IX Coach

Coaching approaches

Feedback-informed coaching

Feedback-informed coaching measures how things are going at each session and changes course when the numbers show the work is not moving. The idea comes from feedback-informed psychotherapy, where meta-analyses have examined routine outcome tracking. No cited study tests it in coaching, so its value for coaching clients is untested.

The principles underneath

Measure each session

The approach asks for a short rating of progress at each session, so that progress is a number you can both see, rather than a feeling each of you remembers differently. Lambert and colleagues (2003) asked whether routine tracking of this kind is worth doing for clinicians at all.

Act on early warning signs

Shimokawa, Lambert and Smart (2010) focused on patients at risk of treatment failure, for whom a flat rating early on matters most. The approach changes something when the rating shows the work is not moving, rather than waiting for the end of the programme.

The person's own rating counts

Miller and colleagues (2005) describe an outcome management system, and the approach takes its principle of asking the client for a rating from that tradition. The rating is information from you, not a verdict on you.

What it is

Feedback-informed coaching measures how things are going at each session and uses the result to decide what to do next. You give a brief rating of your progress, the coach reads it before the conversation starts, and the two of you change course if the rating shows the work is not moving.

The approach comes from feedback-informed psychotherapy, which is associated with Michael Lambert, Scott D. Miller and their colleagues. Lambert and colleagues examined whether clinicians should track patient outcome routinely, and Shimokawa and colleagues reviewed a quality assurance system for patients at risk of treatment failure (Lambert et al., 2003; Shimokawa et al., 2010). The evidence comes from therapy, not coaching.

Where it comes from

Michael Lambert and colleagues asked in 2003 whether clinicians should routinely track patient outcome. Scott D. Miller and colleagues built an outcome management system around the person's own rating of progress, and later wrote up the wider feedback-informed approach (Miller et al., 2005; Schuckard et al., 2017). The approach has been carried from psychotherapy to coaching in principle, and not yet tested there.

How a session runs

  1. You and the coach agree what progress would look like for you over the next few weeks.
  2. At the start of each session you give a short rating of how things are going, and the coach reads it before you talk.
  3. If the rating shows the work is not moving, the coach asks what is getting in the way, and you agree a change to the approach, the pace or the goal.
  4. You review the trend across sessions together, not only the latest number.
  5. The ratings help you both decide when to keep going, when to change course and when to pause.

When it tends to fit

  • You have been in coaching for several sessions and cannot say whether anything has moved.
  • You dread the start of each session, and you want that noticed early rather than at the end of a programme.
  • Your progress has stalled, and you are unsure whether the approach or your own effort is the problem.

What the research shows

Evidence: Randomized trials or meta-analyses

For the parent therapy, meta-analyses exist. Lambert and colleagues (2003) asked, in a meta-analysis, whether clinicians should routinely track patient outcome. Shimokawa, Lambert and Smart (2010) reviewed a psychotherapy quality assurance system for patients at risk of treatment failure, using meta-analytic and mega-analytic methods. Lambert, Harmon, Slade, Whipple and Hawkins (2005) report clinical results from giving feedback to psychotherapists on their patients' progress. Miller, Duncan, Sorrell and Brown (2005) describe the Partners for Change outcome management system. Schuckard, Miller and Hubble (2017) review the historical and empirical foundations of feedback-informed treatment. Reese, Norsworthy and Rowlands (2009) examine directly whether a continuous feedback system improves psychotherapy outcome, which is the question the approach has to answer for coaching too.

Untested combination. Each part above has its own research; this way of combining them has not been tested as a whole.

Where the evidence is thin: The meta-analyses concern psychotherapy in clinical settings, not coaching. None of the cited sources tests feedback-informed coaching, so whether the approach helps coaching clients is untested. The approach has been carried over in principle.

Sources

  1. Lambert, M. J., Whipple, J. L., Hawkins, E. J., Vermeersch, D. A., Nielsen, S. L., & Smart, D. W. (2003). Is it time for clinicians to routinely track patient outcome? A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(3), 288–301.
  2. Lambert, M. J., Harmon, C., Slade, K., Whipple, J. L., & Hawkins, E. J. (2005). Providing feedback to psychotherapists on their patients' progress: Clinical results and practice suggestions. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(2), 165–174.
  3. Shimokawa, K., Lambert, M. J., & Smart, D. W. (2010). Enhancing treatment outcome of patients at risk of treatment failure: Meta-analytic and mega-analytic review of a psychotherapy quality assurance system. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78(3), 298–311.
  4. Miller, S. D., Duncan, B. L., Sorrell, R., & Brown, G. S. (2005). The partners for change outcome management system. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(2), 199–208.
  5. Reese, R. J., Norsworthy, L. A., & Rowlands, S. R. (2009). Does a continuous feedback system improve psychotherapy outcome? Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 46(4), 418–431.
  6. Schuckard, E., Miller, S. D., & Hubble, M. A. (2017). Feedback-informed treatment: Historical and empirical foundations. In Feedback-informed treatment in clinical practice: Reaching for excellence (pp. 13–35).

Where it stops

The evidence is from psychotherapy and clinical settings. Whether feedback-informed coaching helps coaching clients has not been tested.

A low rating is a question to talk through, not a verdict. A hard week can look like failure on a scale.

A rating does not replace a clinical assessment. If you have thoughts of harming yourself or others, or symptoms of depression that will not lift, contact a qualified clinician or an emergency service straight away.

Practices for this approach

Practice this with IX Coach

Try this practice