This report is the second in a series that convey and interpret results from two versions of a questionnaire that was initially prepared by the Development of Coaches Research Collaborative in cooperation with the Collaborative Research Network of the Society for Psychotherapy Research. Completed in 2009 by 153 coaches from throughout the world, the first survey was followed by a second version that was distributed in 2015 (with only minor editing changes) by the Library of Professional Coaching in cooperation with ITLCInsights. Fifty eight coaches provided responses to the second questionnaire — yielding a total of 211 responses to the two surveys. The time interval between the two surveys was six years, enabling us to get a preliminary sense of possible changes in coaching attitudes over this period of time, as well as a sense of stability (low levels of difference in mean scores and variance) in the attitudes of professional coaches regarding their own development.
Unlike most coaching surveys, the two surveys conducted in 2009 and 2015 were directed toward those actually doing the coaching, rather than the users of coaching services. These surveys were completed by a widely ranging group of coaches – in terms of geography, schools of coaching, age and years of experience in providing coaching services. These two surveys are also distinctive in that they have been being conducted by organizations (the Library of Professional Coaching and ITLCInsights) that have no specific stake in the outcomes, and are being distributed to practitioners at many levels of practice and status. These surveys are truly ‘”neutral” and “democratizing.”
Download Article 1K Club
Rey Carr
December 17, 2015 at 4:00 pm
The best part of this report of the results of these two surveys is the discussion of the concepts. Such discussion is valuable regardless of the reliability or validity of the results (or evidence).
Unfortunately, the methodology section is missing the most important aspect of methodology: how were each of the surveys distributed and what was the rate of return. If, as I suspect, this was an Internet-based survey, then the results have an exceptionally low chance of being either reliable or valid. That is, the likelihood that they reflect the “coaching industry” or “a typical coach” is incredibly small. Thus, conclusions based on the results are suspect.
But there’s the point. The discussion itself has its own reliability and validity independent of the survey. The points made are worthy of continuing discussion regardless of the surveys.