Mindful self-reflection as a strategy to support sustainable high-performance coaching: A mixed method study

Figures & data

Table 1. Intervention- and data collection process.

Activity	Introduction seminar	Daily SMS-diary	Focus group interview	No data-collection	Written Follow-up
Month	1 (February; T1)	1-2 (February–March)	3 (April; T2)	4–8 (May–Sep)	9 (October; T3)

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and result from ANOVA.

		T1	T2	T3	Variance		P	Eta.Sq
Variable	N	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	F	df
WHO-5	16	17.06 (2.41)	16.81 (2.87)	16.79 (3.47)	.72	2	.931	.01
MAAS	16	4.23 (.69)	4.59 (.51)	4.45 (.61)	3.94	2	.044	.36
SCS-SF	16	3.21 (.69) ^a	3.53 (.52) ^a	3.48 (.69)	5.32	2	.019	.43

Note; Bonferroni post-hoc test for difference between two time points was performed: ^ap ≤ .05 between T1 vs. T2.

Table 3. Mean scores for daily measures of Mood and Energy 56 days.

		Mood		Energy
Sample	N	M (SD)	Mood Range	M (SD)	Energy Range
Total	18	7.57 (.88)	6.25–9.18	7.09 (.88)	5.57–8.75
LME	4	6.39 (.16)	6.25–6.61	5.91 (.27)	5.57–6.34
HME	3	8.85 (.41)	8.39–9.18	8.44 (.27)	8.29–8.75

Table 4. Mood and energy; Descriptive data and categorization of high/low groups.

Pseudonym	Group	Yrs of coaching Exp	Yrs of Elite Coaching Exp	Mood M	Energy M
Kyle	LME	10	3	6.29	5.88
Taylor	LME	14	2	6.61	5.84
Sidney	LME	15	3	6.25	6.34
Drew	LME	4	0.5	6.43	5.57
Jessie	HME	39	35	8.96	8.29
Logan	HME	18	10	8.39	8.29
Austin	HME	18	8	9.18	8.57

Note; exp = Experience; LME = Low Mood and Energy: HME = High Mood and Energy.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.