Trial reportAddictive behaviors2017
Psychometric properties of the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity coding system 4.2 with jail inmates.
Trial report in Addictive behaviors, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Client Race on Medical Resident Communication About Infant Safe Sleep.Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings · 2026Article
- Measuring a motivational interviewing practice orientation in criminal justice practitioners: initial validation of the response style screening questionnaire.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Motivational Interviewing (MI) is an evidence-based approach shown to be helpful for a variety of behaviors across many populations. Treatment fidelity is an important tool for understanding how and with whom MI may be most helpful. The Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity coding system was recently updated to incorporate new developments in the research and theory of MI, including the relational and technical hypotheses of MI (MITI 4.2). To date, no studies have examined the MITI 4.2 with forensic populations. In this project, twenty-two brief MI interventions with jail inmates were evaluated to test the reliability of the MITI 4.2. Validity of the instrument was explored using regression models to examine the associations between global scores (Empathy, Partnership, Cultivating Change Talk and Softening Sustain Talk) and outcomes. Reliability of this coding system with these data was strong. We found that therapists had lower ratings of Empathy with participants who had more extensive criminal histories. Both Relational and Technical global scores were associated with criminal histories as well as post-intervention ratings of motivation to decrease drug use. Findings indicate that the MITI 4.2 was reliable for coding sessions with jail inmates. Additionally, results provided information related to the relational and technical hypotheses of MI. Future studies can use the MITI 4.2 to better understand the mechanisms behind how MI works with this high-risk group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.