Evaluating Skill Acquisition in Motivational Interviewing: The Development of an Instrument to Measure Practice Skills
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social work education has long emphasized the need to provide competence-based education. However, little work has been done to identify, validate and evaluate competencies in specific fields such as addictions. The purpose of this study was to isolate a set of substance abuse intervention competencies using Motivational Interviewing that could be used to teach and evaluate students. The research proceeded in three stages. First, a modified Delphi approach involving social work practitioners was used to discern a set of positive and dysfunctional skills related to Motivational Interviewing. The primary researcher taught a graduate social work class aimed at teaching students theory and skills related to this model. Students demonstrated these skills with simulated clients through videotaped interviews. Finally, three observers rated the student interviews using this developed instrument. While inter-observer agreement was lower than anticipated, this study does provide early support for the development of competencies related to specific theoretical frameworks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it