{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029475509319462505, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014304291287386216, 'mean_word_length': 5.237837837837838, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Impact of coaching on resilience and propension to "action" or "evaluation". Pilot experimental study conducted on a population of 176 adults.]

INTRODUCTION
An experimental study conducted between October 2020 and July 2021 is presented. The study involved two groups: an experimental group consisting of 89 people and a control group consisting of 87 people, all operating within various organizations. The aim of the study was to measure the effects of coaching through: 1) the comparison between the test/re-test variation of resilience and locomotion and assessment regulatory modes, between the experimental and control groups; 2) the comparison between the test/re-test variation within the experimental group alone.


MATERIALS AND METHODS
The 176 study participants were divided into two groups: an experimental group that received individual coaching sessions and a control group that received general coaching information fortnightly. At the beginning and at the end of the study period, the members of both groups received two questionnaires, both validated by the International Scientific Community. A questionnaire for the measurement of resilience, the Connor Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-Version validated for Italy) and a questionnaire for the measurement of regulatory modes, the Regulatory Mode Questionnaire of Pierro and Kruglanski (RMQ-Version validated for Italy). The individual coaching process, conducted by 52 coaches holding credentials (ACC, PCC, MCC) issued by ICF (International Coaching Federation), had a total duration of 9 hours distributed over 4-6 months.


RESULTS
In the test phase, i.e. the first administration of the questionnaires, the experimental and control groups average results did not differ significantly from each other. After the coaching engagement, a significant increase, +7.5%, in resilience values was recorded in the experimental group. For the assessment, a ratio was obtained between cases of increase in equilibrium and reduction in the experimental group greater than the control group equal to 20.1%. For the locomotion, a ratio 30.6% was obtained.


CONCLUSIONS
The scientific value of this study lies in having obtained results by comparing the effects of coaching in the pre and post testing of an experimental group towards control.