In seeking to make sense of results obtained from our initial analysis of responses to these two Development of Coaching questions, we turn first to a comparison between the two surveys that were conducted, then turn to themes that emerge from the two Influence questions that are the focus of this third article.
Comparison Between Two Surveys
As we found when reporting on results in our first two articles, there is often a high level of concurrance in the means scores for the two studies. Not only are the mean scores quite similar, the rank order of means for all three studies are similar. Even the variance scores are similar with regard to both amount of variance in responses to a specific item and the rank order of the variance scores for each item.
The only difference of any note in results from the two studies concerns the ranking of mean scores for one of the question one items (the influence of formal supervision): the mean score for this item ranked sixth among items on the first survey, but tenth among survey two items. For question two, the only major differences in the ranking of mean scores concerned (once again) supervision and receiving coaching. For the supervision item, the mean score ranking among items on the first survey was four, while on the second survye it was seven. For the receiving of coaching services, the difference in mean score rankings shows up for both the life coaching item and the item concerned with getting coaching on one’s own coaching work. The life coaching item ranked eleventh among the first survey items, but eighth among items on the second survey. The ranking differences of mean scores were just the reverse for the coaching on one’s own coaching item: this item ranked eighth on the first survey and eleventh on the second survey.
These difference in rankings of mean scores are not very dramatic, but they are the biggest of any with regard to question one and question two items on the two surveys. The main point to be made is that mean score results from the two surveys are quite quite consistent, suggesting that findings are robust over time: the patterns of influence (as represented by mean scores) do not seem to differ much over this six year period.
What about variance scores? Once again, the differences between the two surveys are not very great. The only two rankings on Question One that were of any significant differences concerned personal coaching and the institutional conditions in which a coach works. Receiving personal coaching was ranked eighth with regard to variance among items in the first survey, while it was ranked fourth among items on the second survey. The institutional conditions item (of which we will have much more to say later in this report) was ranked third in variance among items on the first survey, but seventh among variance items on the second survey.Download Article 1K Club