Jos Dobber1, Berno van Meijel2, Emile Barkhof3, Wilma Scholte op Reimer4, Corine Latour4, Ron Peters5, Don Linszen3. 1. Amsterdam School of Health Professions, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: j.t.p.dobber@hva.nl. 2. Inholland University of Applied Sciences, Department of Health, Sports & Welfare, Cluster Nursing, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Parnassia Psychiatric Institute, Parnassia Academy, The Hague, the Netherlands; VU University Medical Center, Department of Psychiatry, EGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Psychiatry, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 4. Amsterdam School of Health Professions, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 5. Department of Cardiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Motivational Interviewing (MI) can effectively stimulate motivation for health behavior change, but the active ingredients of MI are not well known. To help clinicians further stimulate motivation, they need to know the active ingredients of MI. A psychometrically sound instrument is required to identify those ingredients. The purpose of this study is to describe and evaluate the capability of existing instruments to reliably measure one or more potential active ingredients in the MI process between clients and MI-therapists. METHODS: We systematically searched MedLine, Embase, Cinahl, PsycInfo, Cochrane Central, specialised websites and reference lists of selected articles. RESULTS: We found 406 papers, 60 papers were retrieved for further evaluation, based on prespecified criteria. Seventeen instruments that were specifically designed to measure MI or aspects of MI were identified. Fifteen papers met all inclusion criteria, and reported on seven instruments that assess potential active ingredients of the interactive MI process. The capability of these instruments to measure potential active ingredients in detail and as a part of the interactive MI process varies considerably. Three of these instruments measure one or more potential active ingredients in a reliable and valid way. CONCLUSION: To identify the potential active ingredients in the interactive MI process, a combination of the SCOPE (which measures potential technical active ingredients) and the GROMIT or the global ratings of the MISC2 (to measure potential relational ingredients) seems favourable.
OBJECTIVE: Motivational Interviewing (MI) can effectively stimulate motivation for health behavior change, but the active ingredients of MI are not well known. To help clinicians further stimulate motivation, they need to know the active ingredients of MI. A psychometrically sound instrument is required to identify those ingredients. The purpose of this study is to describe and evaluate the capability of existing instruments to reliably measure one or more potential active ingredients in the MI process between clients and MI-therapists. METHODS: We systematically searched MedLine, Embase, Cinahl, PsycInfo, Cochrane Central, specialised websites and reference lists of selected articles. RESULTS: We found 406 papers, 60 papers were retrieved for further evaluation, based on prespecified criteria. Seventeen instruments that were specifically designed to measure MI or aspects of MI were identified. Fifteen papers met all inclusion criteria, and reported on seven instruments that assess potential active ingredients of the interactive MI process. The capability of these instruments to measure potential active ingredients in detail and as a part of the interactive MI process varies considerably. Three of these instruments measure one or more potential active ingredients in a reliable and valid way. CONCLUSION: To identify the potential active ingredients in the interactive MI process, a combination of the SCOPE (which measures potential technical active ingredients) and the GROMIT or the global ratings of the MISC2 (to measure potential relational ingredients) seems favourable.
Authors: Maureen A Walton; Quyen M Ngo; Stephen T Chermack; Frederic C Blow; Peter F Ehrlich; Erin E Bonar; Rebecca M Cunningham Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 2.582
Authors: Jos Dobber; Corine Latour; Berno van Meijel; Gerben Ter Riet; Emile Barkhof; Ron Peters; Wilma Scholte Op Reimer; Lieuwe de Haan Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2020-03-24 Impact factor: 4.157