Effect of Coaching Types on Goal Achievement - Assignment Example

Effect of Coaching Types on Goal achievement January 22, This research investigates the relationship between different types of coaching and the levels of performance and achievement of the goal. The research identifies and utilizes three types of coaching such as professional coaching, Tutorials coaching and Peer coaching. The types of coaching are applied in this study as the independent variables. The dependent variable is the goal achievement. In the interpretation of the results, positive coefficient of association will mean that the type of coaching has a positive influence on the achievement of result. On the other hand, negative coefficient indicates a negative influence on goal achievement. The method used in this research is quantitative research, in which SPSS software is used for the analysis. Variables are selected are to represent professional coaching, tutorial coaching and peer coaching as independent variable, with measurable values. The goal attainment is also measured through evaluation of performance, whether poor, good, high or excellent. The level of confidence in the statistical analysis is 95% (Ha, 2011). Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION 2. PROBLEM STATEMENT 3. METHODOLOGY 3.1. Data Used 3.2. Accuracy 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1. Descriptive Statistics 4.2. Estimated Marginal Means 4.3. Plotting of Estimated Marginal Means 4.4. T – Test Results 4.5. Multiple Comparison 4.6. Homogeneous Subsets 4.7. Levene’s Test of Equality of Error 5. RESEARCH DISCUSSION 5.1. Summary 5.2. Conclusion and Recommendation 1. Introduction The focus of this research is to study the relationship that exists between the different types of coaching and the performance in goal achievement. The fundamental idea behind this study is that the achievement of goals and objectives largely rely on the type of coaching applied. Inherently, the research uses a theoretical concept that all the coaching types have positive influence on the goal achievement except the peer coaching type. The study uses the analysis section to determine the coaching type that has the greatest coefficient of association against the goal achievement. Furthermore, the research focuses on various areas of analysis including descriptive statistics, analysis of variance, Levene’s Test of Equality of error variances, Marginal mean of goal achievement, independent sample test and multiple comparisons (Graham, 2011). The analysis involves generation of SPSS software to produce output of the significant variance and the required standard error output. The research is done on the basis of 95 percent confidence interval to test the null and the alternative hypothesis (Balakrishan, 2010). 2. Problem Statement Essentially, the research is aimed at the three independent variables, which are the three coaching types (Ha, 2011). It ensured accuracy by applying the Levene’s test of equality to check for the presence of variance errors, considering the two separate and distinct degree of freedom data. The results and discussion portion focuses on the analysis of the outcomes of the multiple comparison statistical tools (Balakrishan, 2010). The tool generates the standard error output and incorporates three different coaching types, independent variables. It also produces both the upper bound and lower bound data for each type of coaching methodology. Specifically, the statistical research focused on the variance analysis’ determining whether there is significant variance in the within groups and within individuals (Ha, 2011). The independent variables are peer coaching, professional coaching, and tutorials. The dependent variable is the achievement of the prescribed goal (Lajoie, 2012). The hypothesis of this study is that the different coaching types influence the achievement of the prescribed goal. 3. Methodology 3.1. Data Used The research uses data gathered from interview using 10 independent respondents. The next step in the procedure is to subject the raw data into quantitative analysis before testing them in the SPSS software. The research design gathers the independent variables including professional coaching, peer coaching and tutorial coaching type for individual and group. The main dependent variable is the goal attainment (Johnson, 2010). The research will determine the association between the independent variables and the dependent variable. 3.2. Accuracy The software generates various output elements for statistical analysis including the mean output, the standard deviation from the mean output, standard error output and variance on 95% confidence interval. Additionally, the Levene’s test of equality was used to determine the variance errors on the basis of two degree of freedom data (Anderson, 2011). The research further incorporated the multiple comparison statistical tools method including the standard error for every group and the type of coaching variables. This method produces the upper and the lower bound data for each of the coaching types. In addition, the independent samples test is also used. The test includes generating the t test output. The same test generates the differences between the means of both the assumed group and the not assumed group (Johnson, 2010). The research determines whether one or all of the independent variables affect the achievement of the goals. 4. Results AND discussion 4.1. Descriptive Statistics The results of SPSS data analysis are presented in the figures below from figure 1 to figure 10. Figure 1. Descriptive Statistics The descriptive statistics shows the two sessions, group and individual, each with three coaching types. The professional coaching shows the group session with a mean of 4.8 and standard deviation of 0.42. This indicates that professional coaching is the most effective in the realization of the goals. Further, peer coaching independent variable data shows the group session with a mean of 4.2 and a standard deviation of 0.63. The tutorial coaching independent variable generated the lower individual session mean, 2.9 and a higher 0.737 standard deviation. 4.2. Estimated Marginal Means Figure 2: Estimated Marginal Mean Further, figure 2 above demonstrates the outcome of estimated marginal means test of equality for error variances statistical coaching tool. The results show that the F value is 0.037. The degree of freedom produced is high, a value of 22.48. Professional Coaching shows the highest mean (4.5), followed by peer coaching (4.2) and then tutorial coaching (3.4). 4.3. Plotting of Estimated Marginal Means Figure 3: Profile Plotting The graph in figure 3 above clearly indicates negative gradient, which indicates both the group and individual sessions present negative influences of the professional, peer and tutorial coaching types on the achievement of goals. Individual session grouping has steeper gradient, showing that the influence of the three variables are stronger in individual sessions than in group sessions. The standard error of 0.122 in figure 2 above confirms that there is very slight variation between the group sessions means (3.933) and the individual session’s means (3.9). The P value falls below the expected 0.001 while the F value (2, 54) is 21.45. 4.4. T – Test Results Figure 4: Between Subject Effect The figure 4 above shows only the Uni-variate Variance Analysis statistical tool indicated that only the session group had a significant variance. The F value (1, 54) under this group is 0.04, significance of 0.9 and partial squared eta (np2) is 0.001. Furthermore, the same group produced a 0.02 mean square result. 4.5. Multiple Comparison Figure 5: Multiple Comparisons The results in figure 5 above indicate that there is no difference at all between the significance of the peer coaching group, professional coaching and the tutorials group (0.046). Consequently, the effect of coaching type on the goal achievement cannot be established from this significant difference analysis the three coaching. 4.6. Homogeneous Subsets Figure 6: Homogeneous Subsets Figure 7 above shows the variance relationship between the different coaching types and the goal attainment. For the ten respondents used, the professional coaching generated a 4.2 mean and a 0.79 standard deviation output. It also indicates the variance relationship between the different coaching types and the dependent attainment goal. For the above ten research respondents used, the professional coaching generated a goal attainment index of 4.2. Peer coaching generated a goal attainment index of 4.2 while tutorial coaching generated a lower goal attainment index of 3.4. 4.7. Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Figure 7: Levene’s Test Figure 7 above shows the results of multiple comparisons, with a significant difference between the sessions, p = 0.033. The output further shows significance for the coaching types, of 0.847. The table 6 shows that the significance output is 0.698. Using the coaching, the results of Levene’s test indicates a (t (19) at 0.69 and P equal to 0.5. The focus on the equal variances is not assumed since the significance output (0.974) is greater than the 0.05 threshold. ‘ Further, the Levene’s test shows that the significance output is 0.483. Using the tutorials coaching, the outcome is (t (18) at 1.56 and P equal to 0.137. The focus here is that the equal variances are not assumed row because the significance output (0.435) < 0.05 threshold. Additionally, the difference between the means of the individual session, 0.5 for equal variances is not assumed. The results show the results of the levene equality test for error variances statistical tool, in which the F value is 0.675 and the degree of freedom (df1) produced is a 2 degree of freedom while the df2 produced a higher degree of freedom (46.58). Furthermore, the levene’s test shows the Uni-variate Variance Analysis, indicating no significance in the coaching only. The coaching group’s R squared of 0.444 adjusted squared R of 0.446. The Partial squared eta in the coaching is f = 0.634. The same group produced a significance of 0.00. 5. Research Discussion 5.1. Summary The results of this analysis show the effect of coaching types in two dimensions (sessions), the individual coaching types and the group coaching. From the sessions, all the results showed the individual coaching session as being more influential on the performance and achievement of goals. This can be seen through the affirmation of the plotted graph in figure 3 above. The coaching types analyzed from the output of descriptive statistics showed the professional coaching to be of more effect on the results of achievement of goals. Under the tutorials independent variable, the group session produced a 3.4 mean. The same group produced an individual type workplace reaching the significant 3.9 mean. The same team members generated a 0.70 standard deviation. There were similarly ten research respondents. In the individual session, the research used the highly recommended tutorials descriptive statistics tool. Next, the mean of the same individual type of research favourably reached the shores of 2.9. Summarizing the total statistics output of the three independent variables, the output of all the analysis indicates the totals’ group session generated a mean of 4.2 and standard deviation of 0.878. In the individual total session, the mean is 3.9. The standard deviation of the total’s individual session is 0.99. Further, the figure 4 indicates the individual session produced a lower 3.9 mean at the same standard error result of 0.122 compared to the group session. The individual session produced a lesser lower bound 3.65 lower bound figure and a lesser 4.15 upper bound figure. Clearly, the same figure proves that there is very slight difference between the group session mean (3.95) and the individual session mean (3.60). Additionally, the partial squared eta output indicates the session type has very slight variance in the achievement of scores (of goal attainment). Further, figure 3 above shows the partial squared eta shows a large effect when comparing the group session and the individual session for nearly 45 percent of the variability in achieving the scores (of goal attainment). The Bonferroni adjustment means the 0.0467 or (0.05/3) is added to the alpha to determine if P value. The prior figure 2 shows the P value is 0.05. Consequently, the type 1 error benchmark should be P + 0.0467 = 0.1067. Since the Figure 2 shows the computed P value is 0.467, there is variance (significant) between the groups because the resulting 0.467 value is higher than the Bonferroni included the 0.06667 benchmark. Consequently the greater effect is derived from the group session, rather than the individual session. In addition, figure 5 indicates there is difference (significant) between the equal variances assumed group (individual session) and the equal variances not assumed group (group session). From this, it is clear that the difference between the means of the individual session, -0.6 for equal variances assumed. Further, figure 6 shows the difference between the means of the individual session, 0.2 for equal variances is not assumed. Next, the variability in the two groups does not differ significantly, with a significance of 0.798. This is greater than the n 0.05 benchmark. There is no difference (significant) between the equal variances assumed group (individual session) and the equal variances not assumed group (group session). Furthermore, figure 7 shows the variability in the two groups does not differ significantly. Since the above 0.737 significance output is equal to the threshold of n 0.05, there is no difference between the equal variances assumed group (individual session) and the equal variances not assumed group (group session). Furthermore, figure 7 indicates the peer coaching generated a similar 4.2 mean and a lower 0.63 standard deviation. Lastly, the tutorials type generated a lower 3.4 mean and a 0.70 standard deviation output. Moreover, figure 6 indicates the significance level, 0.60, is higher than the standard 0.05 benchmark. Since the 0.6 p or significance output is more than the 0.05 benchmark, the statistical tool leads to the indication that variance can be assumed across the different groups. In addition, the figure 6 shows the partial squared eta (np2) is 0.239. Further, the same group had a 2 degree of freedom output. Furthermore, the same group produced a 02.133 mean square result. Similarly, the figure 3 shows same results indicating there is a significant difference between the professional coaching group and the peer coaching group, p = 0.046. However, the results in the same table indicate there is no difference (in terms of significance) between the professional coaching as well as the peer coaching. Further, results of the analysis in figure 4 states the peer coaching produced a lower 4.0 mean and a higher 0.66 standard deviation. Lastly, the tutorials type achieved the lowest mean, 3.9, and the highest standard deviation output, 0.99. Furthermore, the results in figure 2 states the significance level, 0.678, is higher than the standard 0.05 benchmark. Since the 0.6 p or significance output is more than the 0.05 threshold, the statistical tool leads to the indication that variance can be assumed across the different groups. Moreover, figure 4 affirms the same group had a 2 degree of freedom output. Lastly, the same group produced a 0.4 mean square result. In a similar manner, figure 5 indicates the same results indicate there is a significant difference between the professional coaching group (sig .000) and the peer coaching group, p = 0.001. Additionally, the results of the same analysis indicates there is a difference (in terms of significance) between the professional coaching ( sig 0.021) as well as the peer coaching, p = 0.001. 5.2. Conclusion and Recommendation From the results of the study, it is clear that the coaching type has a positive effect on the achievement of goals and objectives. The session type preferred by this research is the group session, because as figure 3 shows, it has less negative effect on the goal achievement. The coaching type with the greatest effect is the professional type, followed by the tutorial coaching type and eventually the peer coaching type. The coaching type that prevails in the present situation is therefore the professional coaching type. The latter two require improvement in the future including dynamic transformation such as the use of modern skills to boost the result achievement. References Anderson, D., 2011, Essentials of Modern Business Statistics. London: Cengage Learning Press. Balakrishan, N., 2010, Methods and Applications of Statistics. London: J. Wiley & Sons. Graham, A., 2011, Statistics: Bullet Guides. London: Hachette Press. Ha, R., 2011, Integrative Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences. London: Sage Press. Johnson, R., 2010, Statistics. London: J. Wiley & Sons. Lajoie, S., 2012, Reflections on Statistics. London: Routledge Press. Read More