Reframing the Intersection of Coaching and Therapy with an Adult Developmental Lens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the intersection of coaching and therapy through the lens of adult development theory, examining the definition of mental health, referral criteria from coaching to therapy, and the risks associated with inadequate referrals. While current professional guidelines emphasize behavioral indicators and practitioner competencies, they may overlook the developmental dimensions of mental health challenges and their impact on referrals. Drawing on foundational research by Rogers and Kegan (1991) on symptom expression across developmental stages, Keyes' (2017) dual-continuum model, Basseches and Mascolo's (2010) developmental definition of psychotherapy, and Laske's (2023) Need-Press dimension within his Constructive Developmental Framework (CDF), this analysis examines how psychological well-being is shaped by the interplay between developmental capabilities and psychogenic needs—and the consequences of disrupting this equilibrium. By integrating adult developmental perspectives into referral decisions, this literature review-based analysis challenges existing practices and advocates for a more comprehensive approach. It proposes considering both psychological dimensions and developmental criteria to enhance mental health-related practices and decision-making in the coaching-therapy interface.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".