ArticlePrevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research2021
Leveraging Motivational Interviewing to Coach Teachers in the Implementation of Preventive Evidence-Based Practices: A Sequential Analysis of the Motivational Interviewing Process.
Article in Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 2021. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Taking a Motivational Interviewing Approach to Prevention Science: Progress and Extensions.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2021Article
- Introduction to the Special Issue on Optimizing the Implementation and Effectiveness of Preventive Interventions Through Motivational Interviewing.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Though emerging research supports the effectiveness of school-based coaching models utilizing motivational interviewing (MI), an examination of the specific drivers behind these effects is notably lacking in the prevention field. This study leveraged sequential analysis to examine how teachers' verbalization of change talk (i.e., language in support of change) and sustain talk (i.e., language in support of maintaining the status quo) was influenced by coaches' use of MI-consistent (i.e., collaborative language supportive of change) and MI-inconsistent (e.g., confrontational, directive) language, respectively. We also examined whether teacher and coach factors were related to coach-teacher language dynamics. Data were collected from 87 teachers in 16 elementary and middle schools randomized in a trial to the Double Check preventive intervention (see Bradshaw et al., 2018). Audio-recorded coaching feedback sessions were coded using an adapted version of the Motivational Interviewing Sequential Code for Observing Process Exchanges (MI-SCOPE). Sequential analyses indicated that MI-consistent and change talk were significantly more likely than chance to occur consecutively. Teachers' sustain talk was also more likely to occur sequentially with coach use of MI-consistent language and teacher change talk; the latter suggests teacher ambivalence. Coaches rarely used MI-inconsistent language, and its occurrence was only associated with more MI-inconsistent language. Regression analyses indicated that teacher age, efficacy, burnout, classroom organization, and some design features (i.e., cohort, coach, coach-teacher racial match) were associated with different coach-teacher language dynamics. This novel school-based study illustrates how coaching MI evoked teacher change talk related to use of evidence-based programs.
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.