Table 1.
Comparison of MISC coding studies’ counselor and client behavior code interrater reliability measured with intraclass correlations (ICCs)
| Counselor Codes
|
||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MICO
|
MIIN
|
|||||||||||||
| Study |
n of double- coded sessions (% of total N) |
Composite (Session level) |
Open Questions |
Affirm | Total Reflections1 |
ADP | EC | Composite (Session level) |
Closed Questions |
ADW | CO | DI | RCW | Warn |
| Gaume et al., 2008a, 2008b2 | 97 (100) | .83 | .82 | .75 | .56–.60 | .66 | .75 | .31 | .65 | .48 | .22 | - | .75 | .37 |
| Cately et al., 2006 | 50 (58) | .81 | .55 | .38 | .24–.82 | −.04 | 1.00 | .51 | - | .03 | .00 | .57 | .21 | .37 |
| Boardman, Catley, Little, & Ahluwaila, 2006 | 46 (100) | - | .74 | .93 | .51–.76 | .43 | .21 | Low3 | Low | .67 | Low | .00 | .00 | Low |
| Martin, Christopher , Houck, &Moyers, 2011; Moyers 20094 | 40 (34) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| de Jonge, Schippers, & Schaap, 2005 | 39 (100) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Gaume, Bertholet, Faouszi, Gmel, Daeppen, 2012 | 31 (20) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Lord et al., 20145 | 31 (21) | - | .94 | .82 | - | .08 | .03 | - | .89 | .75 | .30 | 1 | .28 | .48 |
| Vader et al., 2010 | 16 (26.7 ) | .96 | .92 | - | .92 | - | - | .07 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Campbell et al., 2010 | 12 (11) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Client Codes
|
||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reason
|
Other
|
Ability
|
Need
|
Desire
|
Taking steps |
Commit
|
||||||||||||
| Study | Session Level |
Sustain Talk |
Change Talk |
+ | − | + | − | + | − | + | − | + | − | + | − | + | − | FN |
| Gaume et al., 2008a, 2008b2 | - | - | - | .75* | .75* | - | - | .57* | .57* | .62* | .62* | .38* | .38* | .45* | .45* | .70* | .70* | .71 |
| Cately et al., 2006 | - | .53 | .78 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Boardman, Catley, Little, & Ahluwaila, 2006 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Martin, Christophe r, Houck, & Moyers, 2011; Moyers 20094 | - | - | - | - | - | - | .23 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | .62 | - | - |
| de Jonge, Schippers, & Schaap, 2005 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Gaume, Bertholet, Faouszi, Gmel, Daeppen, 2012 | .49 | .82 | .76 | .67 | .78 | .43 | .59 | .00 | -.03 | .00 | -.05 | - | .70 | .49 | -.05 | .30 | .70 | .73 |
| Lord et al., 20145 | - | - | - | .67 | .49 | .36 | .69 | .28 | .37 | .40 | .34 | .67 | .79 | .36 | .10 | .44 | .78 | .73 |
| Vader et al., 2010 | .70 | .84 | .87 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Campbell et al., 2010 | .84 | .75 | .80 | .78* | .78* | - | - | .50* | .50* | - | - | - | - | .60* | .60* | .63* | .63* | - |
Note. Studies are presented in order of sample size used to calculate interrater reliability. - Indicates not reported;
Indicates the average of sustain and change talk ICCs (e.g., Reasons to change and not to change; R+ and R-); ADP indicates Advice with Permission; EC indicates Emphasize Control; ADW indicates Advice without Permission; CO indicates Confront; DI indicates Direct; RCW indicates Raise Concern Without Permission.
Older versions of the MISC included sub-categories of Reflections including Repeat, Rephrase, Paraphrase, and Summarize.
These studies used ICCs with absolute agreement.
Behavior occurred at too low a frequency to calculate.
This study only provided a range of .56–.87 of reliability and did not specify the coding categories.
Current study.