274-287. doi:
10.1037/a0027310

22. Main Reference 2
• Grant, A. M., Cavanagh, M. J., Kleitman, S., Spence, G. B., Lakota, M. & Yu, N.
(2012). Development and validation of the solution-focused
inventory. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7 (4), 334-348.
• Dennis, J. P. & Vander Wal, J. S. (2009). The cognitive flexibility inventory:
Instrument development and estimates of reliability and validity.
Cognitive Theory Research, 34, 241-353.
• Mezo, P. G. (2009). The Self-Control and Self-Management Scale
(SCMS): Development of an adaptive self-regulatory
coping skills instrument. Journal of Psychopathology and
Behavioral Assessment, 31, 83-93.

23. Correspondence
Yoga Tokuyoshi
◆Cognitive Psychology Lab, Graduate School of
Information Science, Tohoku University, Japan
• Email: hattoxx@gmail.com
• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hattoxx
• Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/hattoxx

25. Development and Evaluation
of a Self-Coaching Intervention
Program based on the
Solution Focused Coaching(SFC)

26. Yoga Tokuyoshi
Syoichi Iwasaki
Tohoku University