Exploring Relational Dialogue in Solution-Focused Coaching Sessions: An Analysis of Co-Construction and Reflection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To examine solution-focused coaching (SFC) as a means to enhance clinicians’ professional development.Methods: Six pediatric rehabilitation clinicians (three physical, two occupational, and one behavior therapist) each received two SFC sessions targeting clinical listening goals. Conversational intervals were noted in session transcriptions. Frequencies of relational strategies and conversational intervals were calculated. The meaning of intervals > 10 s was examined.Results: The most frequent relational strategies indicated that SFC facilitates reflection and critical thinking, and encourages action. An appreciable number of long intervals (>10 s) occurred, indicating substantial reflection by participants. These were embedded in relational dialogue sequences involving coach questions and formulations, and participant pauses.Conclusions: The findings support the use of SFC as a professional development tool and substantiate the view that SFC ‘works’ through the coach’s use of relational strategies designed to facilitate collaborative conversations that build solutions through an emphasis on reflection and action.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".