Assessing Motivational Interviewing Integrity for Group Interventions With Adolescents

The group format is commonly used in alcohol and other drug (AOD) adolescent treatment settings, but little research exists on the use of motivational interviewing (MI) in groups. Further, little work has assessed the integrity of MI delivered in group settings. This study describes an approach to e...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Psychology of addictive behaviors 2012-12, Vol.26 (4), p.994-1000
Main Authors: D'Amico, Elizabeth J., Osilla, Karen C., Miles, Jeremy N. V., Ewing, Brett, Sullivan, Kristen, Katz, Kristin, Hunter, Sarah B.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adolescent
Adolescent Psychopathology
Adolescents
Alcohol Treatment
At Risk Populations
Behavior therapy. Cognitive therapy
Biological and medical sciences
Communication
Desintoxication. Drug withdrawal
Facilitators
Female
Group Intervention
Group psychotherapy
Human
Humans
Integrity
Interventions
Male
Medical sciences
Motivational Interviewing
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychopathology. Psychiatry
Psychotherapies. Psychological and clinical counseling
Psychotherapy, Group - methods
Substance Use Treatment
Substance-Related Disorders - psychology
Treatment methods
Treatments
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The group format is commonly used in alcohol and other drug (AOD) adolescent treatment settings, but little research exists on the use of motivational interviewing (MI) in groups. Further, little work has assessed the integrity of MI delivered in group settings. This study describes an approach to evaluate MI integrity using data from a group MI intervention for at-risk youth. Using the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity (MITI) scale, version 3.1, we coded 140 group sessions led by 3 different facilitators. Four trained coders assessed the group sessions. Agreement between raters was evaluated using a method based on limits of agreement, and key decisions used to monitor and calculate group MI integrity are discussed. Results indicated that there was adequate agreement between raters; we also found differences on use of MI between the MI-intervention group and a usual-care group on MI global ratings and behavioral counts. This study demonstrates that it is possible to determine whether group MI is implemented with integrity in the group setting and that MI in this setting is different from what takes place in usual care.
ISSN:0893-164X
1939-1501
DOI:10.1037/a0027987