Theresa B Moyers1, Lauren N Rowell2, Jennifer K Manuel3, Denise Ernst4, Jon M Houck5. 1. Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA. Electronic address: tmoyers@unm.edu. 2. Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA. 3. San Francisco V.A. Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA. 4. Denise Ernst Training and Consulting, Portland, OR, USA. 5. Center on Alcoholism, Substance Abuse, and Addictions, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: 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.
UNLABELLED: 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.
Authors: Molly Magill; Jacques Gaume; Timothy R Apodaca; Justin Walthers; Nadine R Mastroleo; Brian Borsari; Richard Longabaugh Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2014-05-19
Authors: Ashlea Braun; James Portner; Elizabeth M Grainger; Emily B Hill; Gregory S Young; Steven K Clinton; Colleen K Spees Journal: J Nutr Educ Behav Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 3.045
Authors: Anne R Wilson; Karen A Fehringer; William G Henderson; Kamilla Venner; Jacob Thomas; Maya M Harper; Terrence S Batliner; Judith Albino Journal: Community Dent Oral Epidemiol Date: 2018-02-20 Impact factor: 3.383