SlideShare utilise les cookies pour améliorer les fonctionnalités et les performances, et également pour vous montrer des publicités pertinentes. Si vous continuez à naviguer sur ce site, vous acceptez l’utilisation de cookies. Consultez nos Conditions d’utilisation et notre Politique de confidentialité.
SlideShare utilise les cookies pour améliorer les fonctionnalités et les performances, et également pour vous montrer des publicités pertinentes. Si vous continuez à naviguer sur ce site, vous acceptez l’utilisation de cookies. Consultez notre Politique de confidentialité et nos Conditions d’utilisation pour en savoir plus.
Development and evaluation of an integrated education program based on the solution focused coaching (SFC)
Development and evaluation of an
integrated education program based on
the Solution-focused Coaching (SFC)
：The relationship between the SFC, the PGIS-II and the SFI
SGCP 4th International Congress of Coaching Psychology 2014
Recently, the Intervention studies of the
Solution-focused Coaching (SFC) have
However, there have been few studies
that focus and evaluate an education
program of the SFC. This study focuses
and reports on the development and
evaluation of an integrated
education program of the SFC.
September, 2013 Tokyo and Sendai in Japan
This Study was conducted to assess the effect of the
short education program using a semi-structured interview,
a self-report questionnaires based on the
GF-PRACTICE model (Tokuyoshi et al., 2013) and the
original Coaching Card Game based on the SFC.
Method of the experiment
Participants (N=28) were randomly
assigned to Intervention and Control.
Conditions of the intervention
◆Intervention Group received a short education
program of SFC and filled out the interview sheet
and then was interviewed by the Coach.
◆Control Group did not do anything
during the intervention.
The effect of the intervention was assessed with
PGIS-II and SFI by comparing pre- and post-
1.Guidance of the SFC
2.Education of the SFC
3.Practice of the SFC using
Coaching Psychology Card and
(Grant et al., 2012)
Figure Flow chart of this study.
Random assignment (RCT)
◆n=28 Mean age=41.4 (SD=10.0)
1: ANCOVA: Post-test (Bound variables), Pre-test(Covariate) 2 conditions（Fixed Factor）
2：ANOVA： 2 conditions: Intervention, Control & 2 intervention phase (Pre, Post)
3: Effect Size (Cohen’s d) ：It was derived from & Intervention phase (Pre, Post)
Flow of the SFC Education
■(1) Guidance of the SFC
■(2) Education of the SFC
■(3) Introduction of the skills of the SFC
■(4) Practice of the question skills.
e.g. Scaling question.
■(5) Practice using the questionnaire
coaching cards based on the SFC
■(6) Practice using the Interview sheet.
IS-GF-PRACTICE (Tokuyoshi et al., 2013)
◆Introduction of Framework
all over the world.
PRACTICE（Palmer, 2008, 2011)
OSKAR （Jackson & McKergow, 2007)
SIMPLE （Jackson & McKergow, 2007)
SOLUTION（Williams, Palmer, & O’Connell, 2011)
FOCUS（Williams, Palmer, & O’Connell, 2011)
CIGAR（Greene & Grant,2003)
Visser, C.F. (2009). Doen wat werkt. Oplossingsgericht werken, coachen en managen.
Van Duuren Management, 2e druk.
Using the Coaching Card Game
(1) Practitioners can learn the SFC through playing Card Games.
(2) Coaching Cards are highly structured based on the SFC.
(3) Coaching Cards can be combined with some Keywords of the SFC.
Coaching Card Game for the SFC
to learn concepts of the SFC.
Stop the bad
Goal setting Future
Set a Goal
for one ‘s
being active if
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
(1)It is used within one coaching session.
(2)The imagery technique was added to run a simulation.
(3) The Flow (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1990) concept was added.
(4) The evaluation of Confidence,
Self-efficacy of SF was added.
PRACTICE model（Palmer, 2007; 2008; 2011）
R:（Realistic, relevant goals developed）
A:（Alternative solutions generated ）
C:（Consideration of consequence）
T:（Target most feasible solution(s)）
IC：（Implementation of Chosen solution(s)
■PGIS-II was developed for
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.”)
Personal Growth Initiative Scale-II
(Robitscheck et al., 2012)
Solution-focused Inventory (Grant et al., 2012)
■SFI was developed for 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
◆【Problem disengagement】：4 items
A focus on disengaging from problems and
Result N=28, Mean Age=41.4 (SD=10.0)
◆pre data :2 condition & Gender : t-test (No significance)
◆t-test between PGIS-II pre total score and 2 conditions:
t= -.46, df= 25.2, P = .65 (no significance)
◆t-test between SFI pre total score and 3 conditions
t= -1.88, df= 25.2 P= .07 (Marginally significance)
Results showed no significance differences in pre 2 conditions.
PGIS-II Total Score (Average)
Control < Intervention ** p <.01
Solution Focused Inventory Total Score
Control < Intervention* p <.05
DeLong‘s test for two correlated ROC curves
Intervention（1），Control（0） and Post data.
Cut Off Point : 50
Area under the curve: 0.818
95% CI: 0.65-0.98
Cut Off Point : 78
Area under the curve: 0.823
95% CI: 0.67-0.98
Education Card Game GF-PRACTICE
Evaluation of the Programs
【Feedback & comment of the Intervention】
・「This workshop was very easy to understand.
・「This approach has objective evidence, and I understood
that the SFC is a simple method of the SFC.
◆About the Caching Psychology Card
・「I have become increasingly aware of the feeling of
oneness with coach.」
・「I can do the SFC meaningfully without Coaching Skills.」
◆About the IS-GF-PRACTICE training
・「I understood the issue in my life」
・「This work was useful to crystallize my solutions」
PGIS-II Pre Post d Pre Post d F
M 4.2 4.1 -.06 4.3 5.0 1.12 35.0***
SD 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.6
M 4.8 4.8 .06 4.8 5.2 .69 5.3*
SD 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.5
M 3.8 3.8 -.04 4.0 4.9 1.18 34.1***
SD 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.8
Planfulness M 3.9 3.9 -.08 4.0 4.9 1.10 34.1***
SD 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.7
Using Resources M 4.2 4.0 -.18 4.5 5.0 .56 9.4**
SD 1.0 1.1 0.8 0.8
Results of the PGIS-II
SFI Pre Post d Pre Post d F
M 42.3 42.5 .03 46.2 49.8 .63 6.4*
SD 5.6 4.9 5.4 6.5
Goal Orientation M 14.1 14.1 .00 14.4 16.5 .75 7.2*
SD 3.3 3.0 3.1 2.8
M 16.2 16.7 .16 16.7 19.1 .79 4.5*
SD 3.1 3.0 2.0 2.0
M 12.0 11.7 -.08 14.2 14.1 .00 0.7
SD 3.9 4.0 3.3 3.6
Results of the SFI
• 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.
• Grant, A. (2013). Steps to Solutions: A process for putting solution-focused
coaching principles into practice. The Coaching Psychologist, 9(1), 36-44.
• 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
• Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience.
New York: Harper and Row.
• Tokuyoshi，Y，Iwasaki,S, & Palmer,S. (2013). Development of an interview
sheet based on the GF-PRACTICE model for Solution-focused coaching.
Coaching Psychology International, 6(2), 14-21.
Reference material Research in Japan 2013.2 ～ 4 N=475
The relationship PGIS-II and SFI (Grant et al., 2012).