Development of the Motivational Interviewing Supervision and Training Scale.

Abstract

The movement to use empirically supported treatments has increased the need for researchers and supervisors to evaluate therapists' adherence to and the quality with which they implement those interventions. Few empirically supported approaches exist for providing these types of evaluations. This is also true for motivational interviewing, an empirically supported intervention important in the addictions field. This study describes the development and psychometric evaluation of the Motivational Interviewing Supervision and Training Scale (MISTS), a measure intended for use in training and supervising therapists implementing motivational interviewing. Satisfactory interrater reliability was found (generalizability coefficient 2 ϭ .79), and evidence was found supporting the convergent and discriminant validity of the MISTS. Recommendations for refinement of the measure and future research are discussed.

The use of motivational interviewing techniques to enhance the efficacy of guided self-help behavioral weight loss treatment

“…However, she did not utilize any established rubrics to formally code adherence to the MI approach (e.g., Madson, Campbell, Barrett, Brondino, & Melchert, 2005;Moyers, Martin, Manuel, Hendrickson, & Miller, 2005). In addition, the MI style was often utilized in sessions other than 1 and 5, for individuals who were struggling with motivation.…”

Motivational interviewing and colorectal cancer screening: A peek from the inside out

“…The MITI's limitations are that it does not assess certain important components of MI, such as eliciting change talk, rolling with resistance, or exploring ambivalence [29]. Since this study was designed, new tools have been created to assess MI fidelity, including the MITI 3.0 (see http://casaa.unm.edu/download/miti3.pdf) and the Motivational Interviewing Supervision and Training Scale (MISTS) [30]. The MISTS was developed to support the training and supervision of clinicians administering interventions with MI at their core, and includes two components: a behavioral count of clinician responses and utterances and a 16-item global rating of the quality and effectiveness of the clinician's intervention [29].…”

Delivering Quality Motivational Interviewing Training: A Survey of MI Trainers

“…The need for providing and evaluating quality MI training is strong, as several authors have demonstrated the importance of understanding how clinicians have been trained in and are implementing MI (Dunn, et al, 2001). Further, Madson, Campbell, Barrett, Brondino, and Melchert (2005) suggested that without understanding how clinicians were trained in MI, questions remain about whether providers are actually using MI. This need to understand MI training and MI use was also highlighted by the development of several MI observational measures (Lane et al, 2005;Madson et al, 2005;Madson & Campbell, 2006;Moyers, Martin, Manuel, Hendrickson, & Miller, 2005) and the development of MI training resources (Rosengren, 2009).…”

“…Further, Madson, Campbell, Barrett, Brondino, and Melchert (2005) suggested that without understanding how clinicians were trained in MI, questions remain about whether providers are actually using MI. This need to understand MI training and MI use was also highlighted by the development of several MI observational measures (Lane et al, 2005;Madson et al, 2005;Madson & Campbell, 2006;Moyers, Martin, Manuel, Hendrickson, & Miller, 2005) and the development of MI training resources (Rosengren, 2009). Madson, Loignon, and Lane (2009) provided a consolidated review of 27 MI training outcome studies conducted between 1999 and 2006 and found favorable results in relation to (a) confidence using MI, (b) knowledge, (c) increased skill, (d) interest in learning more about MI, (e) intention to use MI, and (f) integration into practice.…”