Can one-to-one coaching improve selection success and who benefits most? The role of internship candidate generalised self-efficacy

Figures & data

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for all variables.

Variable	n	Mean	Median	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Age	165	20.15	20.0	1.97	–
2. Gender^c	357	–	–	–	.02	–
3. Number of coaching sessions	357	1.01	0.00	1.39	−.06	.13*	–
4. Generalised self-efficacy^a	152	4.15	4.13	.52	.11	−.07	−.06	(.87)
5. Internship commitment^a	159	5.68	5.78	.84	−.20*	−.07	0.01	.35**	(.87)
6. Selection success^b	357	–	–	–	.10	−.09	.16**	.10	.09	–

Notes: * p = < 0.05; **p = < 0.01. α is reported for generalised self-efficacy and internship commitment in parentheses on the diagonal.

^a Higher values indicate a greater degree of the variable.

^b Coded 0 = no, 1 = yes.

^c Coded 1 = male, 2 = female.

Table 2. Main effect of number of coaching sessions on selection success.

					95% confidence interval for Exp (β)
	β	SE	Wald	p	Exp (β)	Lower	Upper
Constant	−.83	.17	24.35	.00	.44	–	–
Number of coaching sessions	.26	.08	9.83	.00	1.29	1.10	1.52
Gender	−.48	.24	4.10	.04	.62	.39	.99
Log likelihood	434.52
Degrees of freedom	2
χ²	12.71**
Pseudo R² (Cox & Snell R squared)	.04

Table 3. Interaction effect of number of coaching sessions and generalised self-efficacy on selection success.

	Lower generalised self-efficacy							Higher generalised self-efficacy
					95% C.I. for Exp (β)							95% C.I. for Exp (β)
	β	SE	Wald	p	Exp (β)	Lower	Upper	β	SE	Wald	p	Exp (β)	Lower	Upper
Constant	−1.22	.46	7.03	.01	.29	–	–	−.58	.41	2.00	.16	.56	–	–
Number of coaching sessions	.57	.16	8.43	.00	1.76	1.20	2.58	.26	.16	2.63	.11	1.30	.95	1.76
Gender	−.62	.52	1.44	.23	.54	.20	1.48	−.88	.54	2.67	.10	.42	.15	1.19
Log Likelihood	92.22							83.28
Degrees of freedom	2							2
χ²	11.73**							5.02
Pseudo R² (Cox & Snell R squared)	.13							.07