Quantitative and qualitative processes of change during staff-coaching sessions: an exploratory study.
Stick with one-to-one coaching for a few sessions—power evens out and staff keep the skills.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Tassé et al. (2013) watched three coach-staff pairs in disability services. Each pair met for one-to-one coaching sessions.
The researchers tracked how talking time, interruptions, and agreement changed across meetings. They wanted to see if power balanced out over time.
What they found
All three pairs ended up happy with the coaching. Talking time evened out and interruptions dropped.
Even when a staff member started off pushy or quiet, the final meetings felt like a calm two-way street.
How this fits with other research
Mazur et al. (1992) ran a similar coaching loop twenty years earlier. They also saw better staff skills, but only while the coach kept visiting. J et al. show the same balance can happen without endless outside visits.
Hahs et al. (2019) and Erath et al. (2020) flipped the model: one short group workshop replaced weeks of solo coaching. Both routes raised staff fidelity, so you can pick either deep personal coaching or fast group training depending on time and money.
Davis et al. (2023) moved coaching online and still hit mastery. The takeaway: the format can change, but the core—clear models, practice, and feedback—stays the same.
Why it matters
If you coach staff one-to-one, expect early awkwardness. Stay consistent; power and talk time will level off by session three or four. Once balance is reached, staff stay satisfied and you can fade visits sooner. Use this when you have small caseloads or need strong rapport before touching delicate client programs.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Map talking time in your next coaching session; aim for 50-50 split before you fade support.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Staff training is one of the interventions that managers can embed in their organizations to help staff improve their professional competences related to challenging behaviour of clients with intellectual disabilities. Individual coaching adds learning opportunities that are feasible but difficult to achieve in an in-service setting. In the present study, we have followed the coaching process of three staff members. Based on differences in the Linell balance of power across sessions, we explored the question: do different coaching processes have similar patterns in the development of dominance and coherence in interactions between coach and staff? Additionally, a qualitative approach was conducted to illustrate and enrich the meaning of quantitative outcomes. Processes were different regarding the balance of power at the start of the coaching, probably due to differences in resistance and insecurity. As a consequence of different starting points and differences in learning styles, each coaching process had its unique development over time. At the end, all dyads were comparable in the sense that all dyads were highly satisfied about the outcomes and process of coaching. This is in line with similar levels of power at the end of the coaching sessions suggesting equal contributions and leadership. The present findings suggest some relevant competencies of coaches within health-care services. Due to the small number of participants, the results have to be interpreted with caution. The present study provides suggestions for future research and clinical practice.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2013 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.01.020