K. Vande Walle1, S. Pavuluri Quamme1, D. Wiegmann2, H. Ghousseini3, J. Dimick4, C. Greenberg1 1University Of Wisconsin,Surgery,Madison, WI, USA 2University Of Wisconsin,Industrial And Systems Engineering,Madison, WI, USA 3University Of Wisconsin,Curriculum And Instruction,Madison, WI, USA 4University Of Michigan,Surgery,Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Introduction: Surgical coaching programs have shown promise as a method for facilitating continuous professional development. However, there is currently no objective way to identify surgeons who will make effective coaches. The purpose of this study was to determine if the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)® and the Life Styles Inventory (LSI)™ can identify characteristics of effective surgical coaches.
Methods: Surgeon coaches in the Wisconsin Surgical Coaching Program (WSCP) and Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative (MBSC) coaching program were administered the MBTI and LSI. Coaching sessions were audio recorded and transcribed. An overall coach effectiveness score (1-5) for each session was generated by a minimum of 2 blinded raters using a validated tool. The four dichotomies of the MBTI (extraversion/introversion, sensing/intuition, thinking/feeling, judging/perceiving) were rated on a continuous scale. The 12 thinking styles of the LSI were grouped into 3 clusters: constructive passive/defensive, and aggressive/defensive. Cluster scores were calculated by averaging the 4 LSI style scores included in each cluster. A Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated between each MBTI dichotomy and LSI style/cluster with the overall coach effectiveness score.
Results: 18 coaches were included in the MBTI and 15 were included in the LSI analysis. 9/18 (50.0%) coaches preferred extraversion, 13/18 (72.2%) preferred sensing, 12/18 (66.7%) preferred thinking, and 12/18 (66.7%) preferred judging. The Pearson correlation coefficients for each MBTI dichotomy and overall coach effectiveness were < 0.4 and not statistically significant. The mean score on the LSI (out of 100) was 61.5 for constructive, 58.1 for passive/defensive, and 44.8 for aggressive/defensive. A higher LSI constructive score correlated with a higher overall coach effectiveness (r=0.59, p=0.02) while passive/defensive scores and aggressive/defensive scores did not correlate with overall coach effectiveness (r=-0.04, p=0.88; r=-0.01, p=0.98). The mean overall coach effectiveness scores for the highest and lowest LSI constructive score tertiles were 3.7 and 2.9, respectively. Two of the four styles in the constructive cluster also correlated with overall coach effectiveness (self-actualizing r=0.60, p=0.02; humanistic-encouraging r=0.58, p=0.02).
Conclusion: This is the first study to propose a quantifiable assessment to identify effective surgical coaches. A higher LSI constructive score correlated with an increase in overall coach effectiveness. This suggests the LSI constructive score may be used to identify the most effective surgical coaches and training to increase an individual’s constructive behaviors may lead to more effective coaching.
