Counsellors' verbal behaviours and skills that elicit participants' change or sustain talk in virtual motivational interviewing for physical activity among older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exploring the influence of counsellors' verbal behaviours on participants' utterances in virtual motivational interviewing (MI) could broaden our understanding of how MI works. This study aims to determine counsellors' behaviours that are more or less likely than chance to elicit participants' change talk and sustain talk during a virtual MI intervention to promote physical activity among older adults. A sequential analysis was used to examine the transitional probability between the counsellors' and participants' behaviours. Thirty-five MI sessions were analysed from the virtual motivational interviewing (VIMINT) trial. MI-consistent behaviours (MICO) were significantly more likely than chance to be followed by change talk, sustain talk and follow/neutral talk. MI-inconsistent behaviours (MIIN) were more likely than chance to be followed by change talk, and 'other' counsellors' behaviours were more likely than chance to be followed by change talk and follow/neutral talk. In conclusion, all three types of counsellors' behaviours elicited change talk. This study re-emphasizes the link between MICO, change and sustain talk. The influence of MIIN and 'other' behaviours on change talk needs to be explored further. This study has implications for MI training and the need for counsellors to continuously develop skills or behaviours consistent with MI principles.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".