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?

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?

Scoping study of the literature

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000 11117

2010802 463 41

*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

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%)

Pilot Study: practitioner-based, longitudinal dyad data

Does the number of sessions improve the magnitude of effect? No.

Number of sessions

N Mean

Statistic StatisticLow = 3 or

lessCdistance 21 2.3667Mdistance 5 .8800Valid N (listwise) 5  

med = 4-7 Cdistance 61 2.3721Mdistance 33 1.4879Valid N (listwise) 31  

high = 8 + Cdistance 11 2.1091Mdistance 3 1.1000Valid N (listwise) 3  

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?

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

Study 2: double blind control, QE design3 conditions:

G1 1:1 coaching (n22); G2 control group (n 22); G3 group coaching (n 23)Neuro-cognitive testing

Behavioural Psycho-social3 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)

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 menWeighted 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

Study 2: Working memory rating scales exampleAdapted, 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

Study 2: results so far, Baseline – T2 – T3Coachee ratings of job satisfaction

Baseline T2 T31

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

1:1controlgroup

No significant differences

Baseline – T2 – T3Coachee ratings of own work performance

T2 compared to baseline: groups t (13) = -7.242, p < .001, d = 0.91T3 compared to baseline: group t (11) = -5.399, p < .001, d = 1.21T2 compared to baseline: 1:1 t (15) = -3.647, p = .002, d = 1.94T3 compared to baseline: 1:1 t (11) = -3.799, p < .004, d = 1.56

Between groups One Way ANOVA @ T3F (2,31)= 7.626, p = .002

Baseline T2 T32

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

1:1controlgroup

Baseline – T2 – T3Line 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.

Baseline T2 T31

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Control1:1Group

No significant differences

Baseline – T2 – T3Coachee ratings of working memory behaviour impact

Baseline T2 T30.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Control1:1Group

T2 compared to baseline: groups t (14) = 2.833, p = .013, d = .73T3 compared to baseline: group t (11) = 3.354, p = .006, d = .99T2 compared to baseline: 1:1 t (15) = 2.934, p = .01, d = 0.73T3 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

Study 2: Baseline – T2 – T3Line manager ratings of working memory behaviour impact

Baseline T2 T30

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

1:1controlgroup

No significant differences

Baseline – T2 – T3Neuro-cognitive (working memory) comparisons

Baseline T2 T37.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

10.5

1:1controlgroup

ANCOVA at T3 controlling for Baseline differences

F (2,39)= 5.275, p = .027

Partial η2 = .12

Baseline – T2 – T3Coachee ratings of self-efficacy

T2 compared to baseline: groups Not SignificantT3 compared to baseline: groups Not SignificantT2 compared to baseline: 1:1 Not SignificantT3 compared to baseline: 1:1 t (10) = 4.194, p = .002, d = 1.26

Baseline T2 T31.6

1.8

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

1:1controlgroup

Between groups One Way ANOVA @ T3F (2,32)= 5.495, p = .009

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

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

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

To what extent is coaching a reasonable adjustment for dyslexia?

Time: 3 months durationCost: Average £700 plus VAT 1:1/ £200

workshopRisk: Coaching quality and ‘chemistry’

Likely improvement on productivityImprovement 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

"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)