Keywords - affinityhealthhub.co.ukaffinityhealthhub.co.uk/storage/app/attachments/...1543847188.docx · Web viewOur primary purpose in this paper is to a) outline the heretofore

RUNNING HEAD: COACHING DYSLEXICS

Title page

Nancy Doyle C.Psychol. and Dr. Almuth McDowall C.Psychol.

Is coaching an effective adjustment for dyslexic adults?

City University, London

Lead author:

Nancy Doyle CPsychol.PhD StudentDepartment of Psychology, Social Sciences Building, City University London, Whiskin Street, London, EC1R [email protected] +44 1273 890 691

Nancy is a Chartered Occupational Psychologist specialising in coaching, neurodifferences and social inclusion of people with hidden disability. Nancy runs Genius Within CIC, a UK wide social enterprise supporting neurodiverse adults both in work and in preparation for work. This research was conducted using Nancy’s client base.

Second author:

Dr Almuth McDowall C.Psychol.Programme Director MSc HRDC

Birkbeck University of London

Department of Organizational Psychology

Bloomsbury

London WC1E [email protected]

Almuth’s research interests span worklife balance, coaching and the assessment and development of performance in the workplace. She is based at Birkbeck University of London, where she is principal investigator on a number of funded research projects and directs the programme in human resource development and consultancy. She is widely published in the academic and popular press, and a regular contributor to the media.

mailto:[email protected]



Abstract

Our primary purpose in this paper is to a) outline the heretofore limited investigation and understanding of dyslexia in adults and b) assess the impact of coaching as ‘reasonable’ adjustment for this significant proportion of the working population, who receive little attention in the coaching, work performance and indeed disability literature. A Social Cognitive Learning Theory-based coaching intervention was implemented with an opportunistic sample of 95 dyslexic coachees who, along with 41 line managers, provided independent ratings of work performance both before and after the coaching was conducted. Analysis of the coaching topics revealed a higher prevalence of working memory, organisational skills and time management than literacy difficulties. Paired samples t-tests revealed significant differences between the time intervals and large effect sizes (coachees: t (92) = 19.35, p < .001, d = 1.94; line managers: t(40) = 10.72, p < .001, d = 0.85) indicating that work performance improved over time. The study supports the definition of dyslexia as a life-long, cognitive condition; the group comparisons demonstrated that coaching can address occupational performance deficits in executive functions as well as literacy.

KeywordsDyslexia, neurodiversity workplace performance, working memory, coaching evaluation, reasonable adjustment, Equality Act 2010


Is coaching an effective adjustment for dyslexic adults?

Abstract

Our primary purpose in this paper is to a) outline the heretofore limited

investigation and understanding of dyslexia in adults and b) assess the impact of

coaching as reasonable adjustment for this significant proportion of the working

population, who receive little attention in the coaching, work performance and indeed

disability literature.. A Social Cognitive Learning Theory-based coaching intervention

was implemented with 95 dyslexic coachees who, along with 41 line managers,

provided independent ratings of work performance both before and after the

coaching was conducted. Analysis of the coaching topics revealed a higher

prevalence of working memory, organisational skills and time management than

literacy difficulties. Paired samples t-tests revealed significant differences between

the time intervals and large effect sizes (coachees: t (92) = 19.35, p < .001, d = 1.94;

line managers: t(40) = 10.72, p < .001, d = 0.85) indicating that work performance

improved over time. The study supports the definition of dyslexia as a life-long,

cognitive condition; the group comparisons demonstrated that coaching can address

occupational performance deficits in executive functions as well as literacy.

Practice points:

1. The discrepancy between public awareness of what dyslexia means and the

workplace difficulties arising from the cognitive profile, as reported here,

highlight that we cannot expect dyslexic employees and their employers to be

‘informed consumers’ of support services. They therefore may not make

discerning choices in the style of coaching that they request, for example


choosing an appropriately qualified coach or coaching style. It is thus

beholden upon coaching professionals to act with integrity and practise within

our own ability, making referrals where necessary, as well as evaluating and

disseminating evidence about ‘what works’ for dyslexia in the workplace.

2. Coaching, when delivered from a person-centred approach, encouraging the

individual to self-reflect and develop autogenic strategies, is effective as an

adjustment for adults with dyslexia in the workplace.

3. In general, all coaching professionals interacting with employees who struggle

with memory, time management and organisational skills should be aware

that such difficulties may be part of a dyslexic profile, possibly compensated.

Support and further advice can be sought from the major charities and the

British Psychological Society’s working group on neurodiversity and

employment.

Introduction

Coaching is a wide ranging facilitative activity suitable for varied groups of

individuals including younger as well as older people, healthy individuals as well as

those presenting with specific difficulties (Newnham-Kanas et al., 2011). This paper

focuses on coaching to accommodate disability, specifically dyslexia in adults.

Developmental dyslexia is a hidden disability affecting individuals throughout their

lifespan; estimates for prevalence are up to 10% for the UK workforce (Snowling,

2010). Employers are duty-bound to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ for disabled

employees; for individuals with mental health needs, such adjustments have been

found to relate to length of tenure (Corbiere et al., 2014). ‘Access to Work’, a UK

based, government-funded support system to prevent unemployment as a direct

result of disability, conducts assessments to establish whether the individual could


continue to work with a compensatory adjustment for their disability and to

recommend such adjustments. Dyslexia accounts for approximately 3000 referrals

annually to Access to Work, making it the third most common referral (Gifford, 2011).

For muscular-skeletal difficulties, Access to Work provides free assessment resulting

in advice on interventions such as modifying workload, environment, schedules,

duties or the provision of assistance (Shaw et al., 2014). For dyslexia, Access to

Work provides part-funding for ‘coping strategy coaching’, and assistive technology.

However, the need for evaluation of such adjustments has been identified to build a

commensurate evidence base (McLoughlin & Leather, 2013; Gerber et al., 2012)

without which coaching may be ineffective, which has been argued to hold true for

varied coaching contexts (McDowall & O'Broin, 2014). There is also a need to

educate employers, to provide better information about the effectiveness of any

adjustments (Shaw et al., 2014) and affected employees who may be at serious risks

for job retention if any activities fail. Our primary purpose in this paper is to (a)

outline the heretofore limited investigation and understanding of dyslexia in adults

and (b) assess the impact of coaching as reasonable adjustment for this significant

proportion of the working population, who receive little attention in the coaching,

work performance and indeed disability literature (Gerber et al., 2012)

The evidence on dyslexia in adulthood

Very little is understood about dyslexic difficulties post-education, for instance

to what extent these relate to occupational outcomes such as productivity,

sustainability of employment and absenteeism (McLoughlin & Leather, 2013). A

broad search for the term ‘dyslexia’ within the EBSCO hosted databases in June

2014 revealed 11,117 research papers on the topic of dyslexia since 1995. When

the terms ‘treatment’ and ‘intervention’ were added, limiting sample populations to


adults, the same databases produced only 82 of papers, of which only 27 were peer-

reviewed, related to work or career, and only four of these were intervention

evaluations. The lack of a commonly agreed definition limits the research scope and

has contributed to the dearth of adult-focused studies. For example, the current

definition used by the British Psychological Society, refers only to the educational

process of literacy acquisition (BPS, 2005). Conversely, McLoughlin and Leather

(2013, p28) define dyslexia as symptomatic of a life-long condition affecting

cognition:

“Developmental dyslexia is a genetically inherited and neurologically

determined inefficiency in working memory, the information processing

system fundamental to learning and performance in conventional education

and work settings. It has particular impact on verbal and written

communication as well as organisation, time management, planning and

adaption to change.”

Given the prevalence of the condition, coaches in the realm of work may be

working with coachees who have succeeded in their careers to date but have now

reached a barrier beyond which cognitive difficulties impede performance. The

approach outlined in this paper has implications for both coaching as part of a formal

process of implementing adjustments and for coachees who present for coaching

independently, who may have dyslexia related difficulty as a feature of their broad

workplace needs. We will now outline a cognitive approach to understanding

occupational dyslexia-related difficulty and present a case study evaluation of a

social cognitive coaching method delivered as a primary intervention to prevent loss

of employment in a sample of 95 dyslexic adults.


The Cognitive Profile of the Dyslexic Adult

Dyslexic adults have usually achieved a level of literacy commensurate with

the form of employment they seek; across a full range of mental ability; this is

sometimes known as the ‘compensated dyslexic’ (Shaywitz, 1996) where individuals

have developed literacy skills despite an underlying neurocognitive deficit. For

example, the 5% of nurses who are dyslexic (Illingworth, 2005) will need to have

achieved a literacy level above GCSE standard English, in order to have passed

their A Levels and Degree courses. Such neurocognitive deficits are encompassed

in the umbrella term “executive function issues”, which Varvar et al. (2014, p. 120)

define as: “selectively processing information in the environment, retaining task-

relevant information in an accessible state over time, making a plan by selecting a

sequence of actions to achieve a goal, inhibiting a verbal or motor response,

successfully adapting responses to changes in situations and environments, problem

solving and self monitoring”. This definition includes Working Memory and the

processing of phonological and visual short term memory. Thus the delayed

acquisition of literacy arises from a cognitive difficulty that perpetuates after

education, for example impacting on work performance. Dyslexia practitioners

working with adults report persistent poor performance in the following areas,

compared to an otherwise acceptable / exemplary work record: (a) organisation skills

(Bartlett & Moody, 2010) (McLoughlin & Leather, 2013); (b) Time management and

estimation (Bartlett & Moody, 2010) (McLoughlin & Leather, 2013); (c) Goal-setting

and prioritisation (Bartlett & Moody, 2010) (McLoughlin & Leather, 2013); (d) Coping

with distractions (Bartlett & Moody, 2010) (McLoughlin & Leather, 2013); (e) Self-

regulation (Bartlett & Moody, 2010) (McLoughlin & Leather, 2013). This list of

observed difficulties relates to several aspects of executive functioning all of which


are strongly dependent on ‘Working Memory’ (Leather et al., 2011)

‘Working Memory’ (Baddeley, 2000) is a cognitive, executive function

requiring individuals to retain information in short-term memory, either via

phonological repetition or visual/spatial imagery, while they compute or analyse

relevant information. Working memory deficits has long been highlighted as a

marker for diagnosing dyslexia (Wagner & Muse, 2006) and, while it is not

considered a definitive factor in the assessment of children (Elliot & Grigorenko,

2014) it is a strong indication within the diagnosis of adults (Baker & Ireland, 2007)

where early literacy difficulties may have been overcome (Shaywitz S. A., 1996).

Grant (Grant, 2009) highlights the following cognitive profile as indicative of dyslexia,

using the Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale (Wechsler, 2008) for assessment (see

Figure 1). The profiles below, would both produce full scale IQs of within one

standard deviation of the average IQ of 100, yet the workplace performance for the

two profiles would be markedly different in practice.

**Note to editor: Insert Figure 1 about here

A Systematic Review of work participation for dyslexic adults highlighted

executive functions, which include working memory as pervasive in job tasks, work

participation and communication at work (de Beers et al., 2014). Working memory

difficulties are not limited to dyslexic individuals, but are also experienced by those

with dyspraxia, ADHD (Grant, 2009) and many long term health conditions such as

Multiple Sclerosis (Shevil & Finlayson, 2010).


Working memory is not a concept which is well understood by the line

managers or coachees, given that it refers to cognitive processes which may not be

explicit, unlike difficulties with reading or spelling, which are observable and have

face validity as a disability stereotype (Colella et al., 1998). Given the bias in

disability stereotype towards dyslexia as a purely literacy-based difficulty (Colella et

al., 1998), and the influence of disability-job fit stereotypes in judgements about

future performance (Colella & Varma, 1999), it is important to report the difficulties

associated with dyslexia in occupational settings. Increased awareness on the part

of employers, or indeed coaches, will prevent unnecessary negative assumptions

and promote adoption of appropriate adjustments, where a ‘literacy only’

understanding could lead to conflicting beliefs over the origins of performance

issues. Performance issues with time management and organisational skills risk

being interpreted by employers as attitude, motivation or personality factors rather

than dyslexia. Indeed these may be the presenting complaints for coachees in

literate roles, while dyslexia may in fact be the underlying, unidentified cause. We

contend that the working memory deficit is responsible for a significant amount of

occupational dyslexia-related difficulty, just as it may predict initial literacy acquisition

issues (Swanson & Siegel, 2001) and that any reasonable adjustment interventions,

including coaching, should include strategies to manage working memory-related

behaviour.

Interventions for Dyslexia in the Workplace

Evaluative research on the effectiveness of learning interventions to support

adults with dyslexia is sparse, and mainly based on students in Further and Higher

Education (Gerber, 2012). Research to date into improving working memory ability

through neuro-cognitive computer training has so far failed to identify an intervention


that will generalise to behaviour outside the training context (Dunning et al., 2013).

A small collection of studies have examined the development of ‘higher-level thinking

skills’, for example comprehension, argument development, planning and prioritising,

as opposed to word recognition and rote-learning (Hock, 2012; Swanson, 2012;

Swanson & O’Connor, 2009; Swanson & Zheng, 2013; Leather et al., 2011). These

studies highlight the need for interventions to be based on ‘dialectic, Socratic

engagement’, as opposed to didactic literary instruction, in order to develop

executive function control and influence comprehension. Hock (2012) highlighted

the need to be ‘client-led’ when coaching dyslexic students, and both Leather et al.

(2011) and Zimmerman (2002) espoused the use of metacognition, a process by

which one becomes self- aware of one’s own thought processes, to increase self-

regulation (Flavell, 1979).

These three client centred and non-directive elements are congruent with

traditional adult learning frameworks, such as Kolb’s learning cycle (Kolb, 1984), in

which one continually reflects on one’s own performance to develop new strategies

and Social Cognitive Learning Theory (SCLT) (Bandura, 1989), in which the

individual is an active participant in developing new behaviours based on

observation of self and peers. The active participant develops self efficacy

(Bandura, 1989) which can support the wider development of learning skills and

emotional resilience for dyslexic people (Ponton et al., 2005; Werner, 1993). Active

participants are also able to develop metacognition, the ability to be self-aware of

one’s performance, which also leads to higher levels of self-efficacy (Bono & Judge,

2003) and this in turn can affect job satisfaction (Leather et al., 2011). The coaching

approach discussed in this paper is therefore aimed at creating self-management of

difficulties in executive functioning. The approach detailed here stands in contrast to


the idea of coping strategy ‘tuition’, where the coping mechanisms are taught as

explicit instructions, thus reinforcing a dynamic of ‘novice’ and ‘expert’ and inhibiting

the development of self-efficacy and indeed perhaps preventing a successful alliance

between coachee and coach (O'Broin & Palmer, 2006). It is necessary to make this

distinction, since much of the current practice via Access to Work would be

considered tuition. Our definition of coaching in this context is congruent with the

definition forward by McLoughlin and Leather (2013, p43):

"Coaching: this is a partnership and more androgogical approach, in which the

learner ultimately takes control of their own learning and progression. The

aim is to help and increase the individuals' awareness of what they need to do

to improve their performance or develop a particular skill."

In order to measure the effect of coaching as a reasonable adjustment for

adult dyslexics, we implemented and evaluated a tailored coaching programme. Our

evaluation focused on (a) the topics put forward by dyslexic employees and how

these were addressed through coaching, and (b) to what extent any improvements

on these topics would be noted by line managers. If improvements are observable

by third parties this could provide further evidence for potential transfer of learning

and enhanced meta-cognition. In summary, the present study addressed the

following research questions:

Question 1: What kind of cognitive issues are raised by dyslexic adults as a

topic for targeted coaching sessions?


Question 2: To what extent does participation in coaching facilitate an

improvement in workplace performance for relevant issues?

Question 3: To what extent are any observed improvements limited to self-

report coachee experience, or are improvements also observable by line

managers?

Method

Participants

The study participants were 95 coachees from the UK, ranging in age from 23

– 55 years old, 45 women and 50 men, working in a wide range of employment

roles, covering both the public and private sector. The coachees’ coaching

programmes were paid for and commissioned by the employer except for self-

employed workers and those from some small organisations, where Access to Work

provided funding directly. They were working full time and volunteered to take part

a) in the coaching process and b) in the evaluation presented here. The first author

is a director in the third sector organisation who provides the coaching and recruited

the participants through random sampling of the organisation’s evaluation

programme, which is offered to all coachees and managers routinely.

The coaching intervention

Eleven coaches provided an average of 9.86 hours of coaching per employee,

over an average of 4.6 sessions. The number of sessions was pre-determined by an

independent workplace needs assessor, separate to the coaching organisation and

research. This represents an accurate model of common industry practice. All


coaches had a background in professional workplace coaching, occupational

psychology, or both with varying years of experience. We did not recruit for specific

experience with this client group, instead identified coaches who shared a

pedagogical understanding of self-directed learning that would be congruent with

McLoughlin and Leather’s (2013) ‘androgogical approach’. Dyslexia specific

awareness training was delivered to the coaches by a Chartered Psychologist with

over a decade’s experience in the field, to ensure they fully understood key concepts

such as working memory.

Each coach undertook coaching with between seven and fifteen coachees,

over a period of two to six months. The coachees were allocated to the coaches by

geographical boundaries and all agreed to take part in the evaluation. In the

introductory session, a meeting was held with the manager and coachee, where

confidentiality boundaries were discussed as well as expectations around

performance improvement. During the meeting, the topics for focus during the

intervention were chosen, based on a discussion around the employee’s current

performance and the potential difficulties, drawn from the work of Bartlett and Moody

(2010), shown in figure 2 (below – results section). Please note that the term

‘memory’ was used on the actual form, rather than ‘working memory’ and the coach

explored with the coachee examples of difficulty that we have then categorised as

working memory, organisation or time management related. Examples are detailed

in table 1:

Note to editor insert table 1 about there

The coachee, manager and coach developed a coaching brief which was then

refined, through discussion and feedback facilitated by the coach, to fit between


three and seven topics collectively considered to be the most salient to performance

improvement overall in the current job role.

The coaching intervention itself was based on developing self-awareness

through reflective, qualitative interviewing to avoid transferring ‘expertise’ from the

coach to the coachee (Tosey, Lawley, & Reese, 2014) and the development of

behavioural strategies to self-manage problems. The coaches used a Social

Cognitive Learning theory approach of modelling exemplary colleagues, critical

incident analysis, and prompting feedback from outside the coaching relationship.

Coaching models such as ‘symbolic modelling’ (Tompkins & Lawley, 2000) were

used to assist the coachees in developing positive models of their experience. It

was not the purpose of this paper to evaluate one specific method over another, but

to ensure that the intervention followed a pedagogy consistent with Social Cognitive

Learning Theory (Bandura, 1989).

As an example of the approach taken, the coaching question “When you are

organised at your best, it’s like what..?” (Walker, 2014) was used to facilitate a

review of the scenarios and contexts in which the coachee can organise to address

negative self-beliefs about organisational capacity and we can also elicit the

principles by which the person organises. One coachee responded that they were

organised at his best when cooking, and described a process by which he took

several items out of the cupboard to look at how they might fit together for a meal.

This then translated into a workload prioritisation process where they spread their

notes and files across the desk in order to view the ‘ingredients’, and decipher the

order in which they must be addressed as well as how they related to each other.

Viewing everything at once reduced the working memory load because they were no


longer using short-term memory (such as the phonological loop or the visual spatial

scratch-pad, see Baddeley, 2000) to retain the number of workload items.

Through this iterative, dialogic process, the coachees developed a

metacognitive understanding of their own thought and behaviour patterns, before co-

creating individual strategies with their coach. The strategies were practised between

sessions and the results reviewed in the subsequent session in order to facilitate a

cyclical learning process.

Data collection and design

A within-participant, longitudinal evaluation was designed to compare self and

manager performance ratings before (time 1) and after the coaching intervention

(time 2). Before measures were collected from the coachee and their managers

independently, during or immediately following the introductory session. At least one

month after the coaching, and in some cases as many as four months after the

coaching (due to logistical difficulties in contacting some participants) coachees and

managers were telephoned personally, by an independent researcher, to provide

‘after’ measures of performance on the topics covered. Of the 125 people who

completed ‘before’ scores, 95 coachees (76%) responded to the telephone request

and 41 managers (33%). There was no control group within this opportunistic case

study sample.

Measures

Coachees and their line managers gave a performance rating on a 10-point scale

(ranging from 1 as ‘poor’, to 10 as ‘excellent’) at each time interval for the topics

identified in the introductory session (for example ‘memory’ or ‘organisation’). For


the purpose of this research, we analysed four sets of ratings (time 1 and time 2;

managers and coachees) for the five most popular topics as well as the overall

means of each group, as follows; memory; organisational skills; time management;

spelling; stress management. Although planning and prioritising as topics were as

popular as stress management (see figure 2, below) these topics were closely

related to managing time and organisational skills, hence not investigated further in

this study.

Results

The data were analysed using SPSS 21 using only datapoints with a complete pair

of before and after scores (13 cases with missing time 2 scores were excluded, for

example where a manager did not provide an after score for organisation, but did

provide scores for other topics). The data sets met parametric assumptions and

were analysed using paired samples t-tests (before and after for both coachees and

managers) and independent samples t-tests to compare the coachees’ and

managers’ overall scores. A Bonferroni Correction was applied to control for the

number of comparisons (24 means). Cohen’s d was calculated for the paired

samples results to gauge effect size.

With regards to the first research questions regarding the topics for coaching

sessions, Figure 2 shows the percentage of coaching programmes featuring topic

areas as requested by managers during the initial session. The coachees’ requests

varied slightly, providing more importance to spelling than time management, but

resulting in no further differences to the top five topics.

Note to editor: take in Figure 2 about here


In order to test our second research question regarding performance improvements,

we conducted by group comparisons. Table 2 (below) shows the before and after

mean scores overall, and for each of the selected topics for coachees. This

demonstrated an improvement overall (mean of all topics reported by all coachees)

and for the top five priority topics selected by coachees and their managers in the

introductory coaching session. All topics showed a differential effect, with a

Bonferroni Correction setting the alpha level to p = .002.

Note to editor: take in Table 2 about here.

We undertook further group comparisons to ascertain the extent to which

performance improvements were noted by line managers. Table 3 (below) shows

differences on the same topics as reported by managers. The performance

improvements were all but one still statistically significant, after applying the

Bonferroni Correction. The effect sizes were, on average, less than for the coachees,

though still large. This pattern appears due to managers reporting higher time 1

scores, rather than managers reporting lower time 2 scores.

Note to editor: take in Table 3 about here

Independent samples t-tests were used to test the differences between

manager and coachee’s rating scores at time 1 and time 2. The coachees’ average

‘before’ rating scores were significantly lower than their managers’. However after

the coaching, there was no difference between the managers and coachees; both

reported similar levels of mean performance, which shows that the performance at

the second interval was perceived equally by both parties.

Note to editor: take in table 4 about here


Discussion

The analysis of the coaching topics chosen by coachees and managers

shows that memory and organisational skills are the most frequently requested,

which supports our assertion that executive functioning is a prominent feature of

adult-based occupational dyslexia-related difficulty, as opposed to a literacy only

understanding. Workplace coaches may find that their coachees have undiagnosed

dyslexia, or may benefit from improved awareness of how their diagnosed dyslexia is

affecting them beyond educational experience. Specialist coaches working

specifically with dyslexia as part of a reasonable adjustment package should ensure

that these topics are investigated as potential causes of poor performance. Coaches

may also need to advise supervisors or human resource professionals on how

compensated dyslexia manifests in a workplace to promote understanding and

ultimately better and more effective accommodation strategies.

Dyslexia is often referred to as reading disability. However, the accuracy of

this label has been questioned, since many people struggle to acquire reading, not

just dyslexic people (Elliot & Grigorenko, 2014). The adults in our study were working

in roles necessitating basic literacy ability. As literacy was not amongst the top two

issues as a focus for coaching, and as reading did not feature in the top five topics

for coachees or managers, working memory appears more relevant to the defining

difficulties presented for coaching support experienced by our sample. Reading

issues may be more suited to technological adjustments, such as specialist software

that reads written text out loud, for example. While more work is required to establish

a definitive diagnostic guideline for dyslexia, the prevalence of the above topics

supports the life-long, working definition of dyslexia used by McLouglin and Leather

(2013).


An unexpected result is the development of spelling ability, the sole literacy

item in the top five topics. It is possible that this improvement resulted in a reduction

in self-doubt, or an enhanced confidence to ask, check and then use memory

strategies to retain. The use of working memory and / or self-efficacy as mediating

variables in the development of other skills is a subject for future research.

Additionally it is of interest to explore the combination of assistive technology and

coaching, as is often recommended (McLoughlin and Leather, 2013).

Implications for Coaching Theory, Research and Practice

It is important to further our understanding of the extent to which coaching is

directly affecting underlying working memory capacity or whether the coachee

becomes a more competent self-manager of an unchanging deficit. Working memory

capacity is potentially malleable, as demonstrated by research on children using

computer-based interventions in laboratory conditions, which has proved effective at

a neurological level, yet has little transferability to real life settings (Dunning et al.,

2013). There may be a meta-cognitive process that the coachees have learned to

employ, which is improving memory as highlighted by Bor et al. (2014) or it may be

that a self-efficacy improvement is leading to greater confidence in managing

memory capacity, both self rated and observed. Further studies would benefit from

directly measuring meta-cognition in addition to perceptions of output, or

standardised memory output.

In line with Social Cognitive Learning Theory (Bandura, 1989), we interpret

the lower rating of performance in the before interval and subsequent increase in

self-rating of ability, as indicative of coachees’ improved self-efficacy. Ponton et al.

(2005) asserted that self-efficacy mediates all forms of cognitive motivation to learn,


which is in itself a key factor in improving outcomes from adjustments. Werner

(1993) found that self-efficacy was a protective measure in dyslexic students

attaining similar employment rates to neuro-typical controls, which would indicate a

moderating effect. In addition, Leather et al. (2011) who found that self-efficacy was

correlated with job satisfaction for dyslexic adults. Gerber (2012) stated that self-

efficacy is key in the ultimate goals of independence and autonomy, which would

mediate the impact of the workplace self-management that a dyslexic adult must

address, unlike the experience of the child in an education system. Thus, self-

efficacy becomes both an outcome measure of the dyslexia coaching intervention

and a mediating variable in workplace performance improvement, consistent with

existing research on self-efficacy in the general population (Stajkovic & Luthans,

1998); the existing literature and this study demonstrate that the dyslexic adult is

equally susceptible to the mediating variable of self-efficacy.

Further research could focus on replication of results and improved research

design, for example comparing an intervention to control groups. More targeted

research using a wider range of measures will contribute to theoretical development

as above, perhaps exploring the impact of an effective coaching relationship (O'Broin

& Palmer, 2006) or analysis of the specific techniques used. Strategy coaching /

tuition is diverse in delivery and many people receive technological support in

addition. Longitudinal design is needed to assess the impact of these varying

adjustments on job retention and career potential. We also need to define success

in coaching in this context. Is retention an effective measure of success? Since job-

fit is an issue for dyslexics, with their ‘spiky cognitive profiles’ (Grant, 2009) it may be

that a beneficial outcome of meta-cognitive awareness is to retrain, or find a different

job that is more suited to their strengths.


Our research also has clear practical implications for coachees seeking

coaching as a reasonable adjustment. While we have demonstrated that coaching

can be successful in this context, there are many different approaches and strategy

coaching is often referred to as teaching or tuition(for example Dyslexia Action,

2015) indicating a different pedagogical approach. These have not been evaluated

and may or may not be as effective, depending on the context of the coachee and

the support they require, for example tuition may be appropriate for literacy based

issues where coaching is preferable when dealing with general executive functions

and their impact on time management and organisation. Dyslexic employees and

their employers are not ‘informed consumers’ of such services and cannot therefore

make discerning choices in the style of adjustment that they request. More work is

therefore needed to disseminate the nuances of our findings through relevant

dyslexia practitioner networks, and encourage further evaluation of different

pedagogies.

In general, all coaching professionals interacting with employees who struggle with

memory, time management and organisational skills should be aware that such

difficulties may be part of a dyslexic profile, possibly compensated. Advice on the

extent of how dyslexia is contributing to workplace performance should be the

subject of a workplace needs assessment, and Access to Work can be contacted for

advice on this in the UK.

Limitations and strengths of the current study.

The evaluation presented has several pragmatic limitations, including the

opportunistic sample of coachees already seeking coaching support via Access to

Work without a corresponding control group and any likely differentials in their


diagnostic profile not being included as a control variable. We were further unable to

control for line manager support, which was highlighted as a significant predictor of

tenure in a sample of people with mental health needs (Corbiere et al., 2014). We

were also unable to maintain contact with this group to assess their employment

status further than the collation of the after coaching measures; hence can only

speculate about longevity of outcomes.

Nevertheless, a significant change from ‘before’ to ‘after’ was demonstrated in

both the line manager and coachee rating scores, with large effect sizes. In answer

to our second and third research questions, this is encouraging as the pattern shows

that a coaching intervention can provide a reasonable improvement in workplace

performance. Our strong dyad data is an addition to the current literature base for

studies into both (a) occupational dyslexia and (b) coaching evaluation. Although the

data is self-reported, the line manager element enhances the robustness of the

assessment since line managers will be responsible for making future employment

decision, on which adjustments are predicated. The comparatively low response

rate from managers might represent a lack of investment in the coaching on their

part and further research is needed to expand on this critical element of the

adjustment process. Nevertheless, we also hope that by outlining the difficulties

typically experienced by dyslexic adults, we may make coaches and employers more

aware of potential symptoms.

We conclude that our evaluation offers support for coaching as an effective

adjustment for occupational difficulty experienced by dyslexics, but that further

research is needed to understand how the adult dyslexic profile encompasses a

range of cognitive symptoms beyond literacy. The next logical step is to design a

controlled study and to assess the impact of coaching when compared to dyslexic


individuals who do not receive an intervention. Additionally, the topics of concern

could be compared to non-dyslexic individuals who are seeking workplace coaching,

to establish the extent to which these issues are experienced as a distinct feature of

dyslexia. Coaching support for dyslexia is a common practice, delivered under the

UK Equality Act (2010) label of ‘reasonable adjustment’. What constitutes

reasonable must be defined by time, costs and efficacy and, without robust

longitudinal analysis psychologists cannot state confidently that an adjustment is

effective. This paper is presented as a primary study in the ongoing development of

such an evidence base.

References

Alloway, T. P., Gathercole, S. E., & Kirkwood, H. (2008). The Working Memory Rating Scale. London: Pearson Assessment.

Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Science , 4, 417-422.

Baker, S. F., & Ireland, J. L. (2007). The link between dyslexic traits, executive functioning, impulsivity and social self esteem among and offender and non offender sample. International Journal of law and Psychiatry , 30, 492-503.

Bandura, A. (1989). Human Agency in Social Cognitive Theory. American Psychologist , 44, 1175-1184.

Bartlett, D., & Moody, S. (2010). Dyslexia in the Workplace. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Core-self evaluation: a review of the trait and its role in job satisfaction and job performance. European Journal of Personality , 17, 5-18.

Bor, D., Rothen, N., Schwartzman, D., Clayton, S. and Seth, A.K. (2014). "Adults can be trained to acquire synesthetic experiences". Scientific reports (2045-2322), 4, p. 7089.

British Dyslexia Association. (n.d.). bdadyslexia.org.uk. (Arch) Retrieved 2015 йил 7th-January from http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/dyslexic/definitions

Colella, A., & Varma, A. (1999). Disability-job types stereotypes and the evaluation of persons with disabilities at work. Journal Occupational Rehabilitation , 9, 70-95.


Colella, A., DeNisi, A. S., & Varma, A. (1998). The impact of ratee's disability of performance judgements and choice as partner: the role of disability - job fit stereotypes and interdependence of rewards. Journal of Applied Psychology , 83, 102-111.

Corbiere, M., Villotti, P., Lecomte, T., Bond, G. R., Lesage, A., & Goldner, E. M. (2014). Work accommodations and natural supports for maintaining employment. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal , 37 (2), 90-98.

de Beers, J., Engels, J., Heerkens, Y., & van der Klink, J. (2014). Factors influencing work participation of adults with developmental dyslexia: a systematic review. BMC Public Health , 14, 77.

Dunning, D., Holmes, J., & & Gathercole, S. E. (2013). Does working memory training lead to generalized improvements in children with low working memory? a randomized controlled trial. Developmental Science , 16 (6), 915-925.

Dyslexia Action. (n.d.). http://dyslexiaaction.org.uk/training-courses. Retrieved March 21, 2015, from Dyslexia Action: http://www.dyslexiaaction.org.uk/files/dyslexiaaction/supporting_adults_programme_outline_2014-2015_v4_03.03.15.pdf

Elliot, J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2014). The Dyslexia Debate. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist , 34, 906-911.

Gerber, P. J., Batalo, C. G., & Achola, E. O. (2012). Dyslexia and Learning Disabilities in Canada and the UK: The Impact of Disability Employment Laws. Dyslexia , 18, 166-173.

Gerber, P. (2012). The impact of learning disabilities on adulthood: a review of the evidence based literature for research and practice in adult education. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 45 (1), 31-46.

Gifford, G. (2011). Access to Work: Official Statistics. DWP. Retrieved July 7, 2013, from http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/workingage/atw/atw0711.pdf

Grant, D. (2009). The psychological assessment of neurodiversity. In D. Pollak, Neurodiversity in Higher Education (pp. 33-62). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.

Hock, M. (2012). Effective literacy instruction for adults with specific learning disabilities: implications for adult instructors. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 45 (1), 64-78.

Illingworth, K. (2005). The effects of dyslexia on the work of nurses and healthcare assistants. Nursing Standard , 19 (38), 41-48.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning experience as a source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Leather, C., Hogh, H., Seiss, E., & Everatt, J. (2011). Cognitive functioning and work success in adults with dyslexia. Dyslexia , 17, 327-338.

McDowall, A., & O'Broin, A. (2014). How do we know whether coaching actually works? Furthering our evidence base. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice , 7 (1), 1-3.


McLoughlin, D., & Leather, C. (2013). The Dyslexic Adult. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons.

Newnham-Kanas, C., Morrow, D., & Irwin, J. D. (2011). Participants' perceived utility of motivational interviewing using Co-Active Life Coaching skills on their struggle with obesity. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice , 4 (2), 104-122.

O'Broin, A., & Palmer, S. (2006). The coach-client relationship and contributions made by the coach in improving outcomes. The Coaching Psychologist , 2 (2), 16-20.

Ponton, M., Derrick, M., & Carr, P. (2005). The Relationship between Resourcefulness and Persistence in Adult Autonomous Learning. Adult Education Quarterly , 55 (2), 116-128.

Price, L., Gerber, P., & Shessel, I. (2003). Adults with learning disabilities and employment: a Canadian perspective. Thalamus , 24, 21-32.

Shaw, W. S., Kristman, V. L., Williams-Whitt, K., Soklaridis, S., Huang, Y.-H., Cote, P., et al. (2014). The Job Accommodation Scale (JAS): Psychometric Evaluation of a New Measure of Employer Support for Temporary Job Modifications. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation , 24, 755-765.

Shaywitz, S. A. (1996, November). Dyslexia. The Scientific American .

Shaywitz, S. A. (1998). Dyslexia. New England Journal of Medicince , 338, 307 - 312.

Shevil, E., & Finlayson, M. (2010). Pilot study of a cognitive intervention program for persons with multiple sclerosis. Health Education Research , 25 (1), 41-53.

Snowling, M. J. (2010). Dyslexia. In C. L. Cooper, J. Field, U. Goswami, R. Jenkins, & B. J. Sahakian, Mental Capital and Mental Wellbeing (pp. 775-783). Oxford: Blackwell.

Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and Work-Related Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin , 240-261.

Swanson, H. (2012). Adults with reading disabilities: converting a meta-analysis to practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 45 (1), 17-30.

Swanson, H. L., & O'Connor, R. (2009). The role of working memory and fluency practice on the reading comprehension of students who are dysfluent readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 42, 548-575.

Swanson, H. L., & Siegel, L. (2001). Learning disabilities as a working memory deficit. Issues in Education: Contributions of Educational Psychology, , 7 (1), 1-48.

Swanson, H., & Zheng, X. (2013). Memory Difficulties in Children and Adults with Learning Disabilities. In Handbook of Learning Disabilities (pp. 214-238). New York: Guildford Press.

The British Psychological Society. (2005). Dyslexia, Literacy and Psychological Assessment. The British Psychological Society.

Tompkins, P., & Lawley, J. (2000). Metaphors in Mind. London: The Developing Company Press.


Tosey, P., Lawley, J., & Reese, R. (2014). Eliciting Metaphor through Clean Language: an Innovation in Qualitative Research. British Journal of Management .

Varvara, P,, Varuzza, C,, Sorrentino, A., Vicari, S. and Menghini, D. (2014). "Executive functions in developmental dyslexia". Frontiers in human neuroscience (1662-5161), 8, p. 120.

Wagner, R. K., & Muse, A. (2006). Short-term memory deficits in developmental dyslexia. In T. P. Alloway, & S. E. Gathercole, Working Memory and Neuro-developmental Disorders (pp. 41-57). Hove: Psychology Press.

Walker, C. (2014). From Contempt to Curiosity: Creating the Conditions for groups to collaborate using Clean Language and Systemic Modelling. Fareham: Clean Publishing.

Wechsler, D. (2008). WAIS-IV administration and scoring manual. San Antonio, Texas: Psychological Corporation.

Werner, E. (1993). Risk, resilience and recovery: Perspectives on the Kauai longitudinal study. Developmental and Psychopathology , 5, 503-515.

Zimmerman, B. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice , 41 (2), 64-70.

Zimmerman, B. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learning: An overview. Theory into Practice , 41 (2), 64-70.

Documents

Keywords - affinityhealthhub.co.ukaffinityhealthhub.co.uk/storage/app/attachments/...1543847188.docx · Web viewOur primary purpose in this paper is to a) outline the heretofore