Skip to main content

Table 2 Coaching style statistics within a quality improvement collaborative

From: Adaptation of the Grasha Riechman Student Learning Style Survey and Teaching Style Inventory to assess individual teaching and learning styles in a quality improvement collaborative

  Primary and secondary coaching style scores a    
Coach Revised delegator Expert Revised facilitator Formal authority Personal model Coach intervention assignment b Primary coaching profile Secondary coaching profile
C001 4.86 3.63 4.86 2.63 2.88 C Facilitator/Delegator Expert
C002 c 6.00 5.75 6.57 5.25 6.50 CCM Facilitator/Personal Model Expert/Formal Authority
C003 6.71 5.63 5.00 4.75 4.88 ICC, CB Delegator Expert
C004 d 6.00 4.88 6.57 4.50 4.63 C, LS Facilitator/Delegator Expert/Formal Authority/Personal Model
C006 5.14 5.50 6.71 4.50 6.38 CB Facilitator/Personal Model Expert
C007 5.71 4.63 6.14 3.50 4.75 LS Facilitator Delegator
C008 5.29 3.88 5.71 4.13 5.00 CB Facilitator/Delegator Personal Model
C009 d 5.71 5.00 6.57 5.25 4.63 C, ICC Facilitator/Delegator Expert/Formal Authority
C010 5.67 5.71 6.83 4.43 4.86 CB Facilitator Delegator/Expert
C011 5.57 4.75 6.14 4.63 5.00 ICC,CB Facilitator Delegator
C012 e 5.29 5.50 6.29 4.38 5.38 CCM, ICC Facilitator Delegator/Expert/Personal Model
C013 5.86 4.00 5.71 3.63 4.13 C Facilitator/Delegator Expert/Formal Authority/Personal Model
C014 5.71 5.50 6.57 5.25 5.50 C, LS Facilitator/Delegator Expert/Formal Authority/Personal Model
C015 e 5.86 5.25 7.00 3.88 6.13 CCM, ICC Facilitator/Personal Model Delegator/Expert
C016 5.00 5.00 6.43 5.50 5.63 ICC,CB Facilitator Formal Authority/Personal Model
C017 5.57 4.25 6.86 3.00 2.63 C Facilitator Delegator
C018 d 5.00 4.88 5.57 2.75 5.00 CCM Facilitator Delegator/Expert/Personal Model
Average 5.59 4.92 6.21 4.23 4.93    
St. Dev 0.46 0.67 0.64 0.89 1.04    
Low 1.00–5.12 1.00–4.25 1.00–5.57 1.00–3.34 1.00–3.89    
Medium 5.13–6.04 4.26–5.59 5.58–6.84 3.35–5.11 3.90–5.96    
High 6.05–7.00 5.60–7.00 6.85–7.00 5.12–7.00 5.97–7.00    
  1. a Scores in bold represent coaches in the high range for the associated style while italic scores represent those coaches with a score in the low range
  2. b Intervention Assignment: Coaching (C), Interest Circle (ICC), Learning Session (LS), Combination (CB) and Coaching only but in both the coach and combination interventions (CCM)
  3. c More providers in Washington State were randomized to the combination intervention resulting in one coach providing services to three providers in the coaching and four providers in the combination intervention arms
  4. d Due to the randomization of providers in Oregon and geographic proximity of the providers, coach (C004) provided services primarily to sites in the coaching intervention and one additional provider in the combination intervention. Coach (C009) worked primarily with providers in the combination intervention but provided services to one provider in the coaching intervention
  5. eTwo coaches (C012 and C015) coached providers in both the coaching and combination interventions due to a coach who was assigned providers in the combination intervention left the study. Their primary intervention arm as initially assigned was the coaching intervention