Assessing Motivational Interviewing Integrity for Group Interventions with Adolescents

Published in: Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, v. 26, no. 4, Dec. 2012, p. 994-1000

Posted on RAND.org on May 28, 2012

by Elizabeth J. D'Amico, Karen Chan Osilla, Jeremy N. V. Miles, Brett Ewing, Kristen Sullivan, Kristin Katz, Sarah B. Hunter

Read More

Access further information on this document at psycnet.apa.org

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

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.

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.