Randomized Trial of Teaching Brief Motivational Interviewing to Pediatric Trainees to Promote Healthy Behaviors in Families | Lifestyle Behaviors | JAMA Pediatrics | JAMA Network
[Skip to Content]
Sign In
Individual Sign In
Create an Account
Institutional Sign In
OpenAthens Shibboleth
[Skip to Content Landing]
Journal Club
June 7, 2010

Randomized Trial of Teaching Brief Motivational Interviewing to Pediatric Trainees to Promote Healthy Behaviors in Families

Journal Club PowerPoint Slide Download
Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Center for Child Health Behavior and Development, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington (Drs Lozano and McPhillips, and Ms Scholz); Department of Pediatrics (Drs Lozano, McPhillips, and Stout, and Ms Robertson), Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute (Dr Hartzler), and School of Nursing (Dr Kieckhefer), University of Washington, Seattle; and Group Health Permanente, Seattle, Washington (Dr Runkle).

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2010;164(6):561-566. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2010.86

Hypothesis  That pediatric resident trainees would demonstrate increased counseling skill following training in brief motivational interviewing (MI).

Design  Randomized controlled trial.

Setting  University of Washington Pediatric Residency.

Participants  Pediatric residents (N = 18), including residents in postgraduate years 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Interventions  Collaborative Management in Pediatrics, a 9-hour behavior change curriculum based on brief MI plus written feedback on communication skills (based on a 3-month Objective Standardized Clinical Evaluation [OSCE]).

Main Outcome Measure  The percentage of MI-consistent behavior (%MICO), a summary score for MI skill, was assessed via OSCEs in which standardized patients portray parents of children with asthma in 3 clinical scenarios (stations). The OSCEs were conducted at baseline and 3 and 7 months. Blinded coders rated videotaped OSCEs using a validated tool to tally communication behaviors. Training effects were assessed using linear regression controlling for baseline %MICO. Global ratings of counseling style served as secondary outcome measures.

Results  Trained residents demonstrated a trend toward increased skill (%MICO score) at 3 months compared with control residents. At 7 months, %MICO scores increased 16% to 20% (P < .02) across all OSCE stations after the combined intervention of Collaborative Management in Pediatrics training plus written feedback. The effect of training on global ratings supported the main findings.

Conclusions  Pediatric trainees' skills in behavior change counseling improved following the combination of training in brief MI plus personalized feedback.

Trial Registration  clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00510341

There is growing acknowledgment that support for behavior change is necessary to optimize a variety of health outcomes such as promoting medication adherence, tobacco avoidance, and healthy eating.1,2 Pediatric competency requirements now recognize pediatricians' roles in supporting healthy behaviors.3 Furthermore, pediatricians rate behavior change counseling as one of the most clinically important research areas.4 This raises questions about how to effectively train pediatricians to counsel families about behavior change and to what extent physicians can acquire these skills.5-10

Motivational interviewing (MI) has emerged as an approach to assisting primary care patients with behavior change.8 A directive, patient-centered counseling style, MI helps people explore and resolve their ambivalence about changing behavior.11 Two central goals of MI are (1) to create and amplify, from the patient's perspective, a discrepancy between present behavior and broader goals and values and (2) to evoke from patients statements indicating their reasons for, desire to, or intent to change (change talk). The MI counselor builds trust and directs the patient toward increasing readiness for change.12 Techniques of MI include listening reflectively, examining both sides of patients' ambivalence, and reducing resistance by not promoting change prematurely.11 This approach differs from the traditional medical paradigm in which the provider directs the discussion, identifies problems, and prescribes solutions.13

Adaptations of MI (eg, brief MI) are effective for promoting behavior change in adults with diabetes, hypertension, risky alcohol use, and other conditions.1,2,5,8 Pediatric brief MI has been used to help clinicians work with parents.10,14-18 However, research in this area is lacking in 2 respects. First, few pediatric adaptations have been rigorously evaluated.6,10 In addition, few studies in any health care setting describe the training, evaluation, and supervision of clinicians,19 and most lack objective evaluation of providers' MI skills. Although validated skill assessment methods using standardized patients (SPs) are often used in MI training evaluations in addiction research,20 few have adapted these tools for medical providers.21

We adapted a brief MI curriculum for the pediatric setting, conducted pilot training with volunteer pediatric residents and fellows, and developed a skill assessment methodology using SPs.22 In the present study, we sought to determine the effect of training on MI skills of pediatric trainees, as measured using a standardized coding system applied to videotaped visits with SPs. We designed a randomized controlled trial, hypothesizing that trainees' MI skill would increase with training, compared with a control group, and that subsequent tailored, written feedback would augment the effect of the training workshop.



We conducted a small randomized trial of training in brief MI in which residents were randomized to behavior change training (Collaborative Management in Pediatrics [CMP]) or a wait-list control group. We assessed change in trainees' skills at baseline and at 3 and 7 months using Objective Standardized Clinical Evaluations (OSCEs) with SPs. The 3-month OSCE time point was chosen instead of immediately after training owing to scheduling constraints. The 7-month time point allowed OSCEs to be completed within the academic year.


We recruited pediatric residents and chief residents at the University of Washington Pediatric Residency between July and September 2006. Inclusion criteria were (1) having a continuity clinic at 1 of 3 large sites representing 75% of residents, (2) being on elective rotation at least once between August and October (to coincide with workshop dates), and (3) not having participated in previous CMP pilot workshops. We excluded residents who were on vacation or post-call on workshop dates. Study staff allocated participants to the intervention or control arms using a random number generator. We also recruited families of children with asthma (aged 2 to 12 years) scheduled for well child care with participating residents, requesting their permission to audiotape the visit for resident skill assessment.

Intervention residents participated in a 9-hour workshop using CMP, the brief MI curriculum developed by our team, and received written performance-based feedback on their 3-month OSCE.

This study was approved by the University of Washington and Seattle Children’s institutional review boards. We obtained informed consent from trainees and from the 10 parents whose visits were audiotaped, and assent from their children. Trainees received a $20 gift certificate after each OSCE. Parents received a $20 gift certificate after each visit.


We used the CMP curriculum (http://depts.washington.edu/lozanop/) to train residents in techniques to promote health behavior change in families. We adapted CMP with permission from Kaiser Permanente's Brief Negotiation program,23 a behavior change counseling approach that incorporates the therapeutic stance and counseling skills of MI.23 The CMP focuses on pediatric health behaviors, drawing examples from asthma (eg, medication adherence, tobacco use), obesity (diet and physical activity), and other areas of behavior change relevant to child health. Because the evidence in support of brief MI in medical settings has come largely from adult studies, we designated the parent (not child) as the main target of CMP and focused on families with children aged 2 to 12 years.

Two MI trainers (P.L. and C.R.) delivered the curriculum via two 4.5-hour workshops consisting of interactive presentations, demonstrations, videotapes, and skill practice. The first workshop focused on skills (eg, asking open-ended questions, reflective listening, assessing readiness to change, and making summary statements). Residents practiced the steps of a CMP encounter (Figure 1) and received feedback in the second workshop.

Figure 1. 
Summary of steps taught, modeled, and practiced in Collaborative Management in Pediatrics (CMP) workshops. The CMP workshop was adapted from Brief Negotiation with permission from Kaiser Permanente.

Summary of steps taught, modeled, and practiced in Collaborative Management in Pediatrics (CMP) workshops. The CMP workshop was adapted from Brief Negotiation with permission from Kaiser Permanente.

Intervention arm participants also received performance-based feedback on their 3-month OSCE (described below). A trainer reviewed OSCE tapes and provided written feedback in the form of a letter noting CMP skills and tools used particularly skillfully and those warranting further practice. The OSCE videotapes were used both as outcomes assessment and intervention component (Figure 2).

Figure 2. 
Two uses of Objective Standardized Clinical Evaluations (OSCE) videotapes in the randomized controlled trial of Collaborative Management in Pediatrics training plus feedback with outcomes assessed at 3 and 7 months. MITI indicates Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity scale.

Two uses of Objective Standardized Clinical Evaluations (OSCE) videotapes in the randomized controlled trial of Collaborative Management in Pediatrics training plus feedback with outcomes assessed at 3 and 7 months. MITI indicates Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity scale.

Objective structured clinical examinations

We developed a set of OSCEs to assess trainee skill. Each consisted of 3 clinical scenarios (stations) in which SPs portrayed parents of children with asthma in a 12-minute segment of a visit. All SPs were experienced in simulating patients in health care education settings. The SPs received training regarding CMP and rehearsed OSCE stations.

We chose asthma because it is common and management involves multiple behaviors. The OSCE stations depicted parents of children with moderate, persistent asthma who had problems starting or adhering to controller medications and avoiding environmental triggers. To assess skills used in working with parents of varying motivation for behavior change, we designed each 12-minute station to represent 1 of the 3 levels of readiness to change (not ready, unsure, and ready), based loosely on Prochaska and DiClemente's Stages of Change model.12 For example, one station depicts a mother who is eager to try increasing medication adherence (ready), whereas another depicts a mother who is defensive about her smoking and unwilling to talk about cessation (not ready). Trainees were given a written summary of the history and physical examination results and were instructed to begin the simulation at the point in a clinic visit at which they were beginning to discuss the plan with the parent. All OSCEs were videotaped.

Three research assistants independently reviewed randomly assigned OSCE recordings (while blinded to time point, study arm, and resident identifiers) using the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity scale (MITI).24,25 Coders received 60 hours of training including review of videotaped MI sessions produced by Miller and colleagues.26 A member of the Motivational Interviewing Network of Trainers with experience in measuring MI skillfulness in varied settings (B.H.) led coder training. Coders attended weekly meetings to promote consistent application of scoring decisions and monitor reviewer drift.

Miti 2.0 scale

The MITI 2.0 is an established instrument for measuring MI fidelity,25 previously used to code SP encounters in medical settings.21 Seven practitioner communication behaviors are tallied continuously; among these were (1) open questions (questions that promote patient narrative by allowing a range of responses); (2) reflections (statements that convey understanding of patient perspective by repeating or paraphrasing parent statements or those that introduce new meaning or emphasis); and (3) MI-adherent behaviors (eg, asking permission to discuss a topic, affirming/supporting the parent, emphasizing parent control). In addition, the MITI 2.0 includes 2 global ratings (reviewers' gestalt judgments) of residents' counseling styles regarding empathy/understanding and MI spirit (a composite of the resident's collaboration with the SP, attempts to evoke the SP's perspective, and support for SP autonomy), rated on a Likert scale (scores, 1-7).

Outcome measures

Guided by others using the MITI to capture practitioners' MI skillfulness,27 we computed the percentage of MI-consistent behavior (%MICO) summary score.28-30 We defined %MICO as the proportion of all resident communication behaviors coded as open questions, reflections, or MI-adherent behaviors. These behaviors are more likely than others to be followed by patient change talk31 and are associated with behavior change.32 We computed %MICO scores for each OSCE recording and computed group means by station. Secondary measures were global ratings of MI spirit and empathy.

Scoring reliability

Interrater reliability was computed for MITI elements in a random 40% of encounters reviewed by all raters. Pooled intraclass correlation coefficients were computed using a 2-way mixed model, reflecting collective rater agreement. Compared with published psychometric standards33 and prior MI studies,25,34 our data had adequate scoring reliability across all counted behaviors and global ratings (intraclass correlation coefficients, 0.57-0.93). Reliability was excellent for open and closed questions; good for giving information, MI-nonadherent behavior, and simple reflections; and fair for complex reflections, MI-adherent behavior, empathy, and MI spirit. In addition to sound measurement across the individual constructs, our computed primary outcome measure, %MICO score, also demonstrated high interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.88)

We used a traditional scale reliability approach to assess the consistency of MITI elements across OSCE stations (not ready, unsure, and ready). For each MITI element, a 3-item scale was formed consisting of the element as assessed in the 3 stations. Cronbach α values computed for these scales were generally low, suggesting variability in resident behavior across OSCE stations. Accordingly, randomized controlled trial analyses were conducted separately by station.

Statistical analysis and power

Effects of training and feedback on resident skill (%MICO score, empathy, and MI spirit) were assessed using linear regression, controlling for baseline values, stratified by OSCE station. Sample size was limited by the number of residents available to participate. All eligible residents were approached.

A convenience subsample of 8 participants from both arms provided a total of 10 audiotapes of patient visits after training to assess the ecological validity of OSCE-derived skill assessments. Spearman correlations assessed the strength of the association between %MICO in this set of tapes and %MICO at the 7-month OSCE for the same residents. Statistical analyses were run using Stata 9.0 (Stata Corp, College Station, Texas).


Of the 84 residents, 29 met inclusion criteria (Figure 3), of whom 11 refused (reasons included lack of interest or time). Eighteen residents provided consent and were randomized to training plus feedback or wait list control. Two had incomplete data. The eventual sample (n = 16) was predominantly female (75%), representative of the residency program. Participants consisted of 7 residents in postgraduate year 1, 5 in year 2, 3 in year 3, and 1 chief resident (postgraduate year 4). All reported some exposure to MI during medical school, typically a single lecture. Intervention arm residents attended the CMP workshop and received personalized written feedback based on 3-month OSCEs. Intervention and control groups were balanced with respect to postgraduate year.

Figure 3. 
Flowchart of randomized trial participants. CMP indicates Collaborative Management in Pediatrics workshops; OSCE, Objective Standardized Clinical Evaluations.

Flowchart of randomized trial participants. CMP indicates Collaborative Management in Pediatrics workshops; OSCE, Objective Standardized Clinical Evaluations.

Resident use of MI-consistent behaviors (%MICO score) at 3 time points is shown in Table 1. Prior to training, the two arms were similar, with close to a third of utterances consistent with MI (Table 1). Among control residents, the effect of time on %MICO score varied across stations, from a slight increase (ready) to a slight decrease (unsure). Among residents trained in CMP, the %MICO score in the ready and not ready stations rose at 3 months and stayed higher than baseline at 7 months. In the unsure station, the %MICO score fell slightly at 3 months then rose to slightly above baseline at 7 months.

Table 1. 
Resident Use of Motivational Interviewing–Consistent Communication Behaviors at Baseline and 3 and 7 Months
Resident Use of Motivational Interviewing–Consistent Communication Behaviors at Baseline and 3 and 7 Months

Linear regression results, controlling for %MICO score at baseline, are shown in Table 2. At 3 months there was a significant effect of training on the %MICO score in the ready station (+18%; P = .009). Increases in the other 2 stations were not statistically significant. Training plus feedback was associated with significant increases in all 3 stations at 7 months: not ready (+18%; P = .02), unsure (+20%; P = .001), and ready (+16%; P = .01) relative to untrained controls. Sample size did not permit subanalyses.

Table 2. 
Effect of Training on Resident Use of Motivational Interviewing–Consistent Behaviors at 3 and 7 Months
Effect of Training on Resident Use of Motivational Interviewing–Consistent Behaviors at 3 and 7 Months

At baseline, the mean (SD) ratings of residents' MI spirit were 3.6 (1.6) in the ready station; 2.9 (1.4), unsure; and 2.4 (1.1), not ready (range, 1-7). At both 3 and 7 months, MI spirit ratings of resident counseling style in all stations rose more from baseline in trained residents compared with controls. In linear regression models controlling for baseline ratings, the effect at 3 months was statistically significant in the not ready (+1.8; P = .02) and ready (+3.5; P < .001) stations only. At 7 months, this difference between arms was statistically significant in the unsure (+1.6; P = .02) and ready (+1.8; P < .001) stations only. The effect of training on empathy ratings was less pronounced.

We compared the %MICO scores in audio taped clinic visits with %MICO score in the OSCEs in a convenience sample of 8 residents from the 2 arms to assess the OSCEs' ecological validity. Spearman correlation coefficients were 0.49 for the not ready station, 0.94 for unsure, and 0.70 for ready, suggesting that the OSCEs provided a reasonable approximation of actual clinical practice.


This study provides support for the effect of training in brief MI on the communication style that pediatric trainees exhibit with standardized patients. We found an increase in resident use of MI-consistent behaviors (eg, open-ended questions, reflections, affirmations, and supportive statements) following CMP training when compared with an untrained, randomly assigned control group. Global rating of counseling style (MI spirit) also rose more among residents who received training.

The effect of CMP training on %MICO is more pronounced at 7 months than at 3 months in the residents, increasing by 16% to 20% from a baseline of 25% to 37%. Others have found that, following the posttraining skill increase, skills decline without additional doses of training.20,35 The greater increase in %MICO score at 7 months in our study may be owing, in part, to the written feedback based on 3-month OSCEs (Table 2). It is also possible that trained residents had clinical experiences that reinforced their use of brief MI apart from formal feedback.

Our study adds to the growing literature on training health professionals in brief MI.21,36-41 Ours is one of a few studies to use validated tools to assess performance-based outcomes, either based on videotaped encounters21,42 or written responses,41 making comparisons difficult. Our main outcome measure (%MICO) is computed from the validated MITI 2.0 instrument, represents a broad behavioral index of key MITI elements, and is consistent with training objectives. Prior research suggests that similarly conceived indices correlate with other MI fidelity measures,35 are responsive to training,20,35 and predict health behavior change.32

Trials documenting MI's efficacy in health care rely largely on interventionists with prior MI experience or who receive extensive training and supervision.14,43 In contrast, most health care clinicians using brief MI receive modest training and minimal performance feedback.44-47 As interest in MI grows, standards for training, skill assessment, and proficiency benchmarking will be critical for maintaining treatment fidelity and safeguarding internal validity.6,9 The wide variability in %MICO scores found for our trainees (SD range, 6-17; Table 1) supports the importance of skill assessment in rigorous evaluation of brief MI curricula.

The study has several limitations. The small sample size, single institution, and 38% refusal rate limit generalizability to the larger population of pediatric residents. Were this training to be made mandatory, it is not clear that the same effect would be achieved. However, there were no outliers in the distributions of our main outcome (%MICO), and secondary outcomes echoed the main findings. Because we did not assess skills immediately after training, any changes in the 3 months after training would have gone undetected. We did not assess long-term training effects beyond 7 months; yet, this time frame exceeds that of many published training trials.19 Possible barriers to dissemination to other residency programs include time commitment (a 9-hour workshop may be infeasible) and the dearth of faculty with MI skills. Finally, lack of patient outcomes limits our ability to extrapolate from behavior change counseling skill to actual patient and/or family behavior change. However, clinician proficiency in MI is associated with behavioral outcomes such as medication adherence,27 smoking cessation,48,49 and reduced problem drinking.32 Caveats notwithstanding, trial findings advance our understanding of how training plus feedback can enhance pediatric residents' skills in delivering empirically supported counseling.

The therapeutic stance and skills taught of MI—eliciting patient/family perspective, affirming patient autonomy, and supporting self-efficacy—are relevant to ongoing national quality improvement efforts that put provider communication style and patient-centered care in the forefront of health care innovation and medical education. The Institute of Medicine has advocated for patient-centered care, defined as providing care that is respectful of and responsive to individual patient preferences, needs, and values, as a key to improving health care quality.50,51 The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's Pediatric Residency Review Committee recognizes the need for formal training in communication with patients and families, requiring that residents demonstrate “interpersonal and communication skills that result in the effective exchange of information and teaming with patients, their families, and professional associates.”3 Motivational interviewing–based approaches may confer benefits beyond the realm of behavior change counseling by enhancing the patient-centeredness of other facets of the health care encounter.

Training pediatrics residents in brief MI produces measurable improvements in counseling skill that persist for at least 7 months. Replication of our findings in a larger multicenter sample with a broader variety of skill indicators is needed. Future trials should address optimal length/format of training, integration of MI into residency training, sustainability of skills, integration of behavior change counseling into the health care encounter, and the effect of adoption of MI skills by pediatricians on patient outcomes.

Correspondence: Paula Lozano, MD, MPH, Center for Child Health Behavior and Development, Seattle Childrens Research Institute, 1100 Olive Way, Ste 500, Mailstop 8-1, Seattle, WA 98101 (plozano@uw.edu).

Accepted for Publication: December 10, 2009.

Author Contributions:Study concept and design: Lozano, McPhillips, Robertson, Runkle, Scholz, Stout, and Kieckhefer. Acquisition of data: Lozano, McPhillips, Runkle, and Scholz. Analysis and interpretation of data: Lozano, Hartzler, Robertson, and Kieckhefer. Drafting of the manuscript: Lozano, McPhillips, and Kieckhefer. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Lozano, McPhillips, Hartzler, Robertson, Runkle, Scholz, Stout, and Kieckhefer. Statistical analysis: Lozano, Hartzler, and Robertson. Obtained funding: Lozano. Administrative, technical, and material support: Lozano, Hartzler, Runkle, Scholz, Stout, and Kieckhefer. Study supervision: Lozano, McPhillips, Hartzler, and Scholz.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by grant R21 HL080067 from the National Institutes of Health; the Group Health Community Foundation; and Seattle Children's Hospital.

Additional Contributions: The authors gratefully acknowledge Kaiser Permanente for permission to adapt the Brief Negotiation curriculum; Steve Berg-Smith, MA, for sharing his training materials; and the University of Washington Standardized Patient Program and the UW undergraduates who coded the Objective Standardized Clinical Evaluation videotapes. We are most grateful to the residents who participated in this study.

Dunn  CDeroo  LRivara  FP The use of brief interventions adapted from motivational interviewing across behavioral domains: a systematic review.  Addiction 2001;96 (12) 1725- 1742PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Resnicow  KDiIorio  CSoet  JEErnst  DBorrelli  BHecht  J Motivational interviewing in health promotion.  Health Psychol 2002;21 (5) 444- 451PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
 Pediatrics Program Requirements.  Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Web site. http://www.acgme.org/acWebsite/RRC_320/320_prIndex.asp. Accessed February 9, 2007Google Scholar
Chien  ACoker  TChoi  L  et al.  What do pediatric primary care providers think are important research questions?  Ambul Pediatr 2006;6 (6) 352- 355PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Emmons  KMRollnick  S Motivational interviewing in health care settings: opportunities and limitations.  Am J Prev Med 2001;20 (1) 68- 74PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Bellg  AJBorrelli  BResnick  B  et al. Treatment Fidelity Workgroup of the NIH Behavior Change Consortium, Enhancing treatment fidelity in health behavior change studies: best practices and recommendations from the NIH Behavior Change Consortium.  Health Psychol 2004;23 (5) 443- 451PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Erickson  SJGerstle  MFeldstein  SW Brief interventions and motivational interviewing with children, adolescents, and their parents in pediatric health care settings: a review.  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2005;159 (12) 1173- 1180PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Rubak  SSandbaek  ALauritzen  TChristensen  B Motivational interviewing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  Br J Gen Pract 2005;55 (513) 305- 312PubMedGoogle Scholar
Hecht  JBorrelli  BBreger  RKDefrancesco  CErnst  DResnicow  K Motivational interviewing in community-based research: experiences from the field.  Ann Behav Med 2005;29 ((suppl)) 29- 34PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Suarez  MMullins  S Motivational interviewing and pediatric health behavior interventions.  J Dev Behav Pediatr 2008;29 (5) 417- 428PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Miller  WRRollnick  S Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People for Change. 2nd ed. New York, NY Guilford Press2002;
Prochaska  JODiClementi  CC Toward a comprehensive model of change. Miller  WR  N Treating Addictive Disorders Processes of Change. New York, NY Plenum Press1986;Google Scholar
Elder  JPAyala  GXHarris  S Theories and intervention approaches to health-behavior change in primary care.  Am J Prev Med 1999;17 (4) 275- 284PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Emmons  KMHammond  SKFava  JLVelicer  WFEvans  JLMonroe  AD A randomized trial to reduce passive smoke exposure in low-income households with young children.  Pediatrics 2001;108 (1) 18- 24PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Curry  SJLudman  EJGraham  EStout  JGrothaus  LLozano  P Pediatric-based smoking cessation intervention for low-income women: a randomized trial.  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2003;157 (3) 295- 302PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Schwartz  RPHamre  RDietz  WH  et al.  Office-based motivational interviewing to prevent childhood obesity.  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2007;161 (5) 495- 501PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Weinstein  PHarrison  RBenton  T Motivating mothers to prevent caries: confirming the beneficial effect of counseling.  J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137 (6) 789- 793PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Barkin  SLFinch  SAIp  EH  et al.  Is office-based counseling about media use, timeouts, and firearm storage effective?  Pediatrics 2008;122 (1) e15- e25PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Madson  MBLoignon  ACLane  C Training in motivational interviewing: a systematic review.  J Subst Abuse Treat 2009;36 (1) 101- 109PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Baer  JSRosengren  DBDunn  CWWells  EAOgle  RLHartzler  B An evaluation of workshop training in motivational interviewing for addiction and mental health clinicians.  Drug Alcohol Depend 2004;73 (1) 99- 106PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Mounsey  ALBovbjerg  VWhite  LGazewood  J Do students develop better motivational interviewing skills through role-play with standardised patients or with student colleagues?  Med Educ 2006;40 (8) 775- 780PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Hartzler  BLozano  PRobertson  AScholz  KKieckhefer  G Measuring patient-centered communication skills among pediatric residents.  Presented at: the Pediatric Academic Societies Meeting May 4, 2008 Honolulu, HI
Runkle  COsterholm  AHoban  R McAdam  ETull  R Brief negotiation program for promoting behavior change.  Educ Health (Abingdon) 2000;13 (3) 377- 386PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Moyers  TBMartin  TManuel  JKMiller  WR The motivational interviewing treatment integrity (miti) code: version 2.0. University of New Mexico Center on Alcoholism, Substance Abuse and Addictions Web site. http://casaa.unm.edu/download/miti.pdf. Accessed May 26, 2006
Moyers  TBMartin  TManuel  JKHendrickson  SMMiller  WR Assessing competence in the use of motivational interviewing.  J Subst Abuse Treat 2005;28 (1) 19- 26PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Miller  WRRollnick  SMoyers  TB Motivational Interviewing: Professional Training Videotape Series (6-part series).  Albuquerque, NM University of New Mexico Center on Alcoholism, Substance Abuse and Addictions1998;
Thrasher  ADGolin  CEEarp  JATien  HPorter  CHowie  L Motivational interviewing to support antiretroviral therapy adherence: the role of quality counseling.  Patient Educ Couns 2006;62 (1) 64- 71PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Tappin  DMLumsden  MA McIntyre  D  et al.  A pilot study to establish a randomized trial methodology to test the efficacy of a behavioural intervention.  Health Educ Res 2000;15 (4) 491- 502PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Miller  WMount  K A small study of training in motivational interviewing: does one workshop change clinician and client behavior?  Behav Cogn Psychother 2001;29 (4) 457- 471Google ScholarCrossref
Moyers  TMartin  T Assessing the integrity of motivational interviewing interventions.  Behav Cogn Psychother 2003;31 (2) 177- 184Google ScholarCrossref
Gaume  JGmel  GFaouzi  MDaeppen  JB Counsellor behaviours and patient language during brief motivational interventions: a sequential analysis of speech.  Addiction 2008;103 (11) 1793- 1800PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Gaume  JGmel  GFaouzi  MDaeppen  JB Counselor skill influences outcomes of brief motivational interventions.  J Subst Abuse Treat 2009;37 (2) 151- 159Google ScholarCrossref
Cicchetti  DV Guidelines, criteria and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology.  Psychol Assess 1994;6 (4) 284- 290Google ScholarCrossref
Pierson  HMHayes  SCGifford  EV  et al.  An examination of the motivational interviewing treatment integrity code.  J Subst Abuse Treat 2007;32 (1) 11- 17PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Miller  WRYahne  CEMoyers  TBMartinez  JPirritano  M A randomized trial of methods to help clinicians learn motivational interviewing.  J Consult Clin Psychol 2004;72 (6) 1050- 1062PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Arthur  D Assessing nursing students' basic communication and interviewing skills: the development and testing of a rating scale.  J Adv Nurs 1999;29 (3) 658- 665PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Cornuz  JHumair  JPSeematter  L  et al.  Efficacy of resident training in smoking cessation.  Ann Intern Med 2002;136 (6) 429- 437PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Koerber  ACrawford  JO'Connell  K The effects of teaching dental students brief motivational interviewing for smoking-cessation counseling: a pilot study.  J Dent Educ 2003;67 (4) 439- 447PubMedGoogle Scholar
Poirier  MKClark  MMCerhan  JHPruthi  SGeda  YEDale  LC Teaching motivational interviewing to first-year medical students to improve counseling skills in health behavior change.  Mayo Clin Proc 2004;79 (3) 327- 331PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Scal  PHennrikus  DEhrlich  LIreland  MBorowsky  I Preparing residents to counsel about smoking.  Clin Pediatr (Phila) 2004;43 (8) 703- 708PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Martino  SHaeseler  FBelitsky  RPantalon  MFortin  AH  IV Teaching brief motivational interviewing to year three medical students.  Med Educ 2007;41 (2) 160- 167PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Lane  CHuws-Thomas  MHood  KRollnick  SEdwards  KRobling  M Measuring adaptations of motivational interviewing.  Patient Educ Couns 2005;56 (2) 166- 173PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Colby  SMMonti  PMBarnett  NP  et al.  Brief motivational interviewing in a hospital setting for adolescent smoking: a preliminary study.  J Consult Clin Psychol 1998;66 (3) 574- 578PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Rollnick  SButler  CCStott  N Helping smokers make decisions.  Patient Educ Couns 1997;31 (3) 191- 203PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Soria  RLegido  AEscolano  CLopez Yeste  AMontoya  J A randomised controlled trial of motivational interviewing for smoking cessation.  Br J Gen Pract 2006;56 (531) 768- 774PubMedGoogle Scholar
Borrelli  BLee  CNovak  S Is provider training effective?   Prev Med 2008;46 (4) 358- 363PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Lane  CHood  KRollnick  S Teaching motivational interviewing: using role play is as effective as using simulated patients.  Med Educ 2008;42 (6) 637- 644PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Boardman  TCatley  DGrobe  JELittle  TDAhluwalia  JS Using motivational interviewing with smokers?  J Subst Abuse Treat 2006;31 (4) 329- 339PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Thyrian  JRFreyer-Adam  JHannover  W  et al.  Adherence to the principles of Motivational Interviewing, clients' characteristics and behavior outcome in a smoking cessation and relapse prevention trial in women postpartum.  Addict Behav 2007;32 (10) 2297- 2303PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Institute of Medicine, Crossing The Quality Chasm: a New Health System for the 21st Century.  Washington, DC National Academy of Sciences2000;
Committee on Identifying Priority Areas for Quality Improvement; Board on Health Care Services, Priority Areas for National Action: Transforming Health Care Quality.  Washington, DC Institute Of Medicine of the National Academies2003;