4.2 Article

Can a Pure Motivational Interviewing Intervention Be Manualized and Still Efficacious? A Test of Feasibility and Initial Efficacy

期刊

PSYCHOTHERAPY
卷 58, 期 2, 页码 196-205

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC, DIV PSYCHOTHERAPY
DOI: 10.1037/pst0000309

关键词

motivational interviewing; alcohol use; social anxiety; college students

资金

  1. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [5T32AA018108]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite challenges in manualizing it, the importance of attending to the therapeutic process is demonstrated. The development and preliminary evaluation of the MI-RSD manual showed effectiveness in targeting risky social drinking behaviors in college students.
The importance of attending to the therapeutic process despite the challenges in manualizing it is demonstrated in the empirical evolution of motivational interviewing (MI). Whereas manuals exist for adaptations of MI, no manual has been developed and tested for MI in its pure form (pure MI). This study evaluated the feasibility and initial efficacy of a pure MI intervention manual - MI for risky social drinking (MI-RSD) - designed to target risky social drinking behaviors in college students with social anxiety. A pilot sample of 42 college students completed measures of alcohol use and mental health symptoms and the MI-RSD intervention. We developed a manual for the 2-session MI-RSD intervention, trained 4 clinical doctoral students, and used observer-, therapist- and participant-completed measures to evaluate fidelity. Therapists met beginner proficiency in MI fidelity and participant gave high ratings of therapist adherence to MI and working alliance, demonstrating intervention feasibility. Also, participants reported significant reductions in hazardous drinking and evaluation fears, but not in social interaction anxiety. We offer preliminary evidence that pure MI can be manualized and effective. Specifically, MI-RSD represents an alternative to MI adaptations in mitigating alcohol-related harm for young adults.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据