top of page
Search

Top evaluation from the University of Hamburg for AI-supported Symbolon Self-Coaching

The results of the scientific evaluation of AI-supported Symbolon self-coaching from the Center for Better Work at the University of Hamburg are here! They show that effective coaching is also possible without a human coach. In this 15-minute video, Dr. Friederike Redlbacher presents the results in a compact and easy-to-understand way.



Results of the evaluation “The chatbot, the artwork & me”

The research design is based on results-oriented coaching

The evaluation is based on Siegfried Greif's evaluation model and understands coaching as a collaborative intervention led by the coach that promotes the client's self-development and behavioral change in accordance with their coaching goals (Greif et al., 2022). Six success factors play a role here: (1) promotion of results-oriented self-reflection, (2) resource activation, (3) affect activation and calibration, (4) appreciation and relationship, (5) goal clarification and (6) implementation support (Behrendt & Greif, 2018). The promotion of outcome-oriented self-reflection is seen as the key element in the development of self-congruent goals during coaching and predicts goal achievement (Grant & O'Connor, 2010; Greif & Berg, 2011).

Researchers Dr. Romana Dreyer and Celine Schneller investigated which topics the 75 study participants brought into the self-coaching session. From the coaching transcripts, they recorded the quality and specificity of the solutions that were developed during the one-hour intervention. In an online questionnaire after the self-coaching session, they asked the study participants about their satisfaction with the coaching, for example. They also investigated why the coaching was effective and used established scales to ask about results-oriented self-reflection, emotions, and resource activation during the coaching (Busch et al., 2021).

 

High satisfaction with AI-supported coaching

For the majority of coachees, satisfaction with the solutions developed (M = 6.64) and overall satisfaction (M = 6.81; SD = 1.95) was in the upper third of the scale (1 to 10).

Bar chart shows high satisfaction
Result chart satisfaction evaluation Symbolon Self-Coaching

57 people (76%) rated their satisfaction in terms of time spent and results as 7 or better (see chart, M=7.57).

Almost 80% of participants stated that it was likely to extremely likely that they would recommend the coaching to friends and colleagues. Compared to before the coaching, the coachees subjectively felt more determination (85%), more confidence (79%) and more clarity (83%). When asked about aha moments, 77% stated that they had experienced an aha moment in Symbolon Self-Coaching.

 

Combination of art and AI is seen as particularly effective

Während des Selbst-Coachings regt der KI-gestützte Chatbot durch gezielte, offene, reflexive Fragen ergebnisorientierte Selbstreflexion an. Dem Chatbot wurde von den Coachees Wohlwollen, Kompetenz und auch Verlässlichkeit zugeschrieben. Das Tierkunstwerk mit den symbolischen Zuordnungen hilft bei der Selbstreflexion und fördert Aha-Momente. Die Bilder erleichtern das Verständnis komplexer Themen auf emotionaler Ebene. Die meisten Coachees waren in der Lage, durch die Verwendung des KI-gestützten Tools spezifische und differenzierte Umsetzungsideen zu entwickeln.

Die Evaluation kommt zu dem Ergebnis: Das Symbolon Selbst-Coaching kann effektiv zur affektstarken Selbstreflexion genutzt werden, um ein breites Spektrum an Coachingthemen im beruflichen Kontext zu adressieren. Das KI-gestützte Symbolon Coaching-Tool fördert individuelle Reflexionsprozesse und regt eine systematische Auseinandersetzung mit persönlichen und beruflichen Entwicklungszielen an.

 

Our conclusion from the evaluation

  • Successful coaching does not require person-to-person interaction!

  • The animal symbols in self-coaching are the key to a change of perspective and aha moments!

  • The Symbolon Coaching Tool is suitable for a wide range of professional topics!

  • The design of the self-coaching tool creates a reliable and consistent user experience!

  • The anonymous coaching is also a low-threshold and effective introduction to coaching!

  • No prior knowledge is necessary: Coaching for everyone!

 

Further links & introductory offer

More about the evaluation of the University of Hamburg www.symbolon-coaching.com/en/evaluation 

More about the art-based Symbolon Method® www.symbolon.com/en/symbolon-methode

Order the summary of the study free of charge via https://www.symbolon.com/en/shop 

 

Dr. Friederike Redlbacher

 

Christine Kranz, MCC

 

Literature:

  • Busch, C., Dreyer, R., & Janneck, M. (2021). Blended recovery and burnout coaching for small-business copreneurs. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 73(1), 65.

  • Behrendt, P. & Greif, S. (2018). Erfolgsfaktoren im Coachingprozess. In S. Greif, H. Möller & W. Scholl (Hrsg.), Handbuch Schlüsselkonzepte im Coaching (S. 163-172). Berlin.

  • Dreyer, R. & Schneller, C. (2024). Der Chatbot, das Kunstwerk & ich. Prozess- und Ergebnisevaluation eines KI-gestützten Selbst-Coaching-Tools. Executive Summary, Forschungsprojekt des Center for Better Work, Universität Hamburg, und der Symbolon AG.

  • Greif, S., Möller, H., Scholl, W., Passmore, J., Müller, F. (2022). Coaching Definitions and Concepts. In: Greif, H. Möller, W. Scholl, J. Passmore, F. Müller (eds) International Handbook of Evidence-Based Coaching. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81938-5_1

  • Greif, S. & Riemenschneider-Greif, F. (2018). Wie im Coaching neue Einsichten entstehen - Anregungen für eine theoriegeleitete Erforschung innerpsychischer Prozesse. In R. Wegener, M. Loebbert, A. Fritze & M. Hänseler (Hrsg.), Coaching-Prozessforschung (S. 116-140). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

  • Grant, A. M., & O'Connor, S. A. (2010). The differential effects of solution‐focused and problem‐focused coaching questions: a pilot study with implications for practice. Industrial and commercial training, 42(2), 102-111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00197851011026090

 


 

Comments


bottom of page