比较以问题为中心、以解决方案为中心和以问题为中心/以解决方案为中心的组合指导方法:以解决方案为中心的指导问题减轻了功能失调态度的负面影响

Pub Date : 2020-01-02 DOI:10.1080/17521882.2019.1599030
A. Grant, Benjamin Gerrard
{"title":"比较以问题为中心、以解决方案为中心和以问题为中心/以解决方案为中心的组合指导方法:以解决方案为中心的指导问题减轻了功能失调态度的负面影响","authors":"A. Grant, Benjamin Gerrard","doi":"10.1080/17521882.2019.1599030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Little is known about impact of different types of questions used in coaching. This study compares the relative impact of 1) SF with 2) PF coaching questions and with 3) a combined problem-focused and solution-focused (PF + SF) coaching questions condition. Despite much discussion about the impact of mental health issues in coaching, there has been little research on how coachees’ dysfunctional attitudes effect coaching outcomes. 80 participants were randomly assigned to PF, SF or PF + SF coaching conditions. It should be noted that a whole coaching session was not conducted – in an experimental self-coaching exercise participants responded to different types of coaching question: SF questions were more effective than PF questions on all measures. SF questions were also more effective at increasing self-efficacy and decreasing negative affect compared to a combined PF + SF approach. Dysfunctional attitudes were found to have a detrimental impact on negative affect following both PF and PF/SF questions but not SF. Further analysis revealed that PF questions were significantly less effective on decreasing negative affect for participants ‘high’ in dysfunctional attitudes, but not for those ‘low’ in dysfunctional attitudes. For those ‘low’ in dysfunctional attitudes all three coaching styles were equally effective in reducing negative affect. No other significant relationships were observed between dysfunctional attitudes on goal attainment measures. This research suggests that SF approaches are more effective than PF or combined PF + SF. Recommendations for future research and potential implications for coaching practice are discussed.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"28","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing problem-focused, solution-focused and combined problem-focused/solution-focused coaching approach: solution-focused coaching questions mitigate the negative impact of dysfunctional attitudes\",\"authors\":\"A. Grant, Benjamin Gerrard\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17521882.2019.1599030\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Little is known about impact of different types of questions used in coaching. This study compares the relative impact of 1) SF with 2) PF coaching questions and with 3) a combined problem-focused and solution-focused (PF + SF) coaching questions condition. Despite much discussion about the impact of mental health issues in coaching, there has been little research on how coachees’ dysfunctional attitudes effect coaching outcomes. 80 participants were randomly assigned to PF, SF or PF + SF coaching conditions. It should be noted that a whole coaching session was not conducted – in an experimental self-coaching exercise participants responded to different types of coaching question: SF questions were more effective than PF questions on all measures. SF questions were also more effective at increasing self-efficacy and decreasing negative affect compared to a combined PF + SF approach. Dysfunctional attitudes were found to have a detrimental impact on negative affect following both PF and PF/SF questions but not SF. Further analysis revealed that PF questions were significantly less effective on decreasing negative affect for participants ‘high’ in dysfunctional attitudes, but not for those ‘low’ in dysfunctional attitudes. For those ‘low’ in dysfunctional attitudes all three coaching styles were equally effective in reducing negative affect. No other significant relationships were observed between dysfunctional attitudes on goal attainment measures. This research suggests that SF approaches are more effective than PF or combined PF + SF. Recommendations for future research and potential implications for coaching practice are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"28\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17521882.2019.1599030\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17521882.2019.1599030","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 28

摘要

摘要:关于不同类型的问题对教练的影响,我们所知甚少。本研究比较了1)SF与2)PF教练问题和3)问题焦点和解决方案焦点(PF + SF)组合教练问题条件的相对影响。尽管有很多关于心理健康问题对教练的影响的讨论,但很少有关于教练的功能失调态度如何影响教练结果的研究。80名参与者被随机分配到PF、SF或PF + SF教练组。值得注意的是,并不是进行了一次完整的辅导——在一次自我辅导实验中,参与者回答了不同类型的辅导问题:SF问题在所有方面都比PF问题更有效。与PF + SF联合方法相比,SF问题在提高自我效能和减少负面影响方面也更有效。在PF和PF/SF问题中均发现功能失调态度对消极情绪有不利影响,但SF不存在。进一步的分析表明,对于功能失调态度“高”的参与者,PF问题对减少消极情绪的效果明显较差,而对功能失调态度“低”的参与者则没有效果。对于那些“低”功能失调态度的人来说,这三种教练风格在减少消极情绪方面同样有效。未观察到功能失调态度与目标实现测量之间的其他显著关系。这项研究表明,SF方法比PF或PF + SF组合更有效。讨论了对未来研究的建议和对教练实践的潜在影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
Comparing problem-focused, solution-focused and combined problem-focused/solution-focused coaching approach: solution-focused coaching questions mitigate the negative impact of dysfunctional attitudes
ABSTRACT Little is known about impact of different types of questions used in coaching. This study compares the relative impact of 1) SF with 2) PF coaching questions and with 3) a combined problem-focused and solution-focused (PF + SF) coaching questions condition. Despite much discussion about the impact of mental health issues in coaching, there has been little research on how coachees’ dysfunctional attitudes effect coaching outcomes. 80 participants were randomly assigned to PF, SF or PF + SF coaching conditions. It should be noted that a whole coaching session was not conducted – in an experimental self-coaching exercise participants responded to different types of coaching question: SF questions were more effective than PF questions on all measures. SF questions were also more effective at increasing self-efficacy and decreasing negative affect compared to a combined PF + SF approach. Dysfunctional attitudes were found to have a detrimental impact on negative affect following both PF and PF/SF questions but not SF. Further analysis revealed that PF questions were significantly less effective on decreasing negative affect for participants ‘high’ in dysfunctional attitudes, but not for those ‘low’ in dysfunctional attitudes. For those ‘low’ in dysfunctional attitudes all three coaching styles were equally effective in reducing negative affect. No other significant relationships were observed between dysfunctional attitudes on goal attainment measures. This research suggests that SF approaches are more effective than PF or combined PF + SF. Recommendations for future research and potential implications for coaching practice are discussed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1