CO-FIDEL's development process (Supplementary Material S2 ) included two approaches: (1) An opinion-seeking technique from experts in the field of coaching and childhood disability; and (2) A rapid literature review of the intervention studies related to coaching for their coaches' fidelity ascertainment procedures. Four (n = 4) experts in the field of family coaching and/or childhood disability research and clinical practice participated to CO-FIDEL development: a Social Worker & Psychotherapist (AB); Researchers (Occupational Therapist (AM); Developmental Pediatrician (MO)); and a Postdoctoral fellow—Occupational Therapist (TO).
In the scope of BRIGHT Coaching, our team conducted and published a systematic review and analysis on existing coaching interventions that are provided to parents of children with or with suspected developmental disabilities (3 (link)). This systematic review included 28 intervention studies. All of them were part of the rapid review process, extracting information on coaches training and fidelity ascertainment, where present. Findings were then presented to the team, generating discussion on the features of an optimal coaching fidelity evaluation tool: content, nature, administration method, frequency of administration, and scoring. In relation to BRIGHT Coaching and the childhood disability coaching principles, the following elements, reflecting intervention fidelity, were considered in the CO-FIDEL's design:
Table S1 (Supplementary Material S3 ) outlines the extracted data. Overall, the fidelity assessment procedures in terms of content and methods were not described in enough detail. The method of assessment was either a review of an audiotaped or a videotaped session or supervision of active cases by the principal investigator or an accredited practitioner. Evaluation frequency ranged from weekly to bi-monthly. Only one study specified that coaches needed to attain a fidelity score of >90% to begin the provision of the intervention to study participants (17 (link)).
Following the review of these findings and a team discussion among experts in the fields of coaching and childhood disability, we decided to incorporate principles of the Motivational Interview Skills Code (MISC) (22 , 23 (link)) and the Solution-Focused Interview Skills (SFIS) (24 , 25 (link)) to the rating tool. MISC refers to demonstrating skills related to acceptance, empathy, and spirt, including collaboration, evocation, and autonomy support. Consistent MISC responses included the following: advise with permission, affirm, emphasize control, question openly, reflect, reframe, and support. Inconsistent responses included: advise without permission, confront, direct, raise concern without permission and warn (22 , 23 (link)). SFIS refers to using open-ended questions, summaries, tolerating and using silences, complimenting participants' strengths and past/current successes, and affirming client's perceptions (24 , 25 (link)). Given that our coaches were trained on employing those two techniques within their BRIGHT Coaching sessions, it was deemed appropriate to evaluate their performance based on these concepts. In addition, we incorporated a section on the overall ability of the coach to deliver the content and their attitude during the session. Following the initial development of CO-FIDEL in close collaboration between the four experts, a draft version of the tool was presented to the participating coaches for their feedback and adjusted accordingly prior to implementation.
As a result, Version 1.0 of the CO-FIDEL contains 4 ratable sections. The cover page includes descriptors of the evaluated session and dedicated space for general comments (Supplementary Materials S4 and S5 ). Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the tool were designed to match the types of behaviors to be measured that are program-specific, essential, and behaviors that need to be avoided (12 (link)). In addition, as recommended by previous research, we considered including frequency counts of particular behaviors (12 (link)) (i.e., Section 3) and use of a rating scale to better reflect rater's true evaluation (15 (link)) (i.e., Sections 1, 2 and 4).
In the scope of BRIGHT Coaching, our team conducted and published a systematic review and analysis on existing coaching interventions that are provided to parents of children with or with suspected developmental disabilities (3 (link)). This systematic review included 28 intervention studies. All of them were part of the rapid review process, extracting information on coaches training and fidelity ascertainment, where present. Findings were then presented to the team, generating discussion on the features of an optimal coaching fidelity evaluation tool: content, nature, administration method, frequency of administration, and scoring. In relation to BRIGHT Coaching and the childhood disability coaching principles, the following elements, reflecting intervention fidelity, were considered in the CO-FIDEL's design:
Types of behaviors to be measured: behaviors that are program-specific, essential, and also behaviors that need to be avoided (12 (link)).
Coaching competence: the level of engagement with participant (13 (link)), and the sensitivity with which the treatment protocol was applied (14 (link)).
Measures: Frequency counts of particular behaviors (12 (link)) and use of a rating scale to better reflect rater's true evaluation (15 (link)).
Following the review of these findings and a team discussion among experts in the fields of coaching and childhood disability, we decided to incorporate principles of the Motivational Interview Skills Code (MISC) (22 , 23 (link)) and the Solution-Focused Interview Skills (SFIS) (24 , 25 (link)) to the rating tool. MISC refers to demonstrating skills related to acceptance, empathy, and spirt, including collaboration, evocation, and autonomy support. Consistent MISC responses included the following: advise with permission, affirm, emphasize control, question openly, reflect, reframe, and support. Inconsistent responses included: advise without permission, confront, direct, raise concern without permission and warn (22 , 23 (link)). SFIS refers to using open-ended questions, summaries, tolerating and using silences, complimenting participants' strengths and past/current successes, and affirming client's perceptions (24 , 25 (link)). Given that our coaches were trained on employing those two techniques within their BRIGHT Coaching sessions, it was deemed appropriate to evaluate their performance based on these concepts. In addition, we incorporated a section on the overall ability of the coach to deliver the content and their attitude during the session. Following the initial development of CO-FIDEL in close collaboration between the four experts, a draft version of the tool was presented to the participating coaches for their feedback and adjusted accordingly prior to implementation.
As a result, Version 1.0 of the CO-FIDEL contains 4 ratable sections. The cover page includes descriptors of the evaluated session and dedicated space for general comments (
Free full text: Click here
