The Evaluating Methods for Motivational Enhancement Education trial evaluated methods for learning motivational interviewing (MI). Licensed substance abuse professionals (N = 140) were randomized to 5 training conditions: (a) clinical workshop only; (b) workshop plus practice feedback; (c) workshop plus individual coaching sessions; (d) workshop, feedback, and coaching; or (e) a waiting list control group of self-guided training. Audiotaped practice samples were analyzed at baseline, posttraining, and 4, 8, and 12 months later. Relative to controls, the 4 trained groups showed larger gains in proficiency. Coaching and/or feedback also increased posttraining proficiency. After delayed training, the waiting list group showed modest gains in proficiency. Posttraining proficiency was generally well maintained throughout follow-up. Clinician self-reports of MI skillfulness were unrelated to proficiency levels in observed practice.
The Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity Code has been revised to address new evidence-based elements of motivational interviewing (MI). This new version (MITI 4) includes new global ratings to assess clinician’s attention to client language, increased rigor in assessing autonomy support and client choice, and items to evaluate the use of persuasion when giving information and advice. Method: Four undergraduate, non-professional raters were trained in the MITI and used it to review 50 audiotapes of clinicians conducting MI in actual treatments sessions. Both kappa and intraclass correlation indices were calculated for all coders, for the best rater pair and for a 20% randomly selected sample from the best rater pair. Results: Reliability across raters, with the exception of Emphasize Autonomy and % Complex Reflections, were in the good to excellent range. Reliability estimates decrease when smaller samples are used and when fewer raters contribute. Conclusion: The advantages and drawbacks of this revision are discussed including implications for research and clinical applications. The MITI 4.0 represents a reliable method for assessing the integrity of MI including both the technical and relational components of the method.
Client speech in favor of change within motivational interviewing (MI) sessions has been linked to treatment outcomes, but a causal chain has not yet been demonstrated. Using a sequential behavioral coding system for client speech (SCOPE) this study found that, at both the session level and utterance level, specific therapist behaviors predict client change talk. Further, a direct link from change talk to drinking outcomes was observed, and support was found for a mediational role for change talk between therapist behavior and client drinking outcomes. These data provide preliminary support for the proposed causal chain indicating that client speech within treatment sessions can be influenced by therapists, who can employ this influence to improve outcomes. Selective eliciting and reinforcement of change talk is proposed as a specific active ingredient of MI.
Client speech during early therapy sessions appears to be a powerful predictor of substance abuse outcome. The pattern of therapist behaviors and subsequent client language found in this data supports the intervention test in the causal chain we have described for motivational interviewing. These studies provide preliminary support for a causal chain between therapist behaviors, subsequent client speech, and drinking outcomes within motivational interviewing sessions. The results of both studies provide further support to the proposition that client speech impacts the likelihood of behavioral change, and that the occurrence of such speech is influenced by the therapist.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.