Abstract
Researchers in the biomedical workforce face challenges in establishing their careers, with disproportionate effects for underrepresented groups. Coaching, a form of professional development commonly adopted outside of the biomedical sciences, may be a useful and effective way to help researchers as they start and advance in their careers. In this innovative intervention, coaches guide clients from various fields and specialties to maximize their work performance for a range of goals that are tailored to the client’s needs. However, coaching is not yet a widely accepted or regularly utilized practice in academic medicine and research. Coaching may help advance researchers in their careers and reduce longstanding inequities in the scientific workforce. To ensure effectiveness, coaching programs should be evaluated longitudinally using a conceptual framework; however, such rigorous evaluation has been limited to date. The authors highlight the potential benefits of coaching and call for greater evaluation of such programs in the biomedical sciences using the Kirkpatrick Model and Social Cognitive Career Theory to inform a framework for the evaluation of biomedical coaching. Maximizing the effectiveness of coaching has important potential to reduce inequities in the biomedical workforce and ensure that science benefits the nation’s population.
Introduction
Professional development is critical to support scientists and researchers in the biomedical workforce. Studies show that professional development, such as mentorship and skills training programs, enhances career satisfaction, research productivity, and work performance (–). Further, professional development can help overcome the persistent workforce inequities in biomedical research (, ). Such supports particularly benefit individuals in early career stages who face limited high-quality mentorship, tenure-track faculty positions, and research funding, while confronting work-life imbalances (–). Among this group of researchers, women and others from underrepresented backgrounds are more vulnerable to challenges such as stereotype threat and imposter syndrome (–). Such experiences can negatively impact their transition to research independence and advancement in their careers (–). Without adequate support, the biomedical research enterprise can experience lower retention rates, increased turnover costs, limited research output, and less diverse innovation in scientific fields (, ).
In light of these challenges, one promising approach to enhance growth among biomedical researchers is professional coaching (). Coaching helps a client improve performance and meet their professional and/or personal goals through cognitive and behavioral changes (–). Coaching programs have been applied in various settings and structures, with literature describing various coaching practices and methods (). To ensure such coaching programs are effective, evaluation is essential (). Yet, few studies evaluate the effectiveness of coaching and its mechanisms for success (). Further research is critical to understand the impact of coaching and its lasting effects on biomedical researchers. To strength professional coaching as individuals and organizations are investing in such programs, we examine what is known about outcomes of coaching programs and call for increased evaluation of these programs to enhance their impact on the biomedical workforce. To do so, we reviewed literature on the application and evaluation of professional coaching in the biomedical sciences and other fields to identify existing practices and inform recommendations for evaluation of the effects of such interventions in the workforce.
Understanding coaching: definitions, distinctions, and applications
In the landscape of professional development, coaching has the potential to foster both individual and institutional progress. According to the International Coaching Federation, coaching involves “partnering with clients in a thought-provoking and creative process that inspires them to maximize their personal and professional potential” (). Coaching can assist clients in various career domains, such as transitioning into new roles or adapting to change (). In particular, coaches work with clients on setting goals (e.g., increasing leadership capabilities, improving decision-making skills) and overcoming challenges (e.g., time management, stress management, communication skills) ().
Overall, coaching promotes enhanced performance through individual professional and personal growth (, ). One theory that can explain how coaching programs support such development is the Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) (). SCCT suggests that interactions between a person and their environment create learning experiences that influence confidence and outcomes in their careers (, ). Coaching programs build self-efficacy among clients by offering learning experiences (e.g., skill development, self-awareness) and social supports, thereby helping promote career advancement and persistence. Such impacts extend to organizations and institutions by positively enhancing their leadership, culture, and performance ().
Coaching is distinct from other forms of professional development, such as mentoring and advising. Mentorship is a long-term relationship in which a mentor in the same field as the mentee shares knowledge and skills from their own experience to guide the mentee in their career (, ). In advising, commonly applied in academic settings, an advisor counsels an individual by giving them direction on a matter in which the advisor is an expert (, ). In contrast, a professional coach does not necessarily have the same work experiences or knowledge as the client. The coach helps the client understand how to learn rather than teaching the client (). In a coaching relationship, the client is the expert upon whom the coach relies to lead the intervention (). Notably, coaches do not apply approaches like counseling or therapy and do not promote their own opinions in their work (34). Instead, the coach reaches a deeper understanding of the client’s specific needs by asking reflective questions as well as identifying goals and actions to reach an outcome ().
There are several applications of coaching, including peer coaching, cognitive coaching, instructional coaching, and academic coaching. Peer coaching, typically applied in academic settings, involves a dyad relationship in which individuals with similar experiences work together to improve each other’s performance (35, 36). Cognitive coaching is a process in which a coach assists the client to self-reflect and take initiative to change cognitive behaviors in their work (37). Instructional coaching involves a coach working with educators to improve classroom practices and teaching by implementing evidence-based approaches that support classroom management, content enhancement, and other instructional issues (38). In academic coaching, students, typically in higher education settings, work with a coach to build their academic skills and achieve their academic goals (39).
In each application of coaching, coaches can use a multitude of tools to understand a client’s behavior and support the client in achieving their desired outcome(s). For example, coaches can work with clients through didactic lectures, one-on-one meetings, interactive seminars, group work, project work, and/or simulation exercises (40). Assessments (e.g., 360-degree surveys/multi-source feedback, personality assessment) paired with debriefing can be useful for coaches to gather objective data for clients and tailor the coaching appropriately to the client’s needs (41–43).
To date, coaching has been commonly applied in the business and education fields, with benefits noted for both individuals and organizations. In corporations, coaching has been utilized among executives to improve leadership and organizational effectiveness, particularly at times of organizational change (44, 45). Studies on executive coaching demonstrate that leaders have increased engagement and productivity, improved people management, better relationships with managers, as well as enhanced goal setting and prioritization (44). Organizational benefits from executive coaching include strengthened teamwork, increased retention, accelerated promotions, and improved client satisfaction (44). In education, coaching has been applied to promote teacher development, whereby a coach assists educators in implementing effective classroom practices that can positively impact student achievement (46). Along with the benefits for individuals, coaching in education can also benefit organizations by creating a positive and empowering environment that promotes educators’ self-efficacy, encourages innovative approaches, and enhances team dynamics (47). Such coaching successes may be translatable to other fields.
Realizing potential: exploring benefits of coaching in biomedical field
In the biomedical sciences, coaching has gained attention in medical education and clinical care to support the development and wellbeing of trainees as well as attending physicians/faculty (48, 49). In medical education, coaching provided by faculty aims to help trainees reach their full potential through setting goals, identifying strategies to overcome challenges, improving academic performance, and fostering professional identity (). Literature shows that such coaching can improve self-efficacy and resilience, reduce burnout symptoms, and increase openness to performance feedback among trainees (, 50–52). Additionally, coaching can enhance clinical skill development for trainees (53, 54). Similarly, coaching for attending physicians can support their professional development, as well as improve self-efficacy, resilience, burnout, and quality of life (55–58). Lastly, coaching for faculty can support academic scholarship (59).
Further, coaching programs have been introduced to foster workforce diversity in the biomedical sciences. One coaching program for underrepresented graduate students in biological and behavioral sciences focused on career development and professional identity, with outcomes showing high interests in research activities and pursuit of research careers (60). A similar coaching program for underrepresented Ph.D. students in biomedical sciences provided social support to students that promoted their persistence in academia (61, 62). Coaching programs have also supported underrepresented investigators in career advancement. A coaching program focused on grant writing led to a large proportion of underrepresented researchers submitting at least one grant application and being awarded funding (63). Another coaching program supported mid-career women physicians in attaining grants and promotions (64). Given that underrepresented groups in the biomedical workforce face unique challenges, including stereotype threat and imposter syndrome (–, 65, 66), coaching can be essential for success and retention across various career stages, thus helping reduce inequities in the scientific workforce.
Current practices for evaluating coaching programs
Rigorous evaluation of coaching programs is necessary to determine their utility and identify areas for improvement (67). Such evaluation can help clients, coaches, and organizations to understand the various effects of coaching programs and interventions. For instance, evaluation can provide evidence to a client of their development by recording changes in performance (68). For coaches, evaluation can provide insight on how they can improve the quality of their coaching (69, 70). Lastly, evaluation can inform organizations about the return on investment of the professional development program (67, 68).
While the evaluation of coaching programs has holistic benefits, it is not commonly done. In fact, a 2007 study found only one-third of coaching programs were evaluated (71). A more updated study is not available currently; however, recent literature on coaching aligns with this study, suggesting evaluation remains inadequate (, 38, 72). This gap may be due to the fact that professional coaching is difficult to assess with its individualized approach, diverse outcomes, and influencing factors (e.g., client attitude, relationship between coach and client, coach skills) (68, 69, 73). There is a need for a systematic approach to evaluation that collects and analyzes data to understand outcomes of professional coaching and opportunities for improvement (68, 74).
For rigorous evaluation, one framework that can support a systematic approach is the Kirkpatrick Model, a foundational framework for evaluating outcomes of training and professional development programs, including coaching (74–76). This model consists of four hierarchical levels of evaluation: reaction, learning, behavior, and results (Table 1). The first two levels target short-term outcomes. “Reaction” assesses client’s perspectives on the coaching program, including satisfaction and perceived effectiveness. “Learning” measures the extent to which clients learned from coaching, capturing cognitive changes like knowledge (e.g., awareness of strengths and weaknesses) and skill development (e.g., adaptability). This level can also assess changes in attitudes and self-efficacy. The higher two levels examine more tangible measures and often use multiple sources of data. “Behavior” assesses changes in targeted behaviors that occur due to coaching, an important factor that influences work performance. The “Results” level of the model traditionally measures the program’s impact on the organization, for example productivity, revenue, retention, and customer satisfaction or outcome. For comprehensive evaluation of coaching, each level of the model should be assessed using both quantitative and qualitative data from various individuals (e.g., client, supervisor, peer, subordinate) collected before and after programming (67, 68, 77). Additionally, it is recommended to compare coaching to a control group, in a randomized way when possible, to determine its impact and specific outcomes (76).
TABLE 1
| Level | Measurement | Methodology | Examples of approaches utilized in studies |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reaction | How does client feel about the program they attended? To what extent are they satisfied? | Post-program evaluation in form of: - Survey, questionnaire, and feedback forms - Verbal and written reports | - Peer coaching intervention for board-eligible/certified surgeons: after completing intervention, participating surgeons provided written evaluation of the program, including value of and satisfaction with program (57). - Longitudinal coaching program for medical students: at the end of each academic year, students completed a survey to rate the extent that their coach guided and supported them in fostering personal and professional development, advancing physician skills, and promoting wellbeing and belonging (reported on Likert scale) (53). - Longitudinal coaching program for internal medicine residents: residents completed a post-intervention survey to rate coaching experience (excellent, good, fair/poor) and if they would advise other residency programs to implement coaching (reported on Likert scale) (50). |
| Learning | To what extent has client learned the information and skills? To what extent have their attitudes been changed? | Pre/post-program evaluation in form of: - Surveys and questionnaires - Interviews - Knowledge tests | - Coaching program for pediatric resident physicians: resident physicians completed pre/post-program survey to assess patient communication skills and attitudes toward patient feedback (utilized validated Communication Assessment Tool to rate physician communication with a Likert scale) (54). - Longitudinal coaching program for medical students: students completed survey to determine their learning of patient care skills (patient communication, building a medical history, physical examination) and health systems skills (microsystem improvement, interprofessional collaboration) through coaching guidance (53). |
| Behavior | To what extent has client’s job behavior changed as a result of the program? | Pre/post-program evaluation in form of: - Assessment (written or verbal) on client’s performance and behavior reported by supervisor, peers, or subordinates - Observations and measures of behavior changes | - Coaching program for 1st year medical students: participating students completed pre/post-surveys to assess changes in resilience (with Connor-Davidson Resilient Beliefs Scale), perceived stress (with Friedricksson-Larson single question), awareness/management of stress, time management, goal setting, as well as energy for relationships and school (all reported on a Likert scale) (51). - Longitudinal coaching program for internal medicine residents: participating resident physicians completed a post-intervention survey about if the coaching program improved ability to cope with stress, distress in personal life, information processes, work-life balance, work relationships, self-confidence, and administrative burdens (50). - Coaching program for pediatric resident physicians: patients of participating resident physicians completed pre/post-feedback forms to assess communication skills (with Communication Assessment Tool), as well as what the resident physician did well and could do better in terms of communication (54). - Coaching program for physician leaders: physician leaders completed interviews 2 months after intervention in which they described in-depth the application of skills learned in coaching and the behavioral changes seen (83). |
| Results | To what extent have results been affected by the program? | Post-program evaluation focused on organizational performance and other return on investment indicators, including: - Cost savings - Quality ratings - Career outcomes (burnout, promotion, retention) - Customer outcomes | - Executive coaching program for senior leaders: participating executives completed post-program interviews focused on how they applied their coaching to impact productivity, work quality, diversity, retention and promotion of leadership, teamwork, client satisfaction, as well as estimated monetary benefit from coaching (84). - Coaching program for physician leadership: organization stakeholders assessed if participating physicians’ deliverables from coaching program (organization-wide team project) aligned with organization’s goals (83). - Large-scale coaching program for doctors and dentists: participating doctors and dentists completed post-program questionnaire to assess program impacts on working with patients and colleagues and on self, including intention to stay in position (85). - Coaching program for internal medicine interns: Interns completed pre/post-program survey to measure changes in emotional exhaustion (with Maslach Burnout Inventory) (52). |
Application of Kirkpatrick Model for evaluating coaching programs.
To date, approaches for evaluating coaching programs remain limited. Studies prioritize short-term outcomes, oftentimes immediately after the coaching program (67, 68, 78). Further, they largely focus on the reaction level, for example client satisfaction, which results in inadequate assessment on the effectiveness of coaching (67, 68, 78). Studies also heavily rely on self-reported data from clients and rarely gather data from supervisors, peers, and subordinates (68). Lastly, few evaluations of coaching programs examine long-term outcomes or explore factors that influence outcomes (e.g., coaching processes, coach-client relationships) (68). Notably, these limitations in evaluation efforts are more apparent among the coaching programs in the biomedical workforce. The majority of studies that focus on coaching in the biomedical sciences utilize self-reported data from clients, particularly quantitative data (50–52, 55, 57). Few such studies examine long-term outcomes (49, 50, 53, 59), collect multiple perspectives (53, 57), or explore coaching processes and coach-client relationships (53) –all of which are important to optimize coaching in the biomedical sciences. As such, gaps remain in well-rounded evaluation that is needed to delineate the full impact of coaching on individuals and organizations.
Discussion: recommendations for evaluating coaching programs in biomedical field
To ensure coaching programs in the biomedical sciences are viable and optimal, evaluation must be comprehensive, including using a conceptual framework to examine outcomes across varied levels and perspectives. We propose the Biomedical Coaching Evaluation Framework, a conceptual framework for the evaluation of coaching in the biomedical sciences based on SCCT and the Kirkpatrick Model, which considers coaching input, mediators, and outcomes (Figure 1). Evaluation efforts should incorporate all four levels of the Kirkpatrick Model to determine both short-term and long-term effects of coaching on clients and organizations.
FIGURE 1
Longitudinal studies can assess distal outcomes, for instance the broader effects of coaching at the organizational level like productivity, efficiency, retention, organizational climate, and return on investment (67, 68). Other considerations for long-term outcomes to integrate into evaluation include client-focused metrics like burnout, promotion, retention, compensation, and career satisfaction (67, 79). Given that it can be challenging to attribute long-term outcomes to a particular experience, studies should also collect data on other factors that may influence clients’ career outcomes, such as additional professional development opportunities or life events, which can be used to help isolate the effects of coaching. Additionally, evaluation efforts should leverage multisource data from various individuals, such as self-assessments completed by clients and 360-degree assessments completed by peers and supervisors to observe changes in the client’s performance and behavior.
In terms of evaluating factors that influence coaching outcomes, efforts can incorporate metrics focused on the success of coach-client relationship (e.g., expectation, engagement) and coaching process (e.g., goal setting, problem identification, resolution) from both client and coach perspectives (, 68). Further, evaluation can explore the professional experiences and skills among coaches to identify competencies and trainings that are most effective for coaching of the biomedical workforce. Such efforts are particularly important given that several organizations provide various training and certifications for professional coaching (80).
Collectively, such data can be a key part of a mixed-methods approach to evaluation, which is proven to support a comprehensive understanding of coaching outcomes (81, 82). Additionally, studies designed as randomized controlled trials can further delineate outcomes specific to coaching.
As coaching expands in the biomedical sciences field, it will be valuable to examine the effects of coaching programs on diversity and inclusion in the workforce. Coaching may impact individuals differently, as each client has unique experiences in their profession, particularly those who are underrepresented in the field. For coaching programs to be effective, they must be relevant and adapted to diverse professional and cultural backgrounds of clients. Evaluation can support such tailoring of programs. Further, examining the effects of professional coaching based on gender identity, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, disability, and other areas, as well as assessing for differential effects by groups, can inform both coaches and organizations about how to best support diverse clients. Such evaluation can strengthen coaching to address the unique barriers that professionals face in the biomedical workforce.
Conclusion
Research shows that coaching can be a promising approach for advancing professional development in the biomedical workforce. The benefits of coaching in various fields like business and education are well-documented in literature. However, research on coaching in the biomedical field is underdeveloped, lacking comprehensive evaluation to determine individual and program outcomes. Current efforts focus on short-term outcomes of coaching and rely on self-reported data from clients. Future evaluation of coaching programs in the biomedical sciences should apply a conceptual framework, examine long-term outcomes and leverage multisource data, particularly among clients of diverse backgrounds. With such rigorous evaluation, coaching can be designed to optimally support professionals as well as improve diversity and inclusion within the biomedical workforce.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in this study are included in this article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
MK: Writing – original draft, Data curation, Project administration, Investigation, Formal analysis, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. ET: Data curation, Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization. VA: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization. JH: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization. SJ: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. VP: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization. AT: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. RW: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. AV: Supervision, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This work was supported by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01 GM147154). VG Press was supported by an NIH K24 award (K24HL163408) and receives funding for other research programs (R01HS027804 and R01HL146644).
Conflict of interest
VP also reports having received consulting fees from Humana for a patient education program, serving as a peer reviewer for UpToDate, and serving as an advisor to Teva for a research study outside of the submitted work.
The remaining author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1.
FereydooniAFisherATMullisDMSmithBKSgroiMD. Impact of integrated vascular surgery residency training pathway and professional development time on career choice and research productivity.J Surg Educ. (2024) 81:295–303. 10.1016/j.jsurg.2023.10.009
2.
AnafartaAApaydinÇ. The effect of faculty mentoring on career success and career satisfaction.Intern Educ Stud. (2016) 9:22–31.
3.
BrandtPDSturzenegger VarvayanisSBaasTBolgioniAFAlderJPetrieKAet al. A cross-institutional analysis of the effects of broadening trainee professional development on research productivity.PLoS Biol. (2021) 19:e3000956. 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000956
4.
McKeeCWTewWM. Setting the stage for teaching and learning in american higher education: making the case for faculty development.New Direct Teach Learn. (2013) 2013:3–14. 10.1002/tl.20041
5.
SullivanAMLakomaMDBillingsJAPetersASBlockSD. Teaching and learning end-of-life care: evaluation of a faculty development program in palliative care.Acad Med. (2005) 80:657–68. 10.1097/00001888-200507000-00008
6.
Bilal, GurayaSYChenS. The impact and effectiveness of faculty development program in fostering the faculty’s knowledge, skills, and professional competence: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Saudi J Biol Sci. (2019) 26:688–97. 10.1016/j.sjbs.2017.10.024
7.
KamenyRRDeRosierMETaylorLCMcMillenJSKnowlesMMPiferK. Barriers to career success for minority researchers in the behavioral sciences.J Career Dev. (2014) 41:43–61. 10.1177/0894845312472254
8.
DiamondSJThomasCRDesaiSHollidayEBJagsiRSchmittCet al. Gender differences in publication productivity, academic rank, and career duration among U.S. Academic gastroenterology faculty.Acad Med. (2016) 91:1158–63. 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001219
9.
EhrichLCHansfordBTennentL. Formal mentoring programs in education and other professions: a review of the literature.Educ Admin Quar. (2004) 40:518–40. 10.1177/0013161X04267118
10.
Nature EditorialEarly-career researchers need fewer burdens and more support.Nature. (2016) 538:427. 10.1038/538427a
11.
JohnsonRWWeivodaMM. Current challenges for early career researchers in academic research careers: COVID-19 and beyond.JBMR Plus. (2021) 5:e10540. 10.1002/jbm4.10540
12.
SusiTShalviSSrinivasM. ‘I’ll work on it over the weekend’: high workload and other pressures faced by early-career researchers.Nature. (2019). 10.1038/d41586-019-01914-z
13.
FassiottoMHamelEOKuMCorrellSGrewalDLavoriPet al. Women in academic medicine: measuring stereotype threat among junior faculty.J Womens Health. (2016) 25:292–8. 10.1089/jwh.2015.5380
14.
ChakravertyD. Impostor phenomenon among hispanic/latino early career researchers in STEM fields.J Latinos Educ. (2024) 23:250–68. 10.1080/15348431.2022.2125394
15.
MuradogluMHorneZHammondMDLeslieSJCimpianA. Women–Particularly underrepresented minority women–and early-career academics feel like impostors in fields that value brilliance.J Educ Psychol. (2022) 114:1086–100. 10.1037/edu0000669
16.
McGeeRSaranSKrulwichTA. Diversity in the biomedical research workforce: developing talent.Mt Sinai J Med. (2012) 79:397–411. 10.1002/msj.21310
17.
ValantineHALundPKGammieAE. From the NIH: a systems approach to increasing the diversity of the biomedical research workforce.CBE Life Sci Educ. (2016) 15:fe4. 10.1187/cbe.16-03-0138
18.
DeiorioNMCarneyPAKahlLEBonuraEMJuveAM. Coaching: a new model for academic and career achievement.Med Educ Online. (2016) 21:33480. 10.3402/meo.v21.33480
19.
StoberDRGrantAM.Evidence Based Coaching Handbook: Putting Best Practices to Work for Your Clients.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc (2006).
20.
WhitmoreJ.Coaching for Performance: A Practical Guide to Growing Your Own Skills.London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing (1992).
21.
GrantAM. The impact of life coaching on goal attainment, metacognition, and mental health.Soc Behav Personal: Intern J. (2003) 31:253–63. 10.2224/sbp.2003.31.3.253
22.
EliadisA. Coaching history: the evolution of a profession.J Organ Culture Commun Conflict. (2023) 27:1–105.
23.
EdwardsJScottJRajuNPetersonDBKraigerK. A Practical Guide to Evaluating Coaching: Translating State-of-the-Art Techniques to the Real World. In: EdwardsJEScottJCRajuNeditors. The Human Resources Program - Evaluation Handbook.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc (2003).
24.
BozerGJonesRJ. Understanding the factors that determine workplace coaching effectiveness: a systematic literature review.Eur J Work Organ Psychol. (2018) 27:342–61. 10.1080/1359432X.2018.1446946
25.
International Coaching FederationInternational Coaching Federation Code of Ethics.Lexington, KY: International Coaching Federation (2025).
26.
DiGirolamoJ.Coaching for Professional Development.Toledo, OH: Society for Human Resource Management and Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2015).
27.
StricklandK. Executive Coaching: Helping Valued Executives Fulfill Their Potential. In: PickmanAJeditor. Special Challenges in Career Management.Psychology Press: England (1996).
28.
CummingsTGWorleyCG.Organization Development & Change.9th ed. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning (2009).
29.
LentRBrownSHackettG. Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance.J Vocat Behav. (1994) 45:79–122. 10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027
30.
BanduraA. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.Psychol Rev. (1977) 84:191–215. 10.1037//0033-295x.84.2.191
31.
BanduraA. Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective.Annu Rev Psychol. (2001) 52:1–26. 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
32.
Kets de VriesM.Leadership Coaching and Organizational Transformation: Effectivenesss in a World of Paradoxes.France: INSEAD (2008).
33.
MarcdanteKSimpsonD. Choosing when to advise, coach, or mentor.J Grad Med Educ. (2018) 10:227–8. 10.4300/JGME-D-18-00111.1
34.
de HaanE.Relational Coaching: Journeys Towards Mastering One-To-One Learning.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons (2008). 372 p.
35.
WaddellDLDunnN. Peer coaching: the next step in staff development.J Contin Educ Nurs. (2005) 36:84–9; quiz 90–1. 10.3928/0022-0124-20050301-09
36.
HustonTWeaverCL. Peer coaching: professional development for experienced faculty.Innov High Educ. (2008) 33:5–20. 10.1007/s10755-007-9061-9
37.
BattEG. Cognitive coaching: a critical phase in professional development to implement sheltered instruction.Teach Teach Educ. (2010) 26:997–1005. 10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.042
38.
KnightJ.Coaching: Approaches and Perspectives.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin press (2009).
39.
RespessK.Advisor Training Academy - Wayne State University Academic Coaching: A Brief Literature Review of Coaching Purpose & Effectiveness. (2024). Available online at: https://advisortraining.wayne.edu/news/academic-coaching-a-brief-literature-review-of-coaching-purpose-effectiveness–45634(accessed Dec 23, 2025).
40.
FrichJCBrewsterALCherlinEJBradleyEH. Leadership development programs for physicians: a systematic review.J Gen Intern Med. (2015) 30:656–74. 10.1007/s11606-014-3141-1
41.
McdowallASmewingC. What assessments do coaches use in their practice and why?Coaching Psychol. (2009) 5:98–104. 10.53841/bpstcp.2009.5.2.98
42.
TaylorSNBrightDS. Open-Mindedness and defensiveness in multisource feedback processes: a conceptual framework.J Appl Behav Sci. (2011) 47:432–60. 10.1177/0021886311408724
43.
HorvathZWilderRSGuthmillerJM. The power of coaching: developing leaders and beyond.J Dent Educ. (2024) 88:671–7. 10.1002/jdd.13535
44.
KombarakaranFYangJBakerMFernandesP. Executive coaching: it works!Consult Psychol J Pract Res. (2008) 60:78–90. 10.1037/1065-9293.60.1.78
45.
GrantAM. The efficacy of executive coaching in times of organisational change.J Change Manag. (2014) 14:258–80. 10.1080/14697017.2013.805159
46.
DevineMMeyersRHoussemandC. How can coaching make a positive impact within educational settings?Proc - Soc Behav Sci. (2013) 93:1382–9. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.048
47.
HunaitiZ.Coaching Applications and Effectiveness in Higher Education.Hershey, PA: IGI Global (2021).
48.
LandrevilleJCheungWFrankJRichardsonD. A definition for coaching in medical education.Can Med Educ J. (2019) 10:e109–10. 10.36834/cmej.68713
49.
LovellB. What do we know about coaching in medical education? A literature review.Med Educ. (2018) 52:376–90. 10.1111/medu.13482
50.
PalamaraKKauffmanCChangYBarretoEAYuLBazariHet al. professional development coaching for residents: results of a 3-year positive psychology coaching intervention.J General Internl Med. (2018) 33:1842–4. 10.1007/s11606-018-4589-1
51.
CameronDDromerickLJAhnJDromerickAW. Executive/life coaching for first year medical students: a prospective study.BMC Med Educ. (2019) 19:163. 10.1186/s12909-019-1564-4
52.
PalamaraKKauffmanCStoneVEBazariHDonelanK. Promoting success: a professional development coaching program for interns in medicine.J Grad Med Educ. (2015) 7:630–7. 10.4300/JGME-D-14-00791.1
53.
HauerKEChangAvan SchaikSMLuceyCCowellTTeheraniA. It’s all about the trust and building a foundation:” evaluation of a longitudinal medical student coaching program.Teach Learn Med. (2023) 35:550–64. 10.1080/10401334.2022.2111570
54.
RassbachCEBogetzALOrlovNMcQueenABhavarajuVMahoneyDet al. The effect of faculty coaching on resident attitudes, confidence, and patient-rated communication: a multi-institutional randomized controlled trial.Acad Pediatr. (2019) 19:186–94. 10.1016/j.acap.2018.10.004
55.
DyrbyeLNShanafeltTDGillPRSateleDVWestCP. Effect of a professional coaching intervention on the well-being and distress of physicians: a pilot randomized clinical trial.JAMA Intern Med. (2019) 179:1406. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.2425
56.
GazelleGLiebschutzJMRiessH. Physician burnout: coaching a way out.J Gen Intern Med. (2015) 30:508–13. 10.1007/s11606-014-3144-y
57.
GreenbergCCGhousseiniHNPavuluri QuammeSRBeasleyHLFrasierLLBrysNAet al. A statewide surgical coaching program provides opportunity for continuous professional development.Ann Surg. (2018) 267:868. 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002341
58.
CarlsonKAshfordAHegagiMVokounC. Peer coaching as a faculty development tool: a mixed methods evaluation.J Grad Med Educ. (2020) 12:168–75. 10.4300/JGME-D-19-00250.1
59.
McKinneyCMMookherjeeSFihnSDGallagherTH. An academic research coach: an innovative approach to increasing scholarly productivity in medicine.J Hospital Med. (2019) 14:457–61. 10.12788/jhm.3194
60.
Byars-WinstonAGutierrezBToppSCarnesM. Integrating theory and practice to increase scientific workforce diversity: a framework for career development in graduate research training.LSE. (2011) 10:357–67. 10.1187/cbe.10-12-0145
61.
WilliamsSNThakoreBKMcGeeR. Providing social support for underrepresented racial and ethnic minority PhD students in the biomedical sciences: a career coaching model.CBE Life Sci Educ. (2017) 16:ar64. 10.1187/cbe.17-01-0021
62.
WilliamsSNThakoreBKMcGeeR. Coaching to augment mentoring to achieve faculty diversity: a randomized controlled trial.Acad Med. (2016) 91:1128–35. 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001026
63.
Weber-MainAMMcGeeRBomanKEHemmingJHallMUnoldTet al. Grant application outcomes for biomedical researchers who participated in the National Research Mentoring Network’s grant writing coaching programs.PLoS One. (2020) 15:e0241851. 10.1371/journal.pone.0241851
64.
HimstedtJDSBloomgardenEShahP. Empowering the invisible: accelerating leadership development for midcareer women in medicine.J Med Intern Res. (2023) 25:e47801. 10.2196/47801
65.
MullangiSJagsiR. Imposter syndrome: treat the cause. not the symptom.JAMA. (2019) 322:403–4. 10.1001/jama.2019.9788
66.
BurgessDJJosephAvan RynMCarnesM. Does stereotype threat affect women in academic medicine?Acad Med. (2012) 87:506–12. 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318248f718
67.
GreifS. Conducting Organizational-Based Evaluations of Coaching and Mentoring Programs. In: PassmoreJPetersonDBFreireTeditors. The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Coaching and Mentoring.Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell (2013). 10.1002/9781118326459.ch23
68.
ElyKBoyceLANelsonJKZaccaroSJHernez-BroomeGWhymanW. Evaluating leadership coaching: a review and integrated framework. the leadership quarterly.Leadership Dev Eval. (2010) 21:585–99. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.06.003
69.
PassmoreJTeeD.Coaching Researched: A Coaching Psychology Reader.1st ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (2021). 10.1002/9781119656913
70.
GrayDE. Principles and processes in coaching evaluation.Intern J Mentor Coach. (2004) 2:1–7.
71.
McDermottMLevensonANewtonS. What coaching can and cannot do for your organization.Hum Resource Plan. (2007) 30:30–7.
72.
OsatukeKYanovskyBRamselD. Executive coaching: new framework for evaluation.Consult Psychol J. (2017) 69:172–86. 10.1037/cpb0000073
73.
de HaanEDuckworthA. The Coaching Relationship and Other ‘Common Factors’ in Executive Coaching Outcome. In: de HaanESillsCeditors. Coaching Relationships: Relational Coaching Field Book.Faringdon: Libri (2012).
74.
GoldsteinIL.Training in Organizations: Needs Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth (2002).
75.
WatkinsRLeighDFoshayRKaufmanR. Kirkpatrick plus: evaluation and continuous improvement with a community focus.ETR D. (1998) 46:90–6. 10.1007/BF02299676
76.
KirkpatrickDL. Techniques for evaluating training programs.J Am Soc Train Direct. (1960) 13:21–6.
77.
MylonaEVan EckR.Evaluating coaching programs. In: Coaching in Medical Education: A faculty handbook.Chicago, IL: American Medical Association (2017).
78.
MacKieD. Evaluating the effectiveness of executive coaching: where are we now and where do we need to be?Aus Psychol. (2007) 42:310–8. 10.1080/00050060701648217
79.
Miller-KuhlmannRSasnalMGoldCANassarAKKorndorfferJRJr.Van SchaikSet al. Tips for developing a coaching program in medical education.Med Educ Online. (2024) 29:2289262. 10.1080/10872981.2023.2289262
80.
WilliamsPAndersonSK.Law and Ethics in Coaching.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons (2006).
81.
MazerLMHuYYArriagaAFGreenbergCCLipsitzSRGawandeAAet al. Evaluating surgical coaching: a mixed methods approach reveals more than surveys alone.J Surg Educ. (2018) 75:1520–5. 10.1016/j.jsurg.2018.03.009
82.
TeemantAA. Mixed-Methods investigation of instructional coaching for teachers of diverse learners.Urban Educ. (2014) 49:574–604. 10.1177/0042085913481362
83.
ThrogmortonCMitchellTMorleyTSnyderM. Evaluating a physician leadership development program - a mixed methods approach.J Health Organ Manag. (2016) 30:390–407. 10.1108/JHOM-11-2014-0187
84.
Parker-WilkinsV. Business impact of executive coaching: demonstrating monetary value.Indus Commer Train. (2006) 38:122–7. 10.1108/00197850610659373
85.
BachkirovaTArthurLReadingE.Evaluating a Coaching and Mentoring Program. in: Coaching Researched.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (2020).
Summary
Keywords
biomedical sciences, coaching, evaluation, faculty, professional development, research, workforce
Citation
Kowalczyk M, Temprano E, Arora VM, Himstedt J, Jain S, Press VG, Tate A, Wolfson RK and Volerman A (2026) Rigorous evaluation needed to advance coaching in the biomedical workforce. Front. Med. 13:1830734. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2026.1830734
Received
14 March 2026
Revised
12 June 2026
Accepted
23 June 2026
Published
10 July 2026
Volume
13 - 2026
Edited by
Geldine Chironda, Saint John of God University, Malawi
Reviewed by
Julie Lockman, West Virginia University, United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Kowalczyk, Temprano, Arora, Himstedt, Jain, Press, Tate, Wolfson and Volerman.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Anna Volerman, avolerman@uchicago.edu
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.