Objective The technical hypothesis of motivational interviewing (MI) posits that therapist implemented MI skills will be related to client speech regarding behavior change and that client speech will predict client outcome. The current meta-analysis is the first aggregate test of this proposed causal model. Method A systematic literature review, using stringent inclusion criteria, identified k = 16 reports describing 12 primary studies. Review methods calculated the inverse-variance-weighted pooled correlation coefficient for the therapist to client and the client to outcome paths across multiple targeted behaviors (i.e., alcohol or illicit drug use, other addictive behaviors). Results Therapist MI-consistent skills were correlated with more client language in favor of behavior change (i.e., change talk; r = .26, p < .0001), but not less client language against behavior change (i.e., sustain talk; r = .10, p = .09). MI-inconsistent skills were associated with less change talk (r = −.17, p = .001) as well as more sustain talk (r = .07, p = .009). Among these studies, client change talk was not associated with follow-up outcome (r = .06, p = .41), but sustain talk was associated with worse outcome (r = −.24, p = .001). In addition, studies that examined composite client language (e.g., an average of negative and positive statements) showed an overall positive relationship with client behavior change (r = .12, p = .006; k = 6). Conclusions This meta-analysis provides an initial test and partial support for a key causal model of MI efficacy. Recommendations for MI practitioners, clinical supervisors, and process researchers are provided.

ABSTRACT. Objective:The current study is a multisite randomized alcohol prevention trial to evaluate the effi cacy of both a parenting handbook intervention and the Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students (BASICS) intervention, alone and in combination, in reducing alcohol use and consequences among a high-risk population of matriculating college students (i.e., former high school athletes). Method: Students (n = 1,275) completed a series of Web-administered measures at baseline (in the summer before starting college) and follow-up (after 10 months). Students were randomized to one of four conditions: parent intervention only, BASICS only, combined (parent and BASICS), and assessment-only control. Intervention effi cacy was tested on a number of outcome measures, including peak blood alcohol concentration, weekly and weekend drinking, and negative consequences. Hypothesized mediators and moderators of intervention effect were tested. Results:The overall results revealed that the combined-intervention group had signifi cantly lower alcohol consumption, high-risk drinking, and consequences at 10-month follow-up, compared with the control group, with changes in descriptive and injunctive peer norms mediating intervention effects. Conclusions: The fi ndings of the present study suggest that the parent intervention delivered to students before they begin college serves to enhance the effi cacy of the BASICS intervention, potentially priming students to respond to the subsequent BASICS session. (J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs 70: [555][556][557][558][559][560][561][562][563][564][565][566][567] 2009)

Objective Over the past two decades, colleges and universities have seen a large increase in the number of students referred to the administration for alcohol policies violations. However, a substantial portion of mandated students may not require extensive treatment. Stepped care may maximize treatment efficiency and greatly reduce the demands on campus alcohol programs. Method Participants in the study (N = 598) were college students mandated to attend an alcohol program following a campus-based alcohol citation. All participants received Step 1: a 15-minute Brief Advice session that included the provision of a booklet containing advice to reduce drinking. Participants were assessed six weeks after receiving the Brief Advice, and those who continued to exhibit risky alcohol use (n = 405) were randomized to Step 2, a 60–90 minute brief motivational intervention (BMI) (n = 211) or an assessment-only control (n = 194). Follow-up assessments were conducted 3, 6, and 9 months after Step 2. Results Results indicated that the participants who received a BMI significantly reduced the number of alcohol-related problems compared to those who received assessment-only, despite no significant group differences in alcohol use. In addition, low risk drinkers (n = 102; who reported low alcohol use and related harms at 6-week follow-up and were not randomized to stepped care) showed a stable alcohol use pattern throughout the follow-up period, indicating they required no additional intervention. Conclusion Stepped care is an efficient and cost-effective method to reduce harms associated with alcohol use by mandated students.