How Group Factors Affect Adolescent Change Talk and Substance Use Outcomes

Implications for Motivational Interviewing Training

Karen Chan Osilla, J. Alexis Ortiz, Jeremy N. V. Miles, Eric R. Pedersen, Jon M. Houck, Elizabeth J. D'Amico

ResearchPosted on rand.org Jan 28, 2015Published in: Journal of Counseling Psychology, v. 62, no. 1, Jan. 2015, p. 79-86

Clients who verbalize statements arguing for change (change talk [CT]) in psychotherapy are more likely to decrease alcohol and other drug use (AOD) compared with clients who voice statements in opposition of change (sustain talk [ST]). Little is known about how CT and ST are expressed in groups in which adolescents may vary in their AOD use severity and readiness to change. First, we examined how session content was associated with CT/ST, and then we looked at whether different subtypes of CT/ST were associated with subsequent AOD outcomes 3 months later. Audio recordings (N = 129 sessions) of a 6-session group motivational interviewing (MI) intervention, Free Talk, were coded. Session content was not associated with CT; however, some session content was associated with higher percentages of ST (e.g., normative feedback). Subtypes of CT (Commitment and Reason) were associated with improved AOD outcomes, whereas Ability subtype remarks were related to increased marijuana use, intentions, and consequences. Findings offer helpful guidance for clinical training and narrow in on the type of CT to try to elicit in Group MI sessions. Regardless of session content, adolescents can benefit from hearing CT during the group.

Topics

Document Details

  • Availability: Non-RAND
  • Year: 2015
  • Pages: 8
  • Document Number: EP-66244

This publication is part of the RAND 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.

RAND 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.