Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41886422›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Coaching presence as the foundation for the working alliance in AI coaching.

Gy Yoong Nam, Jinhee Choi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Gy Yoong NamSeoul Business School, aSSIST University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-4148-6505
Jinhee ChoiAssistant Professor, Seoul Business School, aSSIST University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4876-067X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although Human Resources managers have integrated artificial intelligence (AI)-mediated coaching into their practice, the role of traditional coaching elements-especially coaching presence-within these interactions remains underexplored. To examine perceived differences in the working alliance in AI-mediated coaching, we conducted pre- and post-interviews with 15 Human Resources leaders from South Korean IT companies. Participants were categorized into three groups: Novice (no prior coaching experience), coaching-educated (completed formal coaching education without certification), and certified (completed both education and formal certification). Using reflexive thematic analysis, we explored how participants experienced emotional bond, goal agreement, and task assignment. Findings indicate that AI coaching effectively accelerates goal clarification and provides structured task suggestions, yet it does not generate a coaching presence. In its absence, interactions were described as transactional and emotionally unresponsive; relational engagement weakened, goal agreement was less co-constructed, and task intentions were weakly internalized. Experience level shaped evaluations: coaching-educated and certified participants identified relational deficits early and judged AI more critically, whereas novices initially valued efficiency but later reported a lack of partnership and motivation. These findings highlight a limitation for AI coaching-procedural assistance without relational depth struggles to sustain a transformative working alliance. The study contributes to AI-relevant coaching and offers practical insights for developing emotionally responsive AI coaching platforms, including empathic attunement features, adaptive conversational feedback, and hybrid human-AI models.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceMentoringAdultFemaleHumansMaleRepublic of Korea

Identifiers

PMID41886422
PMCPMC13020809

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.