Providing objective feedback in supervision in motivational interviewing: results from a randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Background:The effects of the use of objective feedback in supervision on the supervisory relationship and skill acquisition is unknown.Aims:The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of two different types of objective feedback provided during supervision in motivational interviewing (MI) on: (a) the supervisory relationship, including potential feelings of discomfort/distress, provoked by the supervision sessions, and (b) the supervisees’ skill acquisition.Method:Data were obtained from a MI dissemination study conducted in five county councils across five county councils across Sweden. All 98 practitioners recorded sessions with standardized clients and were randomized to either systematic feedback based on only the behavioral component of a feedback protocol, or systematic feedback based on the entire protocol.Results:The two different ways to provide objective feedback did not negatively affect the supervisory relationship, or provoke discomfort/distress among the supervisees, and the group that received the behavioural component of the feedback protocol performed better on only two of the seven skill measures.Conclusions:Objective feedback does not seem to negatively affect either the supervisor–supervisee working alliance or the supervisees’ supervision experience. The observed differences in MI skill acquisition were small, and constructive replications are needed to ascertain the mode and complexity of feedback that optimizes practitioners’ learning, while minimizing the sense of discomfort and distress.

A behaviour‐based coding tool for assessing supervisors' adherence and competence: Findings from a motivational interviewing implementation study

“…However, the ICC for Modelling Skills was in the poor range after the second training, since one of the coders consistently coded more of that category. The lower levels of Corrective Feedback are consistent with previous findings on supervisors withholding corrective feedback to avoid negative supervisee reactions (Bailin et al, 2018; Beckman et al, 2019). However, performance‐related feedback has shown to be an effective supervisor skill in both clinical practice (Bailin et al, 2018; Bradley & Becker, 2021; Caron et al, 2021; Ivers et al, 2012) and other organizational settings (Sleiman et al, 2020).…”

“…However, performance‐related feedback has shown to be an effective supervisor skill in both clinical practice (Bailin et al, 2018; Bradley & Becker, 2021; Caron et al, 2021; Ivers et al, 2012) and other organizational settings (Sleiman et al, 2020). Additional findings show that supervisees can handle corrective feedback well and that it does not negatively affect the supervisor–supervisee working alliance or supervisee skill acquisition (Beckman et al, 2019, 2021; Ellis, 2010; Ladany et al, 2013). Objective Monitoring is as another important feature of clinical supervision as it promotes accurate and specific assessment of supervisee behaviour (Bailin et al, 2018; Caron et al, 2021).…”

Pilot Testing of a Nurse-Led Basic Symptom Self-management Support for Patients Receiving First-Line Systemic Outpatient Anticancer Treatment

“…We asked nurses to deliver a complex self-management intervention using MI techniques to support self-efficacy and facilitate behavior change. Such an approach is an advanced, sophisticated, patient-centered behavior change intervention that should be supervised 42 . Feasibility results might indicate that the level of complexity required for the SNP may have been too ambitious for nursing practice in chemotherapy units.…”

“…Such an approach is an advanced, sophisticated, patient-centered behavior change intervention that should be supervised. 42 Feasibility results might indicate that the level of complexity required for the SNP may have been too ambitious for nursing practice in chemotherapy units. As an alternative to MI, A positive mean difference indicates an improvement in the Symptom Navi group (SNP).…”

Correspondence between practitioners’ self-assessment and independent motivational interviewing treatment integrity ratings

“…The regular supervision session content varied slightly at the different SiS institutions during the course of the study (e.g., reports of/listening to self-selected parts of sessions from some of the participants, discussions, coaching, and role-plays). The monthly 30 min individual telephone supervision sessions were manual based and are described in more detail elsewhere (Beckman et al, 2017(Beckman et al, , 2019. All participants recorded three 20-min MI-sessions at their institution, either with a client or a real play (i.e., one practitioner recounts a personal experience to the other, who act as a therapist in relation to that situation) together with a colleague: At baseline, six (the 6-month assessment), and 12 (the 12-month follow-up) months after the baseline recording.…”