ICF-ACC Associate Certified Coach (ACC Exam) Questions and Answers

The ICF Code of Ethics (Section 4.3) permits breaching confidentiality "to prevent serious harm" when a client poses an immediate risk, such as self-harm. Coaching boundaries exclude mental health crises (ICF Definition of Coaching), requiring urgent action. Let’s evaluate:

A. Try counseling the client: Counseling exceeds coaching’s scope (ICF Coaching Boundaries), and delays critical intervention in an emergency.

B. Call emergency response services: This is the first step for immediate risk, aligning with ethical and legal obligations to prioritize safety (Section 4.3).

C. Talk with the client’s family about getting help: This breaches confidentiality without imminent danger justification and isn’t the fastest response (Section 4).

D. Discuss with a mental health professional: Consulting delays action; emergency services are needed first (Section 2.5).

Option B is the first step, per ICF ethics and boundaries.

Option C aligns with Competency 2.2 (maintains mutual respect and partnership) and Competency 8.2 (partners to design closure), by giving the client agency in ending the session. It respects Ethics Section 1.1 (client-led process) and ensures a collaborative wrap-up.

Option A assumes closure content, missing partnership. Option B centers the coach’s perspective (Competency 7.11 – no attachment). Option D dictates the summary, bypassing client input. C best embodies ICF’s partnering ethos.

Option D aligns with Competency 8.2, "Partners to design goals, actions, and accountability measures," by collaboratively assessing support needs, fostering autonomy (Competency 8.3) and adhering to Ethics Section 1.1 (client-driven process).

Option A oversteps boundaries (Ethics Section 2.1). Option B assumes external support without exploration. Option C imposes a metaphor and directive, missing partnership (Competency 2.2). D best ensures the client’s plan is robust.

Option B is the worst because it imposes the coach’s opinion, undermining the client’s autonomy (Competency 8.3) and partnership (Competency 2.2). This breaches the ICF Definition of Coaching, which emphasizes client-led solutions, and Ethics Section 2.2 (avoiding bias).

Option A is premature but not inherently harmful. Option C shifts focus negatively, though it’s less directive. Option D (best, see Question 5) empowers the client. B most directly contradicts ICF principles by prioritizing the coach’s perspective over the client’s.

The ICF Code of Ethics (Section 1.1) requires coaches to "create an agreement/contract regarding the roles, responsibilities, and rights of all parties involved" before coaching begins. ICF Competency 3 ("Establishes and Maintains Agreements") further emphasizes clarity on logistics, such as session scheduling, to ensure mutual understanding and a structured process. Let’s evaluate the options:

A. A list of professional development resources: While resources might be helpful, they are not essential to the coaching agreement per ICF standards, which focus on the relationship and process, not supplementary materials.

B. How and when sessions will be scheduled: This is critical to specify, as it establishes the practical framework for the coaching relationship (e.g., frequency, duration, method), aligning with ICF’s requirement for clear expectations (ICF Code of Ethics, Section 1.2).

C. The client’s profession: This may inform coaching context but isn’t essential to the agreement, which focuses on roles and process, not personal details (ICF Competency 3).

D. The coach’s qualifications: While transparency about qualifications is ethical (ICF Code of Ethics, Section 2.1), it’s not a mandatory component of the agreement unless requested by the client.

Option B is essential, as it directly supports the ICF’s emphasis on a clear, operational coaching agreement.

Option C is the worst because it imposes the coach’s agenda ("not finished until..."), undermining client autonomy (Competency 8.3) and partnership (Competency 2.2). It violates Ethics Section 2.2 (avoiding bias) and contradicts the ICF Definition of Coaching, which prioritizes client-driven outcomes over rigid structures.

Option A (best, see Question 13) invites collaboration. Option B lacks depth but respects the client. Option D shifts focus prematurely. C most severely disrupts the coaching dynamic.

ICF Competency 8 ("Facilitates Client Growth") emphasizes creating actionable, specific, and measurable plans to support client success. A successful action plan aligns with the client’s goals and is realistic and time-bound (ICF Definition of Coaching). Let’s evaluate:

A. Try as hard as they can to become a top executive: This is vague, lacks specificity, and isn’t time-bound, making success hard to measure or achieve (Competency 8).

B. Complete a report two weeks ahead of schedule: This is specific, measurable, achievable, and time-bound, reflecting an effective action plan per ICF standards for facilitating growth.

C. Take longer lunch breaks when they have the time: This lacks purpose or alignment with professional goals and isn’t a clear plan for success (ICF Code of Ethics, Section 1).

D. Put more effort into their work so the boss is impressed: This is vague and subjective, missing the clarity and structure ICF action plans require.

Option B best reflects a successful plan, per ICF’s focus on actionable outcomes.

The ICF Code of Ethics (Section 1.1) mandates that coaches "create an agreement/contract regarding the roles, responsibilities, and rights of all parties involved" before beginning a coaching relationship. A key responsibility of the coach in this agreement is to clearly outline the nature and scope of services provided, ensuring transparency and alignment with the client’s expectations (ICF Competency 3: "Establishes and Maintains Agreements"). Let’s evaluate the options:

A. Describing the services the coach will provide to the client: This is explicitly required by ICF standards. The coaching agreement must detail what coaching entails (e.g., frequency, format, process), distinguishing it from other services like consulting or therapy (ICF Code of Ethics, Section 1.2). This fosters trust and clarity, per Competency 5 ("Cultivates Trust and Safety").

B. Determining what information is considered confidential: While confidentiality is critical (ICF Code of Ethics, Section 4), it is a mutual understanding shaped by legal and ethical standards, not solely the coach’s responsibility to "determine." It’s typically addressed jointly in the agreement.

C. Clarifying the conditions under which the coaching goals should change: Goal-setting is a collaborative process (ICF Competency 3), and while conditions for change may be discussed, this is not typically specified as the coach’s unilateral responsibility in the agreement.

D. Specifying how long the coaching relationship will last: Duration may be included in the agreement, but it’s not universally required and often depends on client needs or mutual agreement, making it less fundamental than describing services.

Option A is the most accurate, as it reflects the coach’s core responsibility under ICF guidelines to define the coaching services explicitly in the agreement.

Option D aligns with Competency 6, "Listens Actively" (6.1 – Reflects client’s experience), and Competency 4.1 (creates a safe, supportive environment), by honoring the client’s journey and reinforcing their agency. It adheres to Ethics Section 1.1 (respecting client achievements) and avoids taking credit, per Ethics Section 2.2.

Option A may overwhelm or shift focus to the coach. Option B criticizes, undermining trust (Competency 4.1). Option C claims credit, violating Competency 2.2 (partnership). D best celebrates the client’s progress collaboratively.

ICF Competency 8 ("Facilitates Client Growth") focuses on "transforming learning into action" through specific, realistic plans that support ongoing progress. Addressing barriers ensures sustainability (ICF Definition of Coaching). Let’s evaluate:

A. Distributing a survey to assess the client’s level of satisfaction with the coaching progress: This evaluates the process but doesn’t directly drive progress (Competency 8).

B. Working with the client to develop an action plan that acknowledges support and resource barriers: This aligns with Competency 8, empowering the client with a tailored, actionable strategy for continued growth.

C. Emphasizing some negative outcomes that could occur if the client does not reach their goals: Fear-based motivation contradicts ICF’s positive, client-led approach (Competency 5).

D. Sharing literature relevant to the client’s goals for them to review before the next coaching session: This supports learning but lacks the actionable focus of a plan (Competency 8).

Option B most likely helps the client progress, per ICF’s growth-focused framework.

The ICF Code of Ethics is a binding standard for ICF members and credentialed coaches, and breaches are subject to the ICF Ethical Conduct Review (ECR) process. Consequences depend on severity but can include suspension or termination of ICF membership and credentials (ICF Ethical Conduct Review Policy). Let’s analyze the options:

A. Recording another performance evaluation: This isn’t a recognized ICF consequence; performance evaluations are part of credentialing, not ethics enforcement.

B. Retaking the credentialing examination: This applies to credential renewal or initial attainment, not ethical violations (ICF Credentialing Policies).

C. Losing their ICF membership: This is a potential outcome of a serious breach, such as violating confidentiality (Section 4) or misrepresenting qualifications (Section 2.1), as determined by the ECR process. It reflects the ICF’s commitment to upholding professional standards.

D. Completing 10 additional mentor coaching hours: While training may be recommended for development, it’s not a standard penalty for ethical breaches per ICF policies.

Option C is the most likely consequence, as loss of membership aligns with ICF’s disciplinary framework for significant ethical violations.

Option C is the worst because it takes credit for the client’s progress, violating Competency 2.2 (partnership) and Ethics Section 2.2 (avoiding self-interest). It undermines the client’s autonomy (Competency 8.3) and contradicts the ICF Definition of Coaching, which credits the client for their growth.

Option A may be excessive but isn’t harmful. Option B criticizes but doesn’t steal credit. Option D (best, see Question 23) honors the client. C most egregiously shifts focus to the coach.

ICF Competency 2 ("Embodies a Coaching Mindset") and Competency 5 ("Cultivates Trust and Safety") emphasize adaptability to the client’s unique needs, prioritizing their agenda (ICF Code of Ethics, Section 1). Let’s evaluate:

A. Determining which techniques they can do most effectively and then use them consistently across clients: This is coach-centric, ignoring client individuality (Competency 3).

B. Developing session structures that follow the basic process of introducing a topic, exploring the content, and wrapping up: A rigid structure limits responsiveness to client needs (Competency 2).

C. Having the flexibility to change the structure of the session as needed to meet the client’s needs: This reflects ICF’s client-centered, adaptable approach (Competency 8).

D. Applying a client-centered approach that allows clients to drive the session without interruption from the coach: While client-driven, uninterrupted sessions may hinder facilitation (Competency 7).

Option C is the key factor, per ICF’s flexible, client-focused standards.

Option A is the worst as it imposes the coach’s solution, contradicting Competency 2.2 (partnership) and Competency 8.3 (client autonomy). It breaches Ethics Section 2.2 (avoiding bias) and the ICF Definition of Coaching by shifting to a directive stance.

Option B and C are less intrusive but still assume relevance. Option D (best, see Question 9) respects the client. A most severely undermines the coaching process by prioritizing the coach’s agenda.

Option C is the worst because it shifts the coaching relationship into a transactional exchange, undermining Competency 2.2 (partnership) and Ethics Section 2.1 (maintaining professional boundaries). It fails to address autonomy (Competency 8.3) or facilitate growth, contradicting the ICF Definition of Coaching.

Option A is blunt but sets a boundary. Option B risks dependency but meets the request. Option D (best, see Question 15) empowers the client. C most severely misaligns with coaching principles.

Option B aligns with ICF Core Competency 7, "Evokes Awareness" (7.2 – Helps the client explore and gain clarity), by using questions to deepen the client’s understanding of their experience. It supports partnership (Competency 2.2) and respects autonomy (Competency 8.3), adhering to Ethics Section 1.1 (client-led process).

Option A directs the client, violating Competency 2.2 and Ethics Section 2.2 (avoiding bias). Option C instills fear and assumes failure, breaching Competency 4.1 (safe environment). Option D suggests rather than explores, missing full collaboration. B best facilitates self-discovery and growth.

Option B is the worst because it assumes a positive outcome and imposes the coach’s perspective, violating Competency 7.11 (shares without attachment) and Ethics Section 2.2 (avoiding bias). It undermines partnership (Competency 2.2) and limits full exploration (Competency 7.2).

Option A directs but isn’t harmful. Option C (best, see Question 17) empowers. Option D restricts scope but isn’t as presumptive as B. B most misaligns with ICF standards.

The ICF Code of Ethics (Section 1.2) requires coaches to "clarify roles and responsibilities" in multi-party agreements, and Section 3.2 mandates disclosing conflicts of interest. Dual contracts (sponsor and personal) risk overlapping interests or confidentiality issues (Section 4). Let’s assess:

A. Clarify the implications of both contracts to avoid possible conflicts of interest: This ensures transparency and alignment (Competency 3), addressing potential conflicts ethically.

B. Accept to deliver the same type of coaching between the two contracts: This ignores potential conflicts or confidentiality breaches between sponsor and personal goals.

C. Ensure that the sponsor does not pay for the director’s personal coaching: Payment source is secondary; the ethical issue is role clarity and conflicts, not just funding.

D. Decline the request for the personal coaching contract due to the limits of confidentiality: Declining isn’t required if boundaries are clear; ICF allows multiple roles with disclosure (Section 1.2).

Option A fulfills the coach’s ethical responsibility, per ICF standards.