 How Coaching Impacts
 The Academic Functioning of
 University Students with LD and/or ADHD
 A Study conducted at The Academic Success Program
 for Students with LD/ADHD
 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
 www.unc.edu/asp
 AHEAD 2011, Seattle, WA
 Kristen Rademacher, M.Ed, CPCC
 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
 krademacher@unc.edu
 David R. Parker, Ph.D. (Research Consultant)
 CRG, Inc.
 drdparker@gmail.com
 Research Team
 Dr. Theresa E. Laurie Maitland, CPCC, Principal Investigator
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, tmaitlan@email.unc.edu
 Erica L. Richman, MSW, Social Work Doctoral student, Research Coordinator
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
 Kristen Rademacher, M.Ed, CPCC, Research Assistant
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
krademacher@unc.edu
 Dr. David Parker, Research Consultant
Children’s Resource Group (CRG), Indianapolis, IN
drdparker@gmail.com
Literature Review
 What do we know about college students with LD/ADHD?
 Largest and fastest growing group of disabled students on college campuses
Harbour, 2004; NCES, 2000; Henderson, 2001
 Take longer to complete degree than non-disabled peers and the rate of sustained enrollment
remains low
Jorgenson et al., 2003; Newman 2005; Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Garza, & Levine, 2005
 Graduate at a lower rate than non-disabled peers
 64% non disabled, 53% disabled (all types)
NCES, 2003; Wagner et al., 2005
 May graduate at a lower rate than peers with other disabling conditions
 13.1% LD/ADHD versus 24.8% other disabling conditions (after 4 years)
Beginning Postsecondary Longitudinal Study Second Follow up, 2001
 What are the possible reasons for their performance problems?
 Academic skill weaknesses
 Lower GPAs, more likely to be on probation
DePaul et al., 2009; Gerber, 1998; Heiligenstein et al., 1999; Rabiner et al., 2008
 Underdeveloped self-determination skills
 “A combination of skills, knowledge and beliefs that enable a person to engage in goaldirected, self-regulated, autonomous behavior”
Field et al., 1998
 Underdeveloped executive functioning skills
 “An umbrella construct reflecting self-regulatory functions that organize, direct, and
manage other cognitive activities, emotional responses and behavior”
Biederman et al., 2004; Gioia, Isquith, & Guy, 2001
 Coexisting psychological and/or psychiatric issues
 Can impact their attitudes, reactions, coping skills and social integration
Barkley et al., 2007; DaDeppo, 2009; Hoy et al., 1997

Coaching: An emerging intervention model
 Coaching : a popular intervention model for individuals with ADHD
Hallowell & Ratey,1994; Jaska & Ratey,1999; Quinn et al., 2000
 Proliferation of opinion articles, books, and case reports , but limited research
 Points out the lack of any research to evaluate the impact of coaching
 Challenged the field to become rigorous about empirical studies
Goldstein, 2005
 What are we learning about the impact of coaching on students with ADHD?
 Coaching appears to improve students’ learning and study skills
Field et al., 2010; Parker et al., 2011; Reaser, 2008; Swartz et al., 2005; Zwart & Kallemeyn , 2001
 Coaching appears to improve students’ self-regulation skills
Field et al., 2010; Parker et al., 2011; Swartz et al., 2005
 What are we learning about the impact of coaching on students ADHD?
 Coaching appears to improve students’ self -awareness
 Coaching appears to improve students academic life
 improvements in goal setting and goal attainment
 Coaching appears to improve students’ overall well- being
 Coaching has not yet been shown to have a direct impact on students’ GPA
Field et al., 2010; Parker & Boutelle, 2009; Reaser, 2008
 What are we learning about the impact of coaching on other populations?
 Coaching has a statistically significant impact on retention and graduation rates of 1st year
students
Bettinger & Baker, 2011
 Coaching may significantly improve the functioning of adults with ADHD
Kubik, 2010
 Coaching Definition for UNC-CH
A creative, action-oriented partnership based on model created by Whitworth et. al. (2007) in which
students:
 Set goals in any area of life in which the student desires change (i.e. academics, balance
between study and recreation)
 Work with their coach to develop systems and structures to reach these goals
 Design the format of their coaching sessions (in-person, phone/email check-ins, etc.)
 Agree to be held accountable for commitments made during sessions
 Deepen their learning about themselves – including their values and ambitions – which helps to
define and refine future goals
UNC-CH Website: http://www.unc.edu/asp/
 Background of UNC Coaches
 Both coaches have comparable types/amount of coaching training
 Theresa Maitland, CPCC and Kristen Rademacher, CPCC were trained and certified
through The Coaches Training Institute. http://www.thecoaches.com/coach-training/
 116 hours of training followed by 6 month certification program requiring
successful completion of written and oral competency exams
 Theresa earned her certification in 2003
 Kristen earned her certification in 2007
Methodology
 Methodology: Research Questions
1. Does coaching increase participants’ levels of self-determination?
2. Does coaching improve participants’ executive functioning skills?
3. Does coaching improve participants’ overall academic skills?
4. From students’ perspective, what are the key benefits and limitations of coaching?
 Methodology: Procedures
 Eligible participants:
 Total number of potential participants = 354
 All students with documented LD and/or ADHD who are registered at the ASP and were
interested in coaching
 Willing to be in either Treatment Group of Control Group
 Treatment group willing to commit to at least 16 weekly sessions of coaching over fall
and spring semesters
 Both groups willing to take 3 surveys at the start of fall semester and again at end of
spring semester
 Methodology: Procedures (cont’d)
 Recruitment ran for first 2 weeks of fall semester
 All ASP students received 2 personal emails
 Flyers describing the study were posted in the ASP office
 ASP coaches informed students of study during office visits
 Incentives: coupons for free coffee, a gift card to UNC Student Stores and entry into a drawing
for Student Stores merchandise
 Before receiving coaching, each treatment participant took 3 pre-intervention surveys (2 webbased surveys and 1 paper/pencil survey; 45 minutes total time)
 Methodology: Procedures (cont’d)
 Treatment participants received 16 - 20 coaching sessions throughout Fall 2010 and Spring 2011
semesters
 After at least 16 total coaching sessions, treatment participants took the 3 post-intervention
surveys
 Control Group Participants did not receive coaching, but took all 3 surveys at start of fall
semester and again at end of spring semester
 Project Manger conducted qualitative interviews with purposive sample of 6 participants during
Week 9.
 Methodology: Participants
 Methodology: Participants (cont’d)
 Methodology: Study Participants’ Coaching Goals
1. Improve in academics
All students wanted to stay on top of daily and long- term work, plan more regularly and follow plans,
become more consistent and active learners, improve work quality and grades.
1. Improve overall life balance and well-being
Most students wanted to balance social life with academics, make time for exercise, sleep, healthier
eating and recreation and pursuing talents/interests.
1. Be more organized with possessions and space
A number of students wanted to improve how well they kept order in their environments and kept
track of possessions.
 Methodology: Study Participants’ Coaching Goals (cont’d)
4. Improve thinking skills
Several students set goals to become more intentional and reflective to think critically before
completing a task or making a decision.
5. Prepare for the future
Several students set goals to identify possible careers or next steps for life after college.
Intervention
 Intervention
 Structure of Coaching Sessions
 Student met with coach for initial 60 minute “intake” session.
 Focus of meeting:
 Student set specific semester goals
 Coach asked student to reflect on strengths, values, passions
 Coach and student “designed their alliance”
 Intervention (cont’d)
 Student met with coach weekly for 30 minute sessions (face-to-face or phone)
 Student and coach reviewed progress on goals
 Coach guided students to reflect on both their progress and setbacks within the
context of their strengths, values and passions
 Coach also guided students to deepen their understanding of their disability as
they reflected on their goals
 Student set goals for following week
Measures
 Quantitative Measures
Pre- and Post-Intervention Surveys
 Self-Determination Student Scale (S-DDS)
Hoffman, Field & Sawilowsky, 2004
 92 item yes or no internet-based, self-report survey measuring self determination
 Higher scores indicate greater self-determination
 Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function – Adult Version (BRIEF-A)
Roth, Isquith & Gioia, 2005
 75 item self-report survey measuring executive functioning
 Lower scores indicate higher level of executive functioning
 Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI)
Weinstein, Palmer & Shulte, 2002
 80 item self-report survey measuring learning and study strategies
 Higher scores indicate higher level of skill
 Qualitative Measures
 Purposive sample
 6 students (3 per coach)
 Balance of characteristics (undergrad/grad, gender, race/ethnicity, GPA)
 Individual Semi-Structured Interview
 1 hour, with Project Manager
 13 prompts generated by team
 Audio-recorded and transcribed

Qualitative Measures (cont’d)
 Analysis
 Hand-coding by Research Consultant to generate initial set of codes
 Initial inter-rater reliability check between Research Consultant and Project Manager
 Refinement of codebook, 2nd inter-rater reliability check
 Final refinement of emergent themes in consultation with the research team coaches
Results
 Research Question 1:
Impact on Self-Determination
 Quantitative Results: S-DSS
 Scores
 Mean pre-intervention score (Treatment): 67
 Mean post-intervention score (Treatment): 72
 Mean pre-intervention score (Control): 72
 Mean post-intervention score (Control): 75
 Pre- and Post- S-DSS Total Scores for Treatment Group
 Pre- and Post- S-DSS Total Scores for Control Group
 Results of S-DSS Total Scores: Coaching started to close the gap between groups
 Research Question 1/Qualitative
Impact on Self-Determination
 Promoted students’ self-awareness (44)
 Promoted students’ self-esteem (24)
 Helped students work toward goals more effectively (21)
 Helped students establish goals (18)
 Encouraged students to stop and reflect (6)
 Research Question 1/Qualitative
Impact on Self-Determination
 “Having Kristen really helps me have manageable goals. Whereas in the past, I probably have
taken on chunks and didn’t realize... It would just be too much in the end and I would kind of
break down.”
- DP
 “And that the goals that I set need to be realistic…If I never went to class and I skipped every
class last semester, and I said, ‘Well, I’m going to go to every class next semester,’ that’s just
silly. There’s no way that’s going to happen. It’s much more productive and much more
effective and efficient to set a more reasonable goal - go to half of your classes.”
- AD
 [Coaching] helped me see, because, in the end of every week I’ve been able to go, “This is what
worked this week; this is what didn’t work this week; this is where I need to improve; this is
where I’m doing okay.”
- JH
 Research Question 2:
Impact on Executive Functioning Skills
 Quantitative Results: BRIEF-A
 GEC (Global Executive Composite) Scores
 Mean pre-intervention score (Treatment): 83
 Mean post-intervention score (Treatment): 78
 Mean pre-intervention score (Control): 72
 Mean post-intervention score (Control): 66
**Lower scores indicate greater executive functioning skills**
 Pre- and Post BRIEF-A GEC* Scores for Treatment Group
 Pre- and Post BRIEF-A GEC Scores for Control Group
 Research Question 2/Qualitative
Impact on Executive Functioning Skills
 Enhanced students’ use of self-talk (24)
 Helped student regulate their emotions (21)
 Helped students problem solve (9)
 Helped students plan (8)
 Helped students create a more balanced life (7)
 Helped students initiate/persist at tasks (3)
 Research Question 2/Qualitative
Impact on Executive Functioning Skills
 But now when I’m about to open a game or whatever, a goof-off page, it dawns on me that I’m
making a conscious decision not to do my work and this feels a little uncomfortable. It’s not as
easy as before, when I’d just blame it on, ‘Oh, I get really distracted.’ Now it’s like, ‘I have to
take accountability for it.’ And it’s a big difference than what it was before.”
- LG
 I’m more willing to - rather than just give up on something - to take a deep breath and calm
myself down and look at how I am going to approach it.
- AD
 I think I see a strength in being able to do that analytical, reflective type of thing. Being able to
just take the parts into pieces and make very specific plans or goals or whatever…. And I think
coaching has helped improve that particular skill.
- JH
 Skill (Information Processing, Selecting Main Idea, & Test Strategies)
 Will (Attitude, Motivation, & Anxiety)
 Self Regulation (Self-testing, Study Aids, Time Management & Concentration)
 Pre- and Post- LASSI Scale Scores (Will Cluster)
 Pre- and Post- LASSI Scale Scores (Self-Regulation)
 Research Question 3/Qualitative
Overall Academic Skills
 Helped students self-advocate (9)
 Led to better grades (6)
 Helped students write papers (3)
 Helped students persist with college/attend full-time (2)
 Helped students study better (1)
 Helped students turn in assignments on time (1)
 Research Question 3:
Overall Academic Skills (cont’d)
 “Like at home, my husband; I often take on tasks because I feel like I’ve got to be the wife. So
it’s complicated with school and other things. I take things on and then I’m mad later. So a lot of
times now I look at the things and I’ll say, ‘Is this worth my time?’ or ‘Is there something else I
need to be doing?’ or ‘Can I ask him for help?’”
- DP
 “[Coaching] had a tremendous impact [on my grades]. I went from below a 2.0 student who was
on the verge of dropping out to somebody who has totally acceptable grades, G.P.A., social life,
academic and extracurricular involvement.”
- JP
 “I think coaching is very much about taking the big picture and putting it into small, workable,
manageable things, which is kind of how you would approach a big project. For an example, for
a paper, saying, ‘I’m going to do this part and then I’m going to do this part and then I’m going
to do this part.’”
- JH
 Research Question 4a:
Benefits of Coaching (Students’ Perspective)
 Develop new skills/employ them more effectively (35)
 Created routine time to stop/focus on my goals (12)
 Held me accountable (11)
 Provided emotional support/reassurance (9)
 Exposed me to different perspectives (8)
 Helped me access other services/professionals (4)
 Provided non-judgmental listening (3)
 A flexible service (3)
 Helped me develop healthier habits (2)
 Helped me access accommodations (1)
 Research Question 4a:
Benefits of Coaching (Students’ Perspective)
 “You know, I’ve had some improvement with that as a result of being more organized and
making little steps to reach a larger goal.”
- JH
 I’d say the biggest advantage is that it keeps me accountable, because I know that we make
certain goals together each week. And when I go the next week, I am going to be held
accountable for whatever goals we had created together the week before.
- LG
 Well, it’s a place where I can discuss things but it’s not a mirror. It’s not just, “Here, look at
yourself.” It’s maybe a compassionate mirror or it’s another person who has thoughts and
feelings but is completely on my side or doesn’t have an agenda.
- AD
 Research Question 4b:
Limitations of Coaching (Students’ Perspective)
 Hold me even more accountable (5)
 Provide more than 30 minutes a week (2)
 Locate the office more centrally (1)
 Help me gain access to peer’s experiences (1)
 Only focused on college (would like to focus on life after college, too) (1)
 Research Question 4b:
Limitations of Coaching (Students’ Perspective)
 “And also, there being a more concrete element [in coaching]. Because so far, when I make the
so-called promises, they were very informal. I rarely wrote them down, I wasn’t really required
to. But all the stuff would slip my mind and I would not actually do them. So maybe having
some sort of a formal element where, at every session, you fill out a post-it that consists of
three items or something so that I can carry around and incorporate into my life would be
helpful.”
- JP
 I think I would want to say the meetings will be longer. Maybe an hour. I don’t know if reading
should be twice a week. Because I don’t think that…you want students to want to come. If it
becomes something like a burden, then that is a problem. But I think an hour wouldn’t hurt. I
think it was more effective for me.
- AD
 Book Title for Coaching’s Impact on You
 “When You Do a Little Bit of Thinking, You Can Do the Things You Didn’t Think You Could.”
(BP)
 “Coach Leads Student to 4th Quarter Victory” (DP)
 “No Day But Today” (JH)
 “Going the Extra Mile” (LG)
 “Why a Single Is Better than a Home Run” (AD)
 “The Day I Found the Door” (JP)
Discussion
 Key Findings
 Treatment group different than control group
 Greater variability in scores on every measure
 Lower pre-test scores on almost every measure
 Particularly in Motivation, Concentration and Time-management (LASSI)
 Treatment group showed trends to improve in all measures
 Rate of growth greater than in control group
 Large gap in LASSI motivation, concentration and time-management scores (both pre- and post-)
between treatment and control group
 Key Findings (cont’d)
 Coaching appeared to have greatest impact on Self-Determination
 Coaching narrowed the gap in S-DDS scores between treatment and control group more
than in any other measure
 Students reported greatest growth in self-awareness and self-esteem
 Coaching was popular
 More students selected it than not, and very few students dropped out of study.
 Very few limitations reported by students
 Post-hoc Power Analysis
 Because our results were non-significant we did a post-hoc power analysis. Given our results,
this analysis told us how many participants we would need to achieve significant outcomes.
 To achieve 80% power (the appropriate level) we would need 112 participants to show a
moderate effect size.
 Limitations
 Measures were subjective, self-report and not normed for older students. Some students found
questions inappropriate and/or irrevelant.
 2 treatment group students had solid executive functioning skills prior to receiving coaching.
 2 students in control group had been coached in the past.
 Mixing undergraduate and graduate students may complicate results.
 Post-tests administered during start of final exam period.
 Study does not account for other variables (i.e., other interventions participants may have used,
co-morbid conditions).
 BRIEF-A survey not available online – a disincentive in recruiting control-group participants.
 Recruitment incentives were small.
Conclusion
 Implications
 ASP is limited in ability to conduct future research, but others may want to consider
investigation of:
 Student perspective of inquiry vs. didactic service delivery models
 Power of “accountability” in managing ADHD symptoms
 Long-term impact of coaching, including influence on GPA and retention.
 Service providers may want to consider moving away from didactic service delivery models to a
more holistic, collaborative model to address the needs of students with self-management
issues.
 Implications (cont’d)
 Service providers may want to consider adding coaching to existing services
 Train staff
 Refer students to outside coaches
 Students must be able to understand the differences between coaching and other traditional
services
 Coaching could be an important part of high-school and summer transition programs
 Parents and professionals can create opportunities for students that promote selfdetermination
 Next Steps for ASP
 Share results of study with campus constituents
 Write article for peer-reviewed journal
 Continue to offer coaching and evaluate its impact as part of broader program assessment
 Offer group coaching