A Scoping Review of Coaching Frameworks and Behaviour Change Models: Foundations for the Development of a Contextually Relevant Coaching Framework

Technical Summary: A Scoping Review of Coaching Frameworks and Behaviour Change Models

Problem Statement
The paper addresses a critical fragmentation in the field of coaching. While coaching has become a prominent intervention across healthcare, organizational leadership, and education, the practice suffers from theoretical inconsistency and a lack of integration with established behavior change science. Practitioners often operate without coherent guidance on how to select and integrate specific behavior change mechanisms into their frameworks. Existing models are frequently described as "theory-centred," "process-centred," or "conversation-centred," often failing to ask "Who are you, and what context are you living in?" before addressing goals. This decontextualized approach risks interventions that are culturally insensitive, contextually inappropriate, and unsustainable. The review identifies a gap in the literature regarding the systematic integration of coaching processes with behavior change theories, the lack of guidance on mechanism selection, and the neglect of transfer and sustainability in professional practice.

Methodology
The authors conducted a scoping review following the established methodological frameworks of Arksey & O'Malley (2005), Levac et al. (2010), and Peters et al. (2020).

• Search Strategy: A systematic search was performed across five databases (Scopus, Web of Science, APA PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and ERIC) in August 2026. The search yielded 1,847 records.
• Selection Criteria: Inclusion required sources to address coaching frameworks/approaches and behavior change models/theories explicitly. Sources were limited to English-language peer-reviewed journal articles, scholarly books, and book chapters. Exclusion criteria removed sports coaching without professional relevance, pure mentoring/therapy without coaching components, and grey literature.
• Screening and Analysis: Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, achieving high inter-rater agreement (kappa = 0.85 for screening; 0.88 for full-text). Reference lists of included articles were manually searched. The final corpus comprised 100 sources.
• Synthesis: Data extraction and thematic analysis were conducted using a deductive-inductive approach. Coding was managed via NVivo, with a second reviewer verifying 20% of the coding. Thematic saturation was confirmed with the final 20 sources.

Key Results
The thematic analysis of the 100 sources identified five major themes and revealed specific gaps in the current literature:

1. Theoretical Foundations: The literature draws heavily on Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura), Goal Setting Theory (Locke & Latham), Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci), the Transtheoretical Model (Prochaska & DiClemente), and the COM-B model (Michie et al.).
2. Coaching Frameworks: The GROW model is the most widely cited process framework. Other approaches include Cognitive-Behavioral Coaching, Solution-Focused Coaching, and Motivational Interviewing (MI).
3. Integration Gaps: While some integration exists (e.g., MI bridging theory and practice), it is often implicit rather than explicit. There is a lack of systematic guidance for selecting behavior change mechanisms based on client context.
4. Key Ingredients: Effective coaching consistently involves the therapeutic alliance, goal setting, action planning, feedback, reflection, and client autonomy.
5. Contextual Applications: Coaching is applied across health, executive, and educational domains, but these fields rarely inform one another, leading to fragmentation.

Significant Gaps Identified
The review highlights six critical deficiencies in current frameworks:

• Limited Guidance: No systematic decision-making frameworks exist for selecting behavior change mechanisms appropriate to specific contexts.
• Inadequate Attention to Transfer: Little attention is paid to how coaching gains translate to sustained behavior change in real-world settings.
• Implicit Integration: Theoretical integration is often vague, lacking explicit articulation of how coaching processes activate specific mechanisms.
• Fragmentation: Knowledge is siloed across professional domains (health vs. executive vs. education).
• Neglect of Sustainability: Frameworks focus on initiation and short-term goals, with insufficient attention to maintenance and relapse prevention.
• Insufficient Contextual Integration: Existing models often ignore cultural values, family systems, socioeconomic conditions, and organizational environments as determinants of behavior.

Key Contributions and Proposed Framework
The primary contribution of this review is the identification of 11 evidence-derived constructs that serve as the building blocks for a next-generation coaching framework. These constructs are organized into an underlying architecture:

• Foundational Elements: Assessment, Context, and Relationship.
• Internal Change Mechanisms: Capability, Motivation, Reflection, Action, Feedback, and Behavior.
• Long-Term Outcome Elements: Adaptation and Sustainability.

The authors propose that these constructs interact to build "Sustainable Change Capacity," reframing the purpose of coaching from simple behavior change to the development of a client's capacity to sustain change over time.

To ensure empirical grounding, the authors introduce a Framework Development Matrix (Table 5). This matrix maps each proposed construct against its support in behavior change theory, coaching models, and the review's thematic findings, assigning an evidence strength rating (Strong, Emerging, or Weak). For instance, "Assessment," "Relationship," and "Motivation" are rated as having "Strong" evidence, while "Context" and "Adaptation" are "Emerging," and "Sustainability" is "Weak" in current literature but included due to its theoretical necessity.

Significance and Claims
The paper claims that a fundamentally different approach is required: a context-centred, systems-oriented, and theoretically integrated framework.

• Systems Approach: The authors propose a multi-level analysis (Individual, Relational, Organizational, Community, Systemic) to address the complexity of professional practice, moving beyond the individual-level focus of traditional models like GROW.
• Evidence-Based Development: The proposed framework is distinguished by its reliance on the Framework Development Matrix, ensuring that every component is justified by the synthesized evidence rather than intuition.
• Practical Necessity: The authors argue that without addressing context and systems, coaching interventions risk being ineffective. The review provides the foundation for practitioners to adapt approaches to diverse cultural and organizational environments.

The paper concludes by calling for future research to empirically test these integrative frameworks, examine mechanisms of change, and investigate implementation processes, particularly focusing on transfer and sustainability. It positions this work not as a final solution, but as a necessary foundation for developing a coherent, evidence-based standard for professional coaching practice.