Coach – Client Relationship Rating Scale
I see my coach as caring and approachable.
My coach does collaborate effectively.
My coach does communicate effectively.
Overall (I can rely on) I trust my coach to serve my progress.
The Goal Attainment Scaling Process
The GAS methodology is very flexible and suitable for measuring performance across various applied settings, bringing several potential advantages to measuring coaching outcomes. GAS reduces the likelihood of erroneous post hoc success evaluations because individuals have stated the alternative attainment levels for themselves and are therefore able to measure their performance more accurately.
Steps of the GAS Process (Ottenbacher & Cusick, 1990)
Step 1: Identify the overall objective.
The client and coach discuss and agree on the general program goals, for example, improving physical fitness (or becoming more social).
Step 2: Identify specific problem areas to be addressed.
Requires prioritizing the problem areas, such as physical inactivity (or not socializing enough), and reducing to observable and reportable components, for example, preferred exercise and frequency (or frequency of social interaction).
Step 3: Identify behaviors that would indicate improvement.
Involves outlining the operational detail needed for the scale to be a useful instrument in evaluating performance, for example, defining “exercise” in terms of completed gymn sessions (or increasing the number of daily conversations one initiates).
Step 4: Determine how goal attainment will be measured.
Decide goal attainment data collection: Who will collect it? In what setting will it be gathered? For example, an exercise diary completed by the client (or the participant will journal progress every evening or document progress on a goal chart once a week during the coaching session).
Step 5: Select the “expected outcome” level of performance.
The client and coach appraise and agree on a meaningful and realistic attainment level for the client, given their history and current situation.
Step 6: Identify alternative attainment levels.
In addition to the “expected outcome,” four other attainment levels are identified to quantify greater and lesser performance levels.
Step 7: Check for overlapping goals and gaps between levels.
Overlapping goals can be used but must be mutually exclusive and internally consistent. Gaps between levels are not permissible and are addressed by defining a behavioral range for each goal level.
Step 8: Ascertain current attainment level.
Discuss past and present goal attainment with the client to determine the GAS level that is “current.” A timetable for future evaluations should also be agreed upon at this point.
For example, stakeholders and program participants are interviewed in an organizational setting, and a list of personalized statements is produced based on the program’s aims. From this list, participants select two statements that best represent the two goals they wish to focus on during the program.
The participants then rate their goals for perceived difficulty on a 4-point scale (1= very easy, to 4= very difficult). They also respond to the question, “up to today, how successful have you been in achieving this goal,” and rate their goal attainment on a scale from 0% (no attainment) to 100% (complete attainment).
Goal attainment scores are calculated by multiplying the difficulty rating by the degree of success. Participants also rate the length of time they have been trying to achieve their goals.
A goal attainment score change can be observed by using the goal attainment scores at Time 1 and Time 2 and evaluating the difference and its reasons.
Goals and Outcomes
To prepare a Goal Attainment Scaling Chart, write your higher-order goal and the corresponding lower-order goal. For each lower-order goal, write your goal attainment measure for the evaluated period, for example, “Number of times the goal behavior was demonstrated over the course of a month.” Use scaling levels: Best expected outcome, More than expected outcome, Expected outcome, Less than expected outcome, and Worst expected outcome. For each outcome level, write a quantity you see fit to describe the qualifier, i.e., from best to worst.
Various Measures to Use in Parallel to the GAS
Perceived competence (Williams & Deci, 1996)
I feel confident in my ability to attain my goal.
I am capable of attaining my goal.
I am able to achieve the goal I identified.
I feel able to meet the challenge of attaining my goal.
I’ve thought a lot about how to accomplish my goal.
I’ve visualized the steps I will take to accomplish my goal.
I’ve identified specific behaviors that will help me achieve my goal.
I’ve anticipated barriers that may interfere with my attaining my goal.
Goal commitment (Klein et al., 2001)
It’s hard to take this goal seriously. (Reverse scoring)
Quite frankly, I don’t care if I achieve this goal or not. (R)
I am strongly committed to pursuing this goal.
It wouldn’t take much to make me abandon this goal. (R)
I think this is a good goal to shoot for.
Goal Self Concordance (Sheldon & Housef-Marko, 2001)
You strive for this goal because somebody else wants you to or because the situation seems to compel it. (Reverse scoring)
You strive for this goal because you would feel ashamed, guilty, or anxious if you didn’t. (R)
You strive for this goal because you really believe it’s an important goal to have.
You strive for this goal because of the enjoyment or stimulation that the goal provides you.
Utilize a Likert-type five or seven-point scale with a “Disagree – Agree” range. Reverse score items with an “R.”