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

1. www.bps.org.uk
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
Yoga TOKUYOSHI
Syoichi IWASAKI
Tohoku University
SGCP 4th International Congress of Coaching Psychology 2014
http://www.icp2016.jp/

2. 【Objective】
Recently, the Intervention studies of the
Solution-focused Coaching (SFC) have
increased.
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.

3. 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.

4. 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-
intervention scores.

5. Pre-Test
◆Intervention (n=15)
1.Guidance of the SFC
2.Education of the SFC
3.Practice of the SFC using
Coaching Psychology Card and
Interview Sheet.
Post-Test
【Questionnaire】
(1)PGIS-II
(Robitscheck, 2012)
(2)SFI
(Grant et al., 2012)
【Questionnaire】
(1)PGIS-II
(2) SFI
Figure Flow chart of this study.
◆Control (n=13)
Main Subject
Random assignment (RCT)
◆n=28 Mean age=41.4 (SD=10.0)
◆Data analysis
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)

6. 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)

7. ◆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)
7

8. 【Scaling Question】
Visser, C.F. (2009). Doen wat werkt. Oplossingsgericht werken, coachen en managen.
Van Duuren Management, 2e druk.

9. 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.

10. Coaching Card Game for the SFC
to learn concepts of the SFC.
Solution
focused
Positive
Reframing
Personal
Growth
Stop the bad
practice
Internal
Resource
Focus for
the
solutions
than
problems.
Change
one's point
of view
Develop a
strategy for
growth for
solutions
Stop if
something
goes wrong.
Search the
Internal
Resource and
Strength
External
Resource
Goal setting Future
focused
Looking for
exceptions
More
Simple
Search the
External
Resource
and
Strength
Set a Goal
for one ‘s
future.
Focused
one’s future.
Continue
being active if
something
goes good
exceptionally
Make less
complex.

11. 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“
GF-PRACTICE model
(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.

12. PRACTICE model（Palmer, 2007; 2008; 2011）
P:（Problem identification）
R:（Realistic, relevant goals developed）
(EX：SMART model)
A:（Alternative solutions generated ）
C:（Consideration of consequence）
T:（Target most feasible solution(s)）
IC：（Implementation of Chosen solution(s)
E:（Evaluation）
12

13. ■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)

14. 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
resources.
◆【Problem disengagement】：4 items
A focus on disengaging from problems and
problems-focus thinking.

15. 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.
Condition Ｎ
Intervention 15
Control 13

16. PGIS-II Total Score (Average)
Control < Intervention ** p <.01

17. Solution Focused Inventory Total Score
Control < Intervention* p <.05

18. DeLong‘s test for two correlated ROC curves
Intervention（1），Control（0） and Post data.
SFI Total
Cut Off Point : 50
Area under the curve: 0.818
95% CI: 0.65-0.98
Specificity=0.92
Sensitivity=0.67
PGIS-II Total
Cut Off Point : 78
Area under the curve: 0.823
95% CI: 0.67-0.98
Specificity=0.85
Sensitivity 0.73

19. 8.6 8.4
8.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Education Card Game GF-PRACTICE
Evaluation of the Programs
(1-10 point)

20. 【Feedback & comment of the Intervention】
◆Total
・「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」

21. Control Intervention
PGIS-II Pre Post d Pre Post d F
PGIS-II
Total
M 4.2 4.1 -.06 4.3 5.0 1.12 35.0***
SD 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.6
Intentional
Behavior
M 4.8 4.8 .06 4.8 5.2 .69 5.3*
SD 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.5
Readiness for
Change
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

22. Control Intervention
SFI Pre Post d Pre Post d F
SFI
Total
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
Resource
Activation
M 16.2 16.7 .16 16.7 19.1 .79 4.5*
SD 3.1 3.0 2.0 2.0
Problem
disengagement
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

23. Main Reference
• 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.

24. Reference material Research in Japan 2013.2 ～ 4 N=475
The relationship PGIS-II and SFI (Grant et al., 2012).