Preferences for coaching strategies in a personalized virtual coach for emotional eaters 123 5 In summary In the ‘experiencing cravings’ condition, the women preferred the Validation and Dialectical coaching strategies. There was no difference in their preference if it was the coach's feedback in general, or if it was directed to themselves personally. Problem situation ‘after giving in to cravings’ – Opinion about the coach’s feedback (Q-2) and opinion on feedback coach to receive personally (Q-3). Estimatedprobabilitiesof apositiveopinionforall threeconditionsarepresented inTable7. In the Validation coaching feedback condition the probability of a positive opinion on the coach's feedback was lower than in the Focus-on-Change and Dialectical coaching feedback conditions. As can be seen in Table 7, there were substantial differences between the three conditions in the estimated probabilities with a relatively high probability in the Focus-on-Change condition. The follow-up question (Q-3) was what the opinion of the women would have been if they personally had received this answer from the coach. Similar results as with Q-2 were revealed. An exception was the relatively high probability for the Dialectical condition in Q-3. A likelihood ratio test showed that the differences between the three coaching feedback conditions were statistically significant for both Q-2 and Q-3 (respectively c2(2) = 9.62, p = .008, and c2(2) = 6.61, p = .037). Post-hoc pairwise comparisons (Wald tests with Holm correction) indicated that for Q-2 the difference between the Validation and Focus-onChange conditions (OR = 6.54) was statistically significant p = .013), for and for Q-3 the difference between Validation and Dialectical (OR = 4.22) was significant (p = .045). The three groups (Validation, Focus-on-Change, and Dialectical) were distinct. The probability of a participant giving a positive rating to Validation is smaller than to Focuson-Change. The probability of giving a positive rating to Dialectical is smaller than to Focus-on-Change. The differences between the Validation and Dialectical conditions (OR = 3.64) and between the Focus-on-Change and Dialectical conditions (OR = 0.56) were both not statistically significant (respectively p = .078 and p = .306). The same held for differences between the Validation and Focus-on-Change conditions (OR = 2.76) and between the Focus-on-Change and Dialectical conditions (OR = 1.53) in Q-3. With respectively p = .177 and p = .481, they both were not statistically significant. The probability of a participant giving a positive rating to Validation is lower than to Dialectical. In contrast, the probability that the participant will give a positive rating to Focus-on-Change is greater than to Dialectical.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw