4.2 Article

Advancing Methods for Reliably Assessing Motivational Interviewing Fidelity using the Motivational Interviewing Skills Code

Journal

JOURNAL OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT
Volume 49, Issue -, Pages 50-57

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsat.2014.08.005

Keywords

Motivational interviewing; MISC; Inter-rater reliability; Fidelity assessment

Funding

  1. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr
  2. Div Of Information & Intelligent Systems [1059095] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  3. Division of Computing and Communication Foundations
  4. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr [1029373] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  5. NIAAA NIH HHS [R01/AA016979, R01/AA014741, R01 AA018673, R01AA018673, R01 AA016979, U01 AA014741] Funding Source: Medline
  6. NIDA NIH HHS [R01/DA025833, R21 DA025833, R01/DA026014, R01 DA026014] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The current paper presents novel methods for collecting MISC data and accurately assessing reliability of behavior codes at the level of the utterance. The MISC 2.1 was used to rate MI interviews from five randomized trials targeting alcohol and drug use. Sessions were coded at the utterance-level. Utterance-based coding reliability was estimated using three methods and compared to traditional reliability estimates of session tallies. Session-level reliability was generally higher compared to reliability using utterance-based codes, suggesting that typical methods for MISC reliability may. be biased. These novel methods in MI fidelity data collection and reliability assessment provided rich data for therapist feedback and further analyses. Beyond implications for fidelity coding, utterance-level coding schemes may elucidate important elements in the counselor-client interaction that could inform theories of change and the practice of MI. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available