Overview
Motivational Interviewing: effectiveness in promoting protective factors with young offenders
Roberto Blasco-Alcala, Trainee Educational and Child Psychology - UCL – Cohort 2006-2009
Table 1. Sample’s characteristics according
to
custodial
sentence,
order
and/or
agreement.
Research Questions
Experim.
Condition
Waiting
list
condition
Supervision order (SO)
4
3
Community Rehabilitation Orders (CRO)
4
5
Supervision Surveillance Programme (ISSP)
1
1
Detention and Training Order (DTO)
2
1
n total
11
10
Study:
ƒ
Motivational Interviewing: effectiveness in promoting protective factors with
young offenders.
Aim:
ƒ
To assess the effectiveness of a six-week Motivational Interviewing (MI)
programme with young offenders.
Participants:
ƒ
ƒ
Eleven youngsters (experimental group).
Ten youngsters (waiting list condition).
Method:
ƒ
Random allocation of participants to each group.
Sessions:
ƒ
Six Motivational Interviewing sessions over a period of six to eight weeks.
Contact time:
ƒ
Forty-five minutes per session.
Therapist:
ƒ
Doctorate student (Educational and Child Psychologist).
Table 2. Questionnaires
Venue:
ƒ
YOS premises (two bases in the participant Local Authority).
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (youngsters).
Not significant
Measures:
ƒ
Questionnaires.
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (adults).
Not significant
Measurement:
ƒ
Pre-intervention (T1), Post-intervention (T2), Five-month follow-up (T3).
Social Functioning Questionnaire (youngsters).
Not significant
Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (youngsters).
Not significant
Resiliency Scales For Children and Adolescents (youngsters).
Not significant
Table 3. Sample attendance and completion
rate to MI sessions.
n total
Sample
Experimental
Condition (percentage)
n= 11
100%
SUMMARY:
ƒ Youngsters were randomly divided into two groups according to gender and order
sentence (Table 1). Youngsters and parents/YOS caseworkers completed questionnaires
at pre (T1), post (T2), and 5-month follow-up times(T3) (Table 2).
ƒ Youngsters in the experimental group (receiving MI sessions) reported that they found
the programme helpful (e.g. youngsters reported new strategies to cope with
difficulties and/or adversity in their lives). Additionally, they provided examples of
practising the skills learned in therapy between sessions.
ƒ All youngsters participating in the experimental condition attended all the MI sessions
(100%) (Table 3).
Statistical analyses (two factor mixed ANOVAs) were conducted on all measures. Results
showed:
ƒ On this occasion, the MI programme did not make significant changes on overall
measured outcomes (Table 2). Large interaction effects (group x time) were found in
the youngsters’ SDQ data in: reducing emotional difficulties (F(1,15) = 2.66, p = .12,
pŊ² = .15), and increasing prosocial behaviour (F(1,15) = 3.90, p = .06, pŊ² = .20).
ƒ There was evidence of positive trend but this could depend on other things and not on
the programme itself. There were some changes, however, that could be related to the
MI and that they were unlikely to have happened by chance.
ƒ Young people participating in the programme improved in: considering others’ feelings,
sharing with others, being helpful and kind (prosocial behaviours).
ƒ Effect sizes and interaction effects have been reported (Table 4). These are measures
of the strength of the relationship between variables. They tell us how big an effect
can be expected from an intervention.
ACTION:
ƒ Participants in the waiting list condition invited to participate in the MI programme.
Change
Level of youngsters attendance to the sessions.
Table 4. Qualitative summary of results
SDQ (subscales)
youngsters
Emotional difficulties
Interaction effects
Large
Small
No noticeable
Medium
No noticeable
Small
Peer problems
Small
No noticeable
No noticeable
Prosocial behaviours
Large
Large
Large
No noticeable
No noticeable
No noticeable
Medium
Small
Small
Overall difficulties
SDQ (subscales)
parents/
caseworkers
Emotional difficulties
Conduct problems
Small
Small
Small
Hyperactivity/attention
Small
No noticeable
Small
No noticeable
Medium
Small
Small
No noticeable
No noticeable
Peer problems
Prosocial behaviours
Overall difficulties
Small
Small
Small
Mastery
Medium
Small
Small
Relatedness
Medium
Small
Small
No noticeable
Medium
Small
Large
No noticeable
No noticeable
No noticeable
Medium
Small
Emotional reactivity.
Self-Esteem
Effect size (T3)
Medium
SDQ
Social Functioning
Effect size (T2)
Large
Hyperactivity/attention
Resilience
100%
No noticeable
Conduct problems
SDQ
•To what extent does MI
improve behavioural
competence?
•To what extent does MI
contribute to the
development of resilient
factors?
•To what extent does MI
improve social functioning?
•To what extent does MI
augment self-esteem?