Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 May 1.
Published in final edited form as: Addiction. 2009 May;104(5):705–715. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02527.x

Table 2.

Study Characteristics

Comparison
Study Population Substance N Tx. Effect MI Measurement Data Source Condition
Amrhein, 2003 Tx. Seeking Heroin 84 n/a Add-on, pre Idiosyncratic Observer No Comparison
Cocaine
Amphetamines
Marijuana
Baird, 2007 Volunteers Alcohol 210 n/a Stand-alone Standardized Therapist Standard Care
Bien, 1993 Tx. Seeking Alcohol 32 Yes/No Add-on, pre Idiosyncratic Observer Standard Care
Borsari, 2005 Volunteers Alcohol 64 Yes/No Stand-alone Standardized Observer Minimal/Placebo
Budney, 20001 Tx. Seeking Marijuana 40 No Stand-alone Revised Client Active Treatment
Carroll, 2006 Tx. Seeking Alcohol 423 No Add-on, pre Revised Observer Standard Care
Marijuana
Methamphetamines
Cocaine
Opiates
Benzodiazepines
Dench, 2000 Tx. Seeking Alcohol 51 No Add-on, pre Standardized Client Minimal/Placebo
Karno, 20042 Tx. Seeking Alcohol 33 Yes/No Add-on, post Standardized Observer Active Treatment
Karno, 2005 Tx. Seeking Alcohol 61 n/a Add-on, post Standardized Observer No Comparison
LaBrie, 2006 Volunteers Alcohol 30 Yes Add-on, pre Idiosyncratic Client No Comparison
Longshore, 1999 Volunteers Heroin 222 n/a Stand-alone Idiosyncratic Client Standard Care
Cocaine
McNally, 20053 Volunteers Alcohol 73 Yes Stand-alone Revised Client Minimal/Placebo
Idiosyncratic
Miller, 1993 Volunteers Alcohol 42 No Stand-alone Revised Observer Minimal/Placebo
Moyers, 20054 Unknown Unknown 103 n/a Unknown Standardized Observer No Comparison
Rohsenow, 2004 Tx. Seeking Cocaine 149 Yes/No Add-on, pre Standardized Client Minimal/Placebo
Revised
Saunders, 19955 Tx. Seeking Opiates 101 Yes/No Add-on, pre Revised Client Minimal/Placebo
Stein, 2006 Volunteers Alcohol 130 n/a Add-on, pre Revised Client Minimal/Placebo
Marijuana
Strang, 2004 Volunteers Marijuana 44 Yes Stand-alone Idiosyncratic Therapist No Comparison
Stotts, 2001 Tx. Seeking Cocaine 51 Yes Add-on, pre Standardized Client Standard Care

Notes:

Tx. Effect: n/a = not reported in the study; Yes = MI yielded better substance use outcomes than comparison condition in the study; No = MI yielded equal or worse substance use outcomes than comparison condition in the study, Yes/No = MI yielded better outcomes on at least one measure of substance use outcome and equal or worse outcomes on a different measure of substance use outcomes (eg., MI > Minimal/Placebo on reducing overall alcohol consumption, and MI = Minimal/Placebo condition on reducing negative consequences associated with alcohol use).

Measurement: Standardized = use of standardized measure with established reliability and validity with target population; Revised = use of a standardized measure, but which authors report having modified for use in the current study; Idiosyncratic = use of a measure created specifically for the current study with no reliability or validity data reported.

Data Source: Client = paper and pencil measure completed by client following intervention; Therapist = paper and pencil measure completed by therapist following intervention; Observer = use of an observational coding system with ratings assigned by independent observers

1

Budney, 2000: Compared MI to two other Active treatments; MBT = MI + Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; MBTV = MI + Cognitive Behavioral Therapy + Vouchers

2

Karno, 2004: Compared MI to two other Active Treatments; CBT = Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; TSF = Twelve-Step Facilitation

3

McNally, 2005 used two measures of discrepancy. The first was assessed using “an actual-ideal discrepancy gauge constructed for the present research,” described as a single Likert-scale question. The second measure was a modified version of the Dissonance Thermometer, a 24-item self-report measure comprising two subscales: general discomfort, and self-focused negative affect.

4

Moyers 2005 was designed primarily to study within-session processes of MI. The population was made up of 103 pairs of therapists who had received different levels of MI training and clients from a variety of unspecified treatment settings.

5

Saunders, 1995 also reported a significant effect of MI over education control on a measure of client readiness, and no significant effect of MI versus education control on measures of client intention, client experience of discrepancy, and client self efficacy. However, effect sizes could not be calculated for these results due to lack of sufficient data reported by the authors.