Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24758152›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2014

Scaling up the evaluation of psychotherapy: evaluating motivational interviewing fidelity via statistical text classification.

David C Atkins, Mark Steyvers, Zac E Imel, Padhraic Smyth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

71 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Psychotherapy research : journal of the Society for Psychotherapy Research · 2019
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Applying Artificial Intelligence to Expand the Measurement Tool Kit in Clinical-Psychological Science: Moving Beyond Self-Reports.Clinical psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Scoping review on natural language processing applications in counselling and psychotherapy.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

David C AtkinsDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, 1100 NE 45th St,, Ste, 300, Seattle, WA USA. datkins@uw.edu.
Mark Steyvers
Zac E Imel
Padhraic Smyth

Funding

Implementation of Technology-Based Evaluation of Motivational InterviewingR01AA018673 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI ATKINS, DAVID CHARLES, NARAYANAN, SHRIKANTH · 2010 to 2020
$5.9M
Brief Intervention in Primary Care for Problem Drug Use and AbuseR01DA026014 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI ROY-BYRNE, PETER PAUL · 2008 to 2012
$4.2M
Personalized mobile app intervention: Challenging alcohol expectancies to reduce high-risk alcohol use and consequencesR01AA016979 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI LEE, CHRISTINE M. · 2010 to 2021
$4.2M
Indicated Marijuana Prevention for Frequently Using College StudentsR21DA025833 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI LEE, CHRISTINE M. · 2009 to 2010
$341k
NIAAA NIH HHS R01/AA014741NIAAA NIH HHS R01/AA016979NIAAA NIH HHS R01/AA018673NIDA NIH HHS R01/DA025833NIDA NIH HHS R01/DA026014
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBehavioral interventions such as psychotherapy are leading, evidence-based practices for a variety of problems (e.g., substance abuse), but the evaluation of provider fidelity to behavioral interventions is limited by the need for human judgment. The current study evaluated the accuracy of statistical text classification in replicating human-based judgments of provider fidelity in one specific psychotherapy--motivational interviewing (MI).

methodParticipants (n = 148) came from five previously conducted randomized trials and were either primary care patients at a safety-net hospital or university students. To be eligible for the original studies, participants met criteria for either problematic drug or alcohol use. All participants received a type of brief motivational interview, an evidence-based intervention for alcohol and substance use disorders. The Motivational Interviewing Skills Code is a standard measure of MI provider fidelity based on human ratings that was used to evaluate all therapy sessions. A text classification approach called a labeled topic model was used to learn associations between human-based fidelity ratings and MI session transcripts. It was then used to generate codes for new sessions. The primary comparison was the accuracy of model-based codes with human-based codes.

resultsReceiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses of model-based codes showed reasonably strong sensitivity and specificity with those from human raters (range of area under ROC curve (AUC) scores: 0.62 - 0.81; average AUC: 0.72). Agreement with human raters was evaluated based on talk turns as well as code tallies for an entire session. Generated codes had higher reliability with human codes for session tallies and also varied strongly by individual code.

conclusionTo scale up the evaluation of behavioral interventions, technological solutions will be required. The current study demonstrated preliminary, encouraging findings regarding the utility of statistical text classification in bridging this methodological gap.

Indexed as

Clinical CodingHumansMotivational InterviewingObserver VariationPsychotherapy, BriefReproducibility of ResultsROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID24758152
PMCPMC4026152

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.