Measuring Client Perceptions of Motivational Interviewing

Factor Analysis of the Client Evaluation of Motivational Interviewing Scale

Published In: Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, v. 44, no. 3, Mar. 2013, p. 330–335

Posted on RAND.org on March 01, 2013

by Michael B. Madson, Richard S. Mohn, Allan Zuckoff, Julie A. Schumacher, Jane N. Kogan, Shari Hutchison, Emily Magee, Bradley D. Stein

Read More

Access further information on this document at Elsevier Inc

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

Motivational interviewing (MI) is an intervention approach that has solid evidence of efficacy with substance use disorders. Research and training have benefitted from the development of observational measures to assess MI fidelity and competence. However, one untapped area of assessment is the client perception of the clinician use of MI. Client perceptions of MI have been found through qualitative interviews to relate to motivation to change, view of the therapist and safety of therapy. The Client Evaluation of MI (CEMI) scale was developed to assess client perception of clinician MI use. This study further evaluated the CEMI through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis with a sample of 500 individuals with dual diagnosis pre-discharge from an inpatient unit. Participants completed an MI based session prior to completing CEMIs. A two factor (relational and technical) model explained 51.1% of the cumulative variance and was supported through confirmatory factor analysis. Suggestions for revisions are provided as well as potential uses of the CEMI and future directions for research.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation external publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.