The Nominal Group Technique as an Evaluation Tool for Solution-focused Coaching

Authors

  • John M. Roeden,

    Corresponding author
    1. Governor Kremers Centre, Maastricht University, Maastrich, The Netherlands
    • Baalderborg Groep, Hardenberg, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Marian A. Maaskant,

    1. Governor Kremers Centre, Maastricht University, Maastrich, The Netherlands
    2. Pergamijn, Echt, The Netherlands
    3. Department of Health Services Research, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Leopold M. G. Curfs

    1. Governor Kremers Centre, Maastricht University, Maastrich, The Netherlands
    2. Department Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
    3. CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author

Correspondence

Any correspondence should be directed to John M. Roeden, Baalderborg Groep, Vlasakkerkamp 19, 7772 MK, Hardenberg, The Netherlands (e-mail: j.roeden@baalderborggroep.nl).

Abstract

Background

Solution-focused coaching (SFC) helps individuals or groups to achieve their preferred outcomes by evoking and co-constructing solutions. SFC has been shown to be helpful for persons with ID as well as for teams coaching people with ID. Nominal Group Technique (NGT) helps to organize people's thoughts with regard to a single question. This study examines the perceived strengths of and recommendations for SFC for teams coaching people with ID via NGT, as well as the extent to which the NGT results reflect the results of an SFC questionnaire.

Methods

In total, 54 staff members participated in SFC. Of these, 18 participated in NGT, while 36 completed the SFC questionnaire. The strengths of and recommendations for SFC were obtained via NGT. Interrater agreement was calculated via Cohen's kappa.

Results

The strengths of SFC include ‘exploring hidden successes’ and ‘focusing on solutions’. It was recommended that ‘the results be consolidated in follow-up meetings’. The participants agreed on the content of the strengths and recommendations, but differed in terms of priorities (κ ≤ 0.1).

Conclusions

NGT is a valuable tool in exploring people's opinions and priorities, but further research is needed to elucidate the perceived priorities of SFC for teams coaching persons with ID.

Ancillary