Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40313368›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024

Artificial intelligence vs. human coaches: examining the development of working alliance in a single session.

Amber S Barger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Amber S BargerTeachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The collaborative relationship, or working alliance, between a client and their coach is a well-recognized factor that contributes to the effectiveness of coaching. The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) challenges us to explore whether human-to-human relationships can extend to AI, potentially reshaping the future of coaching. Our presumption that the skills of professional human coaches surpass AI in forging effective relationships stands untested - but can we really claim this advantage? The purpose of this study was to examine client perceptions of being coached by a simulated AI coach, who was embodied as a conversational vocal live-motion avatar, compared to client perceptions of partnering with a human coach. The mixed methods randomized controlled trial explored if and how client ratings of working alliance and the coaching process aligned between the two coach types in an alternative treatments design. Both treatment groups identified a personal goal to pursue and had one 60-min session guided by the CLEAR (contract, listen, explore, action, review) coaching model. Quantitative data were captured through surveys and qualitative input was captured through open-ended survey questions and debrief interviews. To sidestep the rapid obsolescence of technology, the study was engineered using the Wizard of Oz approach to facilitate an advanced AI coaching experience, with participants unknowingly interacting with expert human coaches. The aim was to glean insights into client reactions to a future, fully autonomous AI with the capabilities of a human coach. The results showed that participants built similar moderately high levels of working alliance with both coach types, with no significant difference between treatments. Qualitative themes indicated the client's connection with their coach existed within the context of the study wherein the coach was a guide who used a variety of techniques to support the client to plan towards their goal. Overall, participants believed they were engaging with their assigned coach type, while the five professional coaches, acting as confederates, were blinded to their roles. Clients are willing to and appreciate building coaching partnerships with AI, which has both research and practical implications.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecoachingcoaching processmixed methodsrandomized controlled trialwizard of ozworking alliance

Identifiers

PMID40313368
PMCPMC12044884

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.