Subtopic Deep Dive
Self-Efficacy Development through Coaching Interventions
Research Guide
What is Self-Efficacy Development through Coaching Interventions?
Self-Efficacy Development through Coaching Interventions examines coaching techniques that enhance individuals' beliefs in their capabilities via mastery experiences, vicarious learning, and verbal persuasion in workplace and executive contexts.
Research focuses on coach-coachee relationships and psychologically informed approaches to boost self-efficacy, with meta-analyses confirming effects on performance and stress reduction. Over 20 studies from 2005-2023, including 264-citation foundational work by Baron and Morin (2009), link coaching to self-efficacy gains. Evidence draws from RCTs, quasi-experiments, and systematic reviews in executive and health coaching.
Why It Matters
Coaching interventions improve self-efficacy, leading to reduced workplace stress and enhanced leadership performance, as shown in Gyllensten and Palmer's (2005) quasi-experimental study with 31 finance workers reporting lower anxiety and depression. De Haan et al. (2016) large-scale study (154 citations) found self-efficacy as a key mediator alongside relationship quality in executive coaching outcomes. Wang et al. (2021) meta-analysis (91 citations) of psychologically informed coaching demonstrates sustained behavioral changes in organizational settings.
Key Research Challenges
Measuring Self-Efficacy Gains
Quantifying pre-post self-efficacy changes in coaching lacks standardized scales across studies. De Haan and Nilsson (2023) meta-analysis of 37 RCTs highlights variability in self-efficacy metrics, complicating comparisons. Short-term measures often overlook long-term transfer to performance.
Coach-Coachee Relationship Variability
Field studies reveal inconsistent relationship quality impacts self-efficacy development. Baron and Morin (2009) 264-citation study links strong coach-coachee bonds to efficacy gains, but personality match effects vary per de Haan et al. (2016). Standardized protocols are absent.
Evidence from Non-RCT Designs
Many studies use quasi-experimental methods, limiting causal claims on self-efficacy. Gyllensten and Palmer (2005) quasi-study shows stress reduction but lacks randomization controls. Lai and McDowall (2014) SR calls for more RCTs to validate coaching psychologist attributes.
Essential Papers
The coach‐coachee relationship in executive coaching: A field study
Louis Baron, Lucie Morin · 2009 · Human Resource Development Quarterly · 264 citations
Abstract Numerous authors have suggested that the working relationship between coach and coachee constitutes an essential condition to the success of executive coaching. This study empirically inve...
A large-scale study of executive and workplace coaching: The relative contributions of relationship, personality match, and self-efficacy.
Erik de Haan, Anthony M. Grant, Yvonne Burger et al. · 2016 · Consulting psychology journal · 154 citations
Internet- and mobile-based stress management for employees with adherence-focused guidance: efficacy and mechanism of change
David Daniel Ebert, Dirk Lehr, Elena Heber et al. · 2016 · Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment & Health · 130 citations
The iSMI investigated in this study was found to be effective in reducing typical symptoms of stress. However, several important work-related health symptoms were not significantly affected by the ...
Can Coaching Reduce Workplace Stress? A Quasi-Experimental Study
Kristina Gyllensten, Stephen Palmer · 2005 · International journal of evidence based coaching and mentoring · 102 citations
This paper presents the main findings from Part I of a study investigating if workplace coaching can reduce stress. Thirty-one participants from a UK finance organisation took part in the quasi-exp...
The effectiveness of workplace coaching: a meta-analysis of contemporary psychologically informed coaching approaches
Qing Wang, Yi‐Ling Lai, Xiaobo Xu et al. · 2021 · Journal of Work-Applied Management · 91 citations
Purpose The authors examine psychologically informed coaching approaches for evidence-based work-applied management through a meta-analysis. This analysis synthesized previous empirical coaching re...
What Can We Know about the Effectiveness of Coaching? A Meta-Analysis Based Only on Randomized Controlled Trials
Erik de Haan, Viktor Nilsson · 2023 · Academy of Management Learning and Education · 72 citations
The study involved a comprehensive meta-analysis of 37 randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies of workplace and executive coaching programs written in the English language between 1994 and 2021, ...
A systematic review (SR) of coaching psychology: Focusing on the attributes of effective coaching psychologists
Yi‐Ling Lai, Almuth McDowall · 2014 · International Coaching Psychology Review · 61 citations
Objective: Whilst a number of narrative reviews on coaching exist, there is no systematic review (SR) yet summarising the evidence base in a transparent way. To this extent, we undertook a SR of co...
Reading Guide
Foundational Papers
Start with Baron and Morin (2009) for coach-coachee relationship basics (264 citations), then Gyllensten and Palmer (2005) quasi-study on stress-linked self-efficacy, followed by Lai and McDowall (2014) SR on coaching attributes.
Recent Advances
Study de Haan and Nilsson (2023) RCT meta-analysis (72 citations) for rigorous evidence, Wang et al. (2021) psychologically informed meta (91 citations), and Passmore and Lai (2019) on coaching psychology definitions.
Core Methods
Quasi-experimental pre-post designs (Gyllensten and Palmer, 2005); RCTs with self-efficacy scales (de Haan et al., 2016); meta-analyses of cognitive-behavioral and positive psychology coaching (Wang et al., 2021).
How PapersFlow Helps You Research Self-Efficacy Development through Coaching Interventions
Discover & Search
Research Agent uses searchPapers with query 'self-efficacy coaching interventions RCT' to retrieve de Haan and Nilsson (2023) meta-analysis of 37 RCTs, then citationGraph reveals backward links to Baron and Morin (2009). ExaSearch uncovers related workplace stress papers like Gyllensten and Palmer (2005), while findSimilarPapers expands to Lai et al. (2014) SR on coaching psychology.
Analyze & Verify
Analysis Agent applies readPaperContent to extract self-efficacy measures from de Haan et al. (2016), then verifyResponse with CoVe checks claims against Baron and Morin (2009) abstracts for relationship effects. RunPythonAnalysis computes effect sizes from meta-analysis tables in Wang et al. (2021) using pandas, with GRADE grading assigning high evidence to RCTs.
Synthesize & Write
Synthesis Agent detects gaps in long-term self-efficacy tracking across RCTs via contradiction flagging between de Haan and Nilsson (2023) and quasi-studies. Writing Agent uses latexEditText to draft sections, latexSyncCitations for Baron et al. papers, and latexCompile for a full review; exportMermaid visualizes coach-coachee relationship flows from Lai and McDowall (2014).
Use Cases
"Extract self-efficacy effect sizes from coaching meta-analyses and plot forest plot."
Research Agent → searchPapers 'self-efficacy coaching meta-analysis' → Analysis Agent → readPaperContent on Wang et al. (2021) and de Haan & Nilsson (2023) → runPythonAnalysis with pandas/matplotlib → researcher gets CSV of effect sizes and forest plot image.
"Write LaTeX review of coach-coachee relationship effects on self-efficacy."
Research Agent → citationGraph from Baron & Morin (2009) → Synthesis Agent → gap detection → Writing Agent → latexEditText for draft → latexSyncCitations → latexCompile → researcher gets compiled PDF with citations and figures.
"Find open-source tools for self-efficacy scales used in coaching studies."
Research Agent → searchPapers 'self-efficacy scale coaching' → paperExtractUrls → paperFindGithubRepo → githubRepoInspect → researcher gets validated GitHub repos with scales from papers like de Haan et al. (2016).
Automated Workflows
Deep Research workflow conducts systematic review: searchPapers for 50+ coaching papers → citationGraph clustering around self-efficacy → GRADE grading → structured report on RCT evidence from de Haan and Nilsson (2023). DeepScan applies 7-step analysis with CoVe checkpoints to verify Baron and Morin (2009) relationship claims against recent meta-analyses. Theorizer generates hypotheses on self-efficacy mediators from Lai et al. (2014) attributes.
Frequently Asked Questions
What defines self-efficacy development in coaching?
Coaching uses Bandura's sources—mastery, vicarious, persuasion—to build self-efficacy beliefs, measured pre-post in executive contexts (Baron and Morin, 2009).
What methods dominate coaching self-efficacy research?
RCTs and quasi-experiments assess interventions; meta-analyses by de Haan and Nilsson (2023) synthesize 37 RCTs, while Wang et al. (2021) cover cognitive-behavioral approaches.
Which papers are key for self-efficacy in coaching?
Baron and Morin (2009, 264 citations) on coach-coachee relationships; de Haan et al. (2016, 154 citations) on self-efficacy contributions; de Haan and Nilsson (2023, 72 citations) RCT meta-analysis.
What open problems exist?
Long-term self-efficacy retention post-coaching untested; non-RCT variability persists (Gyllensten and Palmer, 2005); personality matching needs RCTs (de Haan et al., 2016).
Research Psychology, Coaching, and Therapy with AI
PapersFlow provides specialized AI tools for Psychology researchers. Here are the most relevant for this topic:
Systematic Review
AI-powered evidence synthesis with documented search strategies
AI Literature Review
Automate paper discovery and synthesis across 474M+ papers
Find Disagreement
Discover conflicting findings and counter-evidence
Deep Research Reports
Multi-source evidence synthesis with counter-evidence
See how researchers in Social Sciences use PapersFlow
Field-specific workflows, example queries, and use cases.
Start Researching Self-Efficacy Development through Coaching Interventions with AI
Search 474M+ papers, run AI-powered literature reviews, and write with integrated citations — all in one workspace.
See how PapersFlow works for Psychology researchers
Part of the Psychology, Coaching, and Therapy Research Guide