RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138, USA. elizabeth_d’
Psychol Addict Behav. 2012 Dec;26(4):994-1000. doi: 10.1037/a0027987. Epub 2012 May 28.
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.
小组形式在酒精和其他药物（AOD）青少年治疗环境中经常使用，但关于小组中使用动机访谈（MI）的研究很少。此外，很少有工作评估在小组环境中提供的 MI 的完整性。本研究描述了一种使用高危青年群体 MI 干预的数据评估 MI 完整性的方法。使用动机访谈治疗完整性 (MITI) 量表，版本 3.1，我们对由 3 位不同的促进者带领的 140 个小组会议进行了编码。四位经过培训的评估员对小组会议进行了评估。使用基于协议限界的方法评估了评估员之间的一致性，并讨论了用于监测和计算小组 MI 完整性的关键决策。结果表明，评估员之间有足够的一致性；我们还发现，在 MI 总体评分和行为计数方面，MI 干预组与常规护理组之间存在 MI 使用差异。本研究表明，在小组环境中确定 MI 是否完整实施是可能的，并且该环境中的 MI 与常规护理中的 MI 不同。
