David B. Rosengren

Agency context and tailored training in technology transfer: A pilot evaluation of motivational interviewing training for community counselors

Few empirical studies are available to guide best practices for transferring evidenced-based treatments to community substance abuse providers. To maximize the learning and maintenance of new clinical skills, this study tested a context-tailored training (CTT) model, which used standardized patient actors in role-plays tailored to agency clinical context, repetitive cycles of practice and feedback, and enhanced organizational support. This study reports the results of a randomized pilot evaluation of CTT for motivational interviewing (MI). Investigators randomly assigned community substance abuse treatment agencies to receive either CTT or a standard 2-day MI workshop. The study also evaluated the effects of counselor-level and organizational-level variables on the learning of MI. No between-condition differences were observed on the acquisition and maintenance of MI skills despite reported higher satisfaction with the more costly context-tailored model. Analyses revealed that those counselors with more formal education and less endorsement of a disease model of addiction made the greatest gains in MI skills, irrespective of training condition. Similarly, agencies whose individual counselors viewed their organization as being more open to change and less supportive of autonomy showed greater average staff gains in MI skills, again, irrespective of training method. Posttraining activities within agencies that supported the ongoing learning and implementation of MI mediated the effects of organizational openness to change. This pilot study suggests that tailored training methods may not produce better outcomes than traditional workshops for the acquisition of evidence-based practice, and that efforts to enhance skill acquisition can be focused on characteristics of learners and ongoing organizational support of learning.

The video assessment of simulated encounters-revised (VASE-R): Reliability and validity of a revised measure of motivational interviewing skills

The video assessment of simulated encounters-revised (VASE-R) is a video-based method, administered in individual or group settings, for assessing motivational interviewing (MI) skills. The 18-item instrument includes three video-based vignettes, in which actors portray substance abusers, with each vignette followed by questions that prompt examinees to write responses that are then scored against MI standards. The VASE-R was administered to two independent samples: (1) substance abuse practitioners participating in a study of MI training methods, and (2) MI training facilitators with a high level of MI skill and expertise. This multi-study report describes basic VASE-R psychometric properties -- including scoring reliability, internal consistency, concurrent validity, and sensitivity to the effects of training -- and then presents proficiency standards based on administration to a sample of MI training facilitators (MI Experts). The findings indicate excellent inter-rater reliability using intra-class correlations for the full-scale score (.85) and acceptable levels for subscales (.44 to .73). The instrument displayed strong concurrent validity with the Helpful Responses Questionnaire (HRQ) and a behavioral sample of clinician behavior with a standardized patient scored using the MI Treatment Integrity (MITI) system, as well as good sensitivity to improvement in MI skill as a result of training. The findings provide an empirical basis for suggesting VASE-R benchmarks for beginning proficiency and expert MI practice.

Sources of motivation for abstinence: A replication analysis of the Reasons for Quitting Questionnaire

The Reasons for Quitting Questionnaire (RFQ) as modified by McBride and colleagues (C. M. McBride et al., 1994) for use with substance users other than tobacco smokers, was administered to individuals approved for public-sector addiction treatment. Four motivation dimensions, similar to those found by McBride et al., were identified: self-concept issues, health concerns, legal issues, and social influence. A forced two-component solution yielded dimensions interpretable as intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Self-concept issues provided the highest levels of motivation for abstinence in this sample, with moderate levels provided by health concerns, and the lowest levels provided by legal and social influence components. Intrinsic motivation was higher than extrinsic motivation. Logistic regression models, with adjustment for total motivation, tested the association of successful abstinence during a follow-up period with baseline extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, and with the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic levels. All three associations were significant: intrinsic motivation (positive association), extrinsic motivation (negative association), and the difference score (positive association). The results suggest the usefulness of the 20-item modified RFQ in evaluating motivation for abstinence among treatment seekers exhibiting severe negative consequences of addiction. Testing with samples varying in severity of addiction consequences is recommended.

Gender, waitlists, and outcomes for public-sector drug treatment.

This study evaluated gender differences in baseline characteristics and treatment outcomes among 654 treatment seekers referred to state-funded drug treatment. Women were significantly less likely than men to enter treatment following referral, but not significantly less likely to complete treatment, once they entered. After adjustment for treatment dose, gender differences in substance use at followup (3-6 months after leaving the treatment wait list) were nonsignificant. The genders did not differ significantly in rates of psychosocial improvement between referral and followup. Women waited significantly longer than men before leaving the treatment wait list (with or without treatment entry), but wait time was associated with entry rates only among men. The authors discuss system-level and personal characteristics that potentially affect wait times and call for additional study of whether abbreviating waits can increase womens treatment entry rates.

Evaluating therapist adherence in motivational interviewing by comparing performance with standardized and real patients

OBJECTIVE The goal of measuring therapist adherence is to determine whether a therapist can perform a given treatment. Yet, the evaluation of therapist behaviors in most clinical trials is limited. Typically, randomized trials have few therapists and minimize therapist variability through training and supervision. Furthermore, therapist adherence is confounded with uncontrolled differences in patients across therapists. Consequently, the extent to which adherence measures capture differences in actual therapist adherence versus other sources of variance is unclear. METHOD We estimated intra-class correlations (ICCs) for therapist adherence in sessions with real and standardized patients (RPs and SPs), using ratings from a motivational interviewing (MI) dissemination trial (Baer et al., 2009) in which 189 therapists recorded 826 sessions with both patient types. We also examined the correlations of therapist adherence between SP and RP sessions, and the reliability of therapist level adherence scores with generalizability coefficients (GCs). RESULTS ICCs for therapist adherence were generally large (average ICC for SPs = .44; average ICC for RPs = .40), meaning that a given therapists adherence scores were quite similar across sessions. Both ICCs and GCs were larger for SP sessions compared to RPs on global measures of MI adherence, such as Empathy and MI Spirit. Correlations between therapist adherence with real and standardized patients were moderate to large on 3 of 5 adherence measures. CONCLUSION Differences in therapist-level adherence ratings were substantial, and standardized patients have promise as tools to evaluate therapist behavior.

Short-term outcomes of a motivation-enhancing approach to DUI intervention

OBJECTIVE We compared a group-delivered, theory-based, motivation-enhancing program (PRIME For Life(®) - PFL, n=450) to an intervention as usual (IAU, n=72). METHOD Individuals convicted of a substance related offense in North Carolina, typically first offense alcohol and drug-impaired driving, participated in a PFL or IAU group. We compare the interventions on program satisfaction and changes made from preintervention to postintervention, and examined the moderating effects of demographics and alcohol dependence level. RESULTS When significant, findings varied in magnitude from small to medium effects. Participants in both interventions showed intentions to use statistically significantly less alcohol and drugs in the future compared to their previous use, and differences between the groups were not statistically significant. Otherwise, findings favored PFL. PFL exhibited greater benefit than IAU on understanding tolerance, perceived risk for addiction, problem recognition, and program satisfaction. Additionally, IAU perceived less risk for negative consequences postintervention than they had at preintervention. Moderation analyses showed that the between-condition findings occurred regardless of gender, age, education, and number of alcohol dependence indicators. Additionally, younger people and those with more dependence indicators - groups of particular concern - showed the greatest change. CONCLUSIONS Findings suggest that a motivation-enhancing approach can be effective in producing short-term change in factors that can help facilitate and sustain behavioral change. This is consistent with previous research on the use of motivational approaches, and extends such findings to suggest promise in group-based settings and with people across demographic categories and dependence levels. Future research should focus on larger studies looking at long-term behavioral change, including recidivism.

Primary heroin users+drug-free treatment An equation for success?

This study of persons referred to publicly funded drug-free substance abuse treatment in Washington State compares 122 primary heroin users (those specifying heroin as a drug of choice) with 532 persons who preferred other substances. Information on treatment entry and completion was obtained through review of client charts at the referral agency. Follow-up interviews with 587 participants provided self-reports of substance use during a 90-day period 3-6 months following removal from the treatment waitlist. Primary heroin users were significantly less likely than others to enter the treatment programs to which they were referred. Among treatment entrants, primary heroin users were somewhat less likely than other users to complete inpatient programs but no less likely to complete outpatient programs. The heroin preference group reported less abstinence and greater frequency of use during the follow-up period than did other users, patterns that almost entirely coincided with the lower treatment compliance in the heroin group. The authors note the importance of investigating methods for increasing treatment entry rates for opiate users who desire drug-free treatment.

Operating under the influence: Three year recidivism rates for motivation-enhancing versus standard care programs

Operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol (OUI) is an international problem. In the United States, one intervention strategy is to require offenders to attend group-delivered interventions. We compared three year rearrest rates among 12,267 individuals in Maine receiving either a motivation-enhancing (ME) program, Prime For Life(®), or historical standard care (SC) programs. We created two cohorts, one when Maine used SC (9/1/1999-8/31/2000) and one after the ME program was implemented (9/1/2002-8/31/2003). Adjusted for control variables, rearrest rates among people not completing an assigned program did not differ for the ME versus SC cohorts (12.1% and 11.6%, respectively; OR=1.05, ns). In contrast, ME compared to SC program completers had lower rearrest rates (7.4% versus 9.9%, OR=0.73, p<.05). The same pattern occurred for people required to take these programs plus substance use treatment (12.1% versus 14.7%, OR=0.82, p<.01). For those rearrested, time to rearrest did not differ between ME and SC cohorts. Among those required to have substance abuse treatment, ME and SC arrest rates did not differ for younger individuals; otherwise, the ME cohorts lower rearrest rates occurred across gender, age, having a previous OUI, and having completed a previous intervention program.

Reports of past alcohol and drug use following participation in a motivation enhancing intervention: Implications for clinical assessment and program evaluation

BackgroundThere is significant interest in the value of motivational approaches that enhance participant readiness to change, but less is known about clients’ self-reports of problematic behavior when participating in such interventions.MethodsWe examined whether participants in a motivationally-based intervention for DUI offenders changed their reports of substance use at postintervention (when reporting on the same 30 days that they reported on at preintervention). Specifically, Study 1 (N = 8,387) tested whether participants in PRIME For Life (PFL) changed their reports about baseline substance levels when asked at postintervention versus at preintervention. Study 2 (N = 192) compared changes in self-reported baseline drinking between PFL and intervention as usual (IAU) participants.ResultsMany participants in Study 1 did not change their reports about how much they used substances during the 30-day period before baseline. Among those who did, the most common change was an increase in reported amounts of baseline drug use, and typical and peak alcohol use. This sample also showed changes in reports of their baseline pattern of high-risk-use (consistent versus occasional). At postintervention, participants who were younger, single, or endorsing more indicators of alcohol dependence were more likely to later report greater frequency of baseline drug use, and greater peak and typical number of baseline drinks. Gender, education, and race were also associated with reporting inconsistency on some behaviors. In Study 2, PFL participants showed greater increases in reports of peak alcohol use compared to IAU, but both conditions showed similar increases for drugs and typical alcohol use.ConclusionsIn both research and clinical settings, a segment of participants may initially report less substance use than they do when asked later about the same baseline period. These preliminary findings suggest clinicians and researchers may find postintervention evaluations yield reports of greater baseline alcohol or drug use for some people. For some behaviors, this may occur more often in interventions that target client motivation. Future research should attempt to identify which reports – preintervention vs. postintervention – better reflect actual baseline substance use.

Methods for Quantifying the Clinical Significance of Change During Intervention Program Participation

Assessing the practical or clinical significance (CS) of an intervention program’s outcomes is useful in determining its effectiveness. The CS approach gives information beyond traditional analyses by quantifying the proportions of people who meaningfully improve and deteriorate. We link latent transition analyses (LTA) to the CS literature and use a case study to contrast it with the long-standing Jacobson and Truax (JT) approach. Data came from 2,717 individuals convicted of a substance-related offense who participated in an indicated prevention program Prime For Life® (PFL). We selected outcomes describing drinking beliefs and behavior. Both CS approaches categorized a majority of participants as improved (i.e., transitioning from baseline subgroups with risky behaviors and cognitions into posttest subgroups showing lower risk). Results demonstrate how the JT approach allows the assessment of improvements on individual outcomes, while the LTA provides more nuanced information about risk groupings. Selecting a CS approach depends on research goals, availability of normative data, and data considerations. JT is an appropriate method when evaluating single outcomes. In contrast, LTA is better when a multivariate description is desired, advanced missing data handling methods are needed, or outcomes are not normally distributed. Although infrequently done, evaluating CS provides useful information about program effectiveness.