Psychologically informed coaching: strongest effects on goal attainment and self-efficacy
A meta-analysis of 20 studies (957 participants) of psychologically informed workplace coaching finds g = 0.51 overall, largest for goal attainment (g = 1.29), with no significant difference between coaching approaches.
Finding
What the study measuredAcross 20 studies, psychologically informed workplace coaching had an overall effect of g = 0.51 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.66). Effects were largest for goal attainment (g = 1.29) and general perceived efficacy (g = 0.59), and smaller for workplace well-being (g = 0.28) and other-rated performance (g = 0.24). Coaching approach did not significantly moderate the effect (F(3, 6.27) = 0.78, p = 0.54); integrative approaches (g = 0.71) and single approaches (g = 0.45) did not differ significantly (p = 0.28).
Authors' interpretation
What the authors concludeThe authors conclude that psychologically informed coaching supports work outcomes, especially goal attainment and self-efficacy, and that integrative approaches combining several frameworks produce better outcomes. They recommend combining cognitive coping techniques, strengths-based methods and attention to context.
| Question type | effect |
|---|---|
| Population and setting | External one-to-one workplace coaching using stated psychological frameworks; English-language studies published 1995 to 2018; Workplaces |
| Intervention | Cognitive-behavioural, GROW, positive psychology and integrative coaching approaches |
| Comparison | Between-subject comparison groups (11 studies) or within-subject pre-post (9 studies) |
| Follow-up | Varies by study; not pooled |
| Outcomes | Affective; General perceived efficacy; Goal attainment; Self-rated performance; Other-rated performance; Workplace well-being |
| Measures | Goal attainment scales; Perceived efficacy scales; Self-rated and other-rated (e.g. 360) performance; Well-being measures |
| Effect size and uncertainty | Overall g = 0.51, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.66 (k = 20, 63 effect sizes); τ² = 0.12, I² = 79.37%. Goal attainment g = 1.29 (95% CI 0.56 to 2.01); general perceived efficacy g = 0.59 (0.30 to 0.88); other-rated performance g = 0.24 (0.00 to 0.48); workplace well-being g = 0.28 (0.08 to 0.49). |
| Limitations | High heterogeneity; few studies per approach; several studies excluded for missing data; effect sizes for some designs rely on an assumed pre-post correlation of 0.70; possible self-report bias; two rows of the results table pair confidence intervals with p-values that do not match. |
| Funding and conflicts | No funding or conflict-of-interest statement found; the acknowledgement thanks one colleague for comments. |
| Replication | Not applicable (synthesis of prior studies). |
| Source reuse terms | CC BY 4.0 (open access) |
Figures reported, with their location in the source
- g = 0.51 (95% CI 0.35–0.66): Overall effect (p. 91)
- τ² = 0.12; I² = 79.37%: Heterogeneity (p. 91)
- g = 1.29 (0.56–2.01), k = 6: Goal attainment (Table 5, p. 92)
- g = 0.59 (0.30–0.88), k = 9: General perceived efficacy (Table 5, p. 92)
- g = 0.24 (0.00–0.48), k = 8: Other-rated performance (Table 5, p. 92)
- g = 0.28 (0.08–0.49), k = 6: Workplace well-being (Table 5, p. 92)
- F(3, 6.27) = 0.78, p = 0.54: Approach as moderator (Table 5, p. 92)
- 0.71 vs 0.45, p = 0.28: Integrative vs single approach (Table 5, p. 92)
- 11 between-subject, 9 within-subject: Designs of included studies (Table 3, pp. 86–88)
Read the source
Wang, Q., Lai, Y.-L., Xu, X., & McDowall, A. (2022). The effectiveness of workplace coaching: A meta-analysis of contemporary psychologically informed coaching approaches. Journal of Work-Applied Management, 14(1), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWAM-04-2021-0030
Verification record
- Status
- human-verified
- Access level
- full-text
- Date accessed
- 2026-10-24
- Tool-checked
- 2026-10-24
- Automated retraction check
- Not completed: the Crossref lookup was rate-limited on 2026-10-24; the editor checked instead.
- Human-verified
- 2026-10-24
- Retraction status
- none-found (checked 2026-10-24); Owner check: "Retraction check: r-0004, none-found"
- Last reviewed
- 2026-10-24
How to cite this entry
consultants.coach. (2026). Psychologically informed coaching: strongest effects on goal attainment and self-efficacy (Entry r-0004, version 2026-10-24 00:00:00 -0400 EDT). https://consultants.coach/research/r-0004/
Original source: Wang, Q., Lai, Y.-L., Xu, X., & McDowall, A. (2022). The effectiveness of workplace coaching: A meta-analysis of contemporary psychologically informed coaching approaches. Journal of Work-Applied Management, 14(1), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWAM-04-2021-0030
Change log
- : First published after human verification.
Related entries
Randomized trials of coaching show a moderate average effect, with signs of publication bias
A meta-analysis of 37 randomized controlled trials (39 samples, n = 2,528) finds coaching improves leadership and personal outcomes, with a best estimate of g = .59, and reports significant publication bias.
Workplace coaching meta-analysis: positive effects overall; the largest effects rest on very few studies
A meta-analysis of 17 workplace coaching studies (2,267 people) finds a positive overall effect (δ = 0.36), larger without multisource feedback and with internal coaches, but the biggest effects come from subgroups of only three studies.
Recent workplace coaching studies: moderate effect, but no study measured business results
A meta-analysis of 11 workplace coaching studies published after 2014 finds g = 0.44 overall, larger for skills than for attitudes, and notes that no included study measured results-level outcomes.
Our commentary
consultants.coach editorial viewThe authors' claim that integrative approaches work better goes further than their own test: the difference was not statistically significant, and it rests on few studies. For practitioners measuring hard-to-quantify outcomes, the pattern is useful: the closer the measure is to the coachee's own goals, the larger the effect; performance rated by others moves much less. Report both kinds to a sponsor. Note the reporting problems: for affective and self-rated performance outcomes, the table's confidence intervals and p-values contradict each other, so we do not rely on those two rows.