What can clients tell us about whether to use motivational interviewing? An analysis of early-session ambivalent language.

Background: Although motivational interviewing (MI) is an effective method for promoting change in problematic alcohol and other drug use, it does not benefit all clients. Clinicians have little empirical guidance on who is likely to benefit from MI and who is not. We hypothesized that differences in clients' spontaneously offered language early in the session would predict their responsiveness to MI during the remainder of the session.

Method: The study obtained coding data from 125 counseling sessions from a large randomized controlled trial of clinician training. A cluster analysis created one group of clients whose language reflected ambivalence, and one group whose language reflected readiness to change. We conducted a univariate analysis of variance to compare the mean change in percent change talk across the session between groups.

Results: Clients whose language reflected ambivalence early in the session had a greater change in their percent change talk during the remainder of the session, compared to those whose language reflected greater readiness to change (F (1,90) = 63.02, t = 7.94, p < .001). Surprisingly, the group whose language reflected readiness had a decrease in their percent change talk during the remainder of the session (M = -10.9%, SD = 16.3%). Adjusting the results for regression to the mean effects did not eliminate these differences.

Conclusion: Clients' language early in the session may offer clinicians some guidance on whether MI is likely to be useful or counterproductive in the treatment of substance use disorder.