International Coaching Psychology Review, 4.2, September 2009

John Franklin & Justin Doran
battery of measures completed at the commencement
of the programme. The programme
was approved by the university
Human Ethics Committee.
Results
Preliminary Analysis
In view of the exploratory nature of the study
and the small number of participants, an
alpha level of .05 was set for significance, and
.1 to signify a trend for all main effects,
unless otherwise stated. Analysis of the
demographic characteristics revealed no significant
differences between participants in
the conditions, thus confirming the effectiveness
of the randomisation.
Preliminary inspections of the data
revealed three statistical outliers arising from
students failing due to non-attendance or
late withdraw from their units. Due to the
small sample size involved in the study, it was
decided that the inclusion of these outliers
in any analysis involving average mark would
lead to misleading results. Accordingly, they
were excluded from the analysis involving
average mark, but were retained for all other
analysis. Additionally, marks for any second
year subjects or higher were excluded. One
participant in the PAAL condition only sat
subjects higher than first year and was thus
excluded from any analysis involving average
mark. The same policy was adopted with
respect to those students in the no treatment
control condition who failed due to nonattendance
or late withdraw, or who had
completed subjects higher than first year.
The results for each of the seven
dependent measures under the two
coaching conditions are shown in Table 1.
Hypothesis 1
H1 stated that both the Self-regulation and
the PAAL coaching programmes would produce
significant improvements in self-efficacy,
decisional balance, hope and
resilience, but that the PAAL programme
would produce significantly greater changes.
To test H1 a two-way ANOVA with
repeated measures was conducted for each
of the dependent variables, with time as the
within subjects variable and condition as the
between subjects variable. Pairwise t-tests
were run on the changes over time for each
of the two conditions.
Analysis of the main effect of condition
revealed that participants in the PAAL condition
did not differ in their self-efficacy from
participants in the self-regulation condition,
F(1,33)=1.47, p=.235, averaged across time.
The main effect of time revealed that participants
self-efficacy at T2 was greater than participants
self-efficacy at T1, F(1,33)=66.61,
p