No abstract

Few empirical studies are available to guide best practices for transferring evidenced-based treatments to community substance abuse providers. To maximize the learning and maintenance of new clinical skills, this study tested a context-tailored training model (CTT) which used standardized patient actors in role-plays tailored to agency clinical context, repetitive cycles of practice and feedback, and enhanced organizational support. This study reports the results of a randomized pilot evaluation of CTT for motivational interviewing (MI). Investigators randomly assigned community substance abuse treatment agencies to receive either CTT or a standard two-day MI workshop. The study also evaluated the effects of counselor-level and organizational-level variables on the learning of MI. No between-condition differences were observed on the acquisition and maintenance of MI skills, despite reported higher satisfaction with the more costly context tailored model. Analyses revealed that those counselors with more formal education and less endorsement of a disease model of addiction made the greatest gains in MI skills, irrespective of training condition. Similarly, agencies whose individual counselors viewed their organization as being more open to change and less supportive of autonomy showed greater average staff gains in MI skills, again, irrespective of training method. Post-training activities within agencies that supported the ongoing learning and implementation of MI mediated the effects of organizational openness to change. This pilot study suggests that tailored training methods may not produce better outcomes than traditional workshops for the acquisition of evidence-based practice and that efforts to enhance dissemination should be focused on characteristics of learners and ongoing organizational support of learning.

Objective The goal of measuring therapist adherence is to determine if a therapist can perform a given treatment. Yet the evaluation of therapist behaviors in most clinical trials is limited. Typically, randomized trials have few therapists and minimize therapist variability through training and supervision. Furthermore, therapist adherence is confounded with uncontrolled differences in patients across therapists. Consequently, the extent to which adherence measures capture differences in actual therapist adherence versus other sources of variance is unclear. Method We estimated intra-class correlations (ICCs) for therapist adherence in sessions with real and standardized patients (RPs and SPs), using ratings from a motivational interviewing (MI) dissemination trial (Baer et al., 2009) in which 189 therapists recorded 826 sessions with both patient types. We also examined the correlations of therapist adherence between SP and RP sessions, and the reliability of therapist level adherence scores with generalizability coefficients (GCs). Results ICC’s for therapist adherence were generally large (average ICC for SPs = 0.44, RPs = 0.40), meaning that a given therapist’s adherence scores were quite similar across their sessions. Both ICCs and GCs were larger for SP sessions as compared to RPs on global measures of MI adherence, such as Empathy and MI Spirit. Correlations between therapist adherence with real and standardized patients were moderate to large on three of five adherence measures. Conclusion Differences in therapist-level adherence ratings were substantial, and standardized patients have promise as tools to evaluate therapist behavior.