Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Jan 21.
Published in final edited form as: J Couns Psychol. 2015 Jan;62(1):79–86. doi: 10.1037/cou0000049

How Group Factors Affect Adolescent Change Talk and Substance Use Outcomes: Implications for Motivational Interviewing Training

Karen Chan Osilla 1, J Alexis Ortiz 2, Jeremy NV Miles 1, Eric R Pedersen 1, Jon M Houck 2, Elizabeth J D'Amico 1
PMCID: PMC4300532  NIHMSID: NIHMS635231  PMID: 25602608

Abstract

Clients who verbalize statements arguing for change (change talk, CT) in psychotherapy are more likely to decrease alcohol and other drug use (AOD) compared to clients who voice statements in opposition of change (sustain talk, ST). Little is known about how CT and ST are expressed in groups where adolescents may vary in their AOD use severity and readiness to change. First, we examined how session content was associated with CT/ST, and then we looked at whether different subtypes of CT/ST were associated with subsequent AOD outcomes three months later. Audio recordings (N=129 sessions) of a 6-session group motivational interviewing (MI) intervention, Free Talk, were coded. Session content was not associated with CT; however, some session content was associated with higher percentages of ST (e.g., normative feedback). Subtypes of CT (Commitment and Reason) were associated with improved AOD outcomes, whereas Ability subtype remarks were related to increased marijuana use, intentions, and consequences. Findings offer helpful guidance for clinical training and narrow in on the type of CT to try to elicit in group MI sessions. Regardless of session content, adolescents can benefit from hearing CT during the group.

Keywords: adolescents, substance use, group Motivational Interviewing, change talk, alcohol and drug outcomes

Motivational interviewing (MI) is an empirically-based counseling approach in which a clinician uses a collaborative, non-confrontational, and non-judgmental style to resolve a client's ambivalence to changing their behavior (Miller & Rollnick, 2012; Rollnick, Miller, & Butler, 2008). Client change talk (statements arguing for change; Maybe I should stop using marijuana) and sustain talk (statements in opposition to change; I don't think I need to stop using marijuana) are often described as opposite sides of the client's ambivalence to change. Clinicians are encouraged to elicit and promote client change talk (CT) and reduce instances of sustain talk (ST) through the strategic use of open-ended questions, reflections, affirmations, and summaries (Miller & Rollnick, 2012). When clients express CT about the target behavior, it often indicates their readiness to change, whereas clients who express ST are often more ambivalent about change. In fact, client CT has been posited as an active ingredient of successful MI interventions (Baer et al., 2008; Barnett et al., 2014; Moyers, Martin, Houck, Christopher, & Tonigan, 2009).

Most research studies examining CT and ST are limited to evaluating individual sessions. Several research studies with adults show that clients who express CT report reduced substance use between 12 and 34 months later (Bertholet, Faouzi, Gmel, Gaume, & Daeppen, 2010; Walker, Roffman, Stephens, Wakana, & Berghuis, 2006). In the few studies that have evaluated adolescent CT in individual sessions, higher frequency of youth CT remarks has been associated with fewer substance use days (Amrhein, Miller, Yahne, Palmer, & Fulcher, 2003; Baer et al., 2008) and drinks per week (Bertholet et al., 2010). Conversely, youth who communicate more ST remarks are more likely to report poorer drinking outcomes (Vader, Walters, Prabhu, Houck, & Field, 2010) and fewer days of abstinence at follow-up (Baer et al., 2008).

Research examining individualized sessions (Amrhein et al., 2003; Baer et al., 2008; Gaume, Bertholet, Faouzi, Gmel, & Daeppen, 2013) has also shown that the subtype of CT may be important in predicting substance use outcomes. Subtypes of CT include statements indicating Desire (e.g., “I want to quit doing drugs”), Ability (e.g., “I can do it...this is doable”), Reasons (e.g., “I hate the way cigarettes smell”), Need (“I need to stop”), Commitment (e.g., “I stopped seeing him so I wouldn't smoke”), and Taking Steps (“This week, I won't go to any parties”). Each of these subtypes can also be a subtype of ST if it is expressed in opposition of change. For example, Desire ST would indicate not wanting to change (e.g., “I do not want to quit”) and Reason ST would offer reasons why one continues to use (e.g., “I like smoking because it relaxes me”). Dismantling which subtype of CT is associated with behavior change may help clinicians narrow in on which statements to reflect and emphasize during the busy group process.

Research with adults who report AOD use has demonstrated that the Commitment CT subtype is particularly important in predicting AOD use outcomes (Amrhein et al., 2003). In one individual-based MI study with emerging adults, Desire, Ability, and Need subtypes of CT were associated with improved alcohol outcomes, whereas Desire, Ability, and Need subtypes of ST were significantly associated with poorer alcohol use outcomes (Gaume et al., 2013). Another study evaluating individual MI among homeless adolescents showed that youth who expressed Reasons in favor of changing AOD use had higher reductions in AOD use days at the 1-month follow-up, whereas youths’ expressions of Desire or Ability ST were predictive of fewer days abstinent at one and three-month follow-ups (Baer et al., 2008).

In group interventions, CT and ST both by the individual and by other group members may have a unique influence on the group process. Groups typically include youth who vary in their readiness to change, severity of AOD use, problems, and willingness to speak up in a group of their peers (D'Amico, Osilla, & Hunter, 2010; Wagner & Ingersoll, 2012). This heterogeneity may either improve youth outcomes or lead to iatrogenic effects. Only two studies have evaluated CT and ST in group MI sessions. They found that group CT was associated with lower alcohol intentions, expectancies, past month drinking, and past month heavy drinking at 3-month follow-up (D'Amico et al., in press) and improved marijuana outcomes at 12-month follow-up (Engle, Macgowan, Wagner, & Amrhein, 2010). In contrast, group ST was related to decreased motivation to change, greater alcohol expectancies and marginal increases in marijuana use (D'Amico et al., in press). Only one study examined a subtype of CT or ST in adolescent group sessions. Engle and colleagues (2010) measured Commitment CT and found that this type of talk was associated with less frequent marijuana use, however, they did not examine other subtypes of change and sustain talk. The current study moves the field forward by examining whether all subtypes of CT and ST in the adolescent group setting influence AOD outcomes.

Research on individual sessions has shown that specific session content such as decisional balance exercises can evoke CT when discussing the cons of using (LaBrie, Pedersen, Earleywine, & Olsen, 2006), and also may elicit ST when discussing the pros of using substances (Miller & Rose, 2013). To date, there is no research examining session content and group-level CT and ST. This is important to understand because group treatment is often used with youth (Kaminer, 2005) who typically receive multiple group sessions with various session content, often with rolling admission with youth attending different sessions. Ultimately, knowing the types of session content that may be positively associated with greater CT in the group setting could help clinicians better understand how to deliver more effective AOD groups and provide broader implications for how MI could be used when treating other target behaviors.

We address these important questions in the current study by evaluating the change and sustain talk remarks of a 6-session group MI intervention trial, Free Talk, among at-risk youth who received a first-time AOD offense and were involved in the California Teen Court system (D'Amico, Hunter, Miles, Ewing, & Osilla, 2013; D'Amico et al., 2010). We first examined how session content was associated with CT and ST, and then we assessed whether different subtypes of CT/ST were associated with AOD outcomes three months later. Based on what we know from the available literature, we tested the hypotheses that session content explicitly focused on evoking CT (e.g., decisional balance; rulers) would be associated with more CT versus session content that utilized MI but was more focused on providing information (e.g., discussion of how AOD use affects the brain); we also expected that Reason and Commitment subtypes of CT/ST would be more strongly associated with AOD outcomes than would other subtypes of CT/ST.

Methods

Data were obtained for secondary analyses from the Free Talk randomized clinical trial (D'Amico et al., 2013), which evaluated a group-based MI intervention developed for at-risk youth involved in the California Teen Court juvenile deferment program. Only data from the MI intervention group are included in this paper. Free Talk facilitators were four psychology doctoral graduate students at the University of California, Santa Barbara who all had prior experience working with at-risk teens. Facilitators of the intervention were research staff, trained in MI, and supervised by clinical psychologists who were affiliated with the Motivational Interviewing Network of Trainers (MINT) during one-hour weekly supervision meetings. The Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity scale (MITI; Moyers, Martin, Manuel, Hendrickson, & Miller, 2005) was used to monitor intervention fidelity and to provide feedback during supervision. Sessions were audio recorded and coded using procedures described below. Procedures were approved by the research institution's Internal Review Board. A National Institute of Health Certificate of Confidentiality was also obtained in order to protect participant privacy.

Participants

One-hundred and ten youth participated in the Free Talk group intervention sessions and provided content for the analyses. Participants were involved in the Santa Barbara, California Teen Court system; a diversion program for youth with a first-time AOD offense. Participants ranged in age from 14 to 18 years old (M = 16.8 years (SD=1.02). The majority were male (65.5%) and ethnicity varied, with 52% White, 39% Hispanic, and 9% of mixed/other race/ethnicity. The majority of teens reported marijuana as their most used substance (56%), with 44% reporting alcohol as their most used substance. Groups contained approximately five adolescents (mean=4.54; SD=1.96). All youth age 14-18 who entered the Teen Court system for a first-time alcohol or marijuana offense during the study period (January 2009-October 2011) were recruited for this study. We excluded youth who did not speak and read English, youth who had multiple offenses, and youth who possessed a medical marijuana recommendation from a physician to use marijuana. Study refusals were limited (10%) and were primarily attributed to lack of time or transportation. Study participants did not differ in demographic information from nonparticipants.

Free Talk Sessions

Over the 22 months of the project, 110 participants participated in 135 Free Talk intervention sessions. Because youth needed to begin the groups right after they were sentenced through the Teen Court, they could begin sessions at any point in the cycle and did not have to begin at session one. If they were absent for a session, they waited for that specific session to recur in the sequence to ensure that they could attend all 6 sessions. In our study, 90.3% attended all six Free Talk sessions. Each session was manualized and used an MI style. For example, facilitators began with a group discussion about confidentiality, group rules, and role of personal choice in decisions around AOD use. Facilitators utilized MI strategies such as open-ended questions, affirmations, reflections, and summarizing group discussions to build motivation to change and allow youth to explore their personal reasons for initiating change in their AOD use (D'Amico et al., 2013). Behavioral change tools were utilized throughout the sessions such as decisional balance exercises to weigh the pros and cons of reducing use, willingness and confidence rulers to gauge motivation around change, and behavioral goal setting. All exercises, handouts, and information were delivered in non-confrontational and non-lecture MI style with elicitation of feedback from youth (e.g., “How does this fit for you?”) and group discussion (e.g., “What do others think?”) throughout.

A detailed description of the session content has been published elsewhere (D'Amico et al., 2010).1 Through the use of MI techniques (e.g., open-ended questions, reflections), facilitators generated group discussions in all sessions focused on the group members’ thoughts about their use in relation to the material, reactions to the material and how it related to their personal use, and the role of personal choice in their own AOD use decisions. In brief, session 1 (What are Teens Doing?) focused on providing teens with personalized normative feedback about how their AOD use compared to national data of similarly aged-youth, a decisional balance exercise focused on the short- and long-term pros and cons of continuing versus stopping AOD use, and a Wheel of Change exercise focused on their goals for the future and how AOD use might affect those goals. Session 2 (What's in Your Head vs. What's in Your Bottle, or Myths About Substance Use) focused on willingness and confidence to change (or not change) AOD use and a discussion of alcohol expectancies (i.e., actual versus expected effects) in relation to the balanced placebo design (Rohsenow & Marlatt, 1981). Session 3 (What Happened to You Last Night?) contained information regarding how to identify internal and external triggers to use AOD and a discussion around how individuals may progress on a path from no use to experimental use to addiction and how individuals exit this path. Session 4 (Emotions and Communication) contained a discussion of emotional triggers for AOD use (e.g., sadness or excitement), as well as strategies related to managing negative emotions and affecting communication with others (e.g., drink refusal skills). Session 5 (The Brain and Addiction) included a discussion on how AOD use can affect the brain, including correcting AOD myths youth may have believed and providing pictures and resources where youth could seek objective information about the short- and long-term effects of use. Finally, session 6 (What Can Happen When People Use Alcohol and Drugs) included a focused discussion on the negative consequences resulting from AOD use (e.g., risky sex), setting of behavioral goals, and a discussion around how AOD use could impede goal attainment.

Coding Procedure

Four coders were trained to use the Motivational Interviewing Skill Code (MISC 2.5) (Houck, Moyers, Miller, Glynn, & Hallgren, 2010) and Center for Alcoholism, Substance Abuse, and Addiction (CASAA) Application for Coding Treatment Interactions (CACTI; Glynn, Hallgren, Houck, & Moyers, 2012) to assess facilitator and participant speech during the six group sessions. Only adolescent speech was used in analyses for the present study. Training for these coders included approximately 40 hours per coder over a six-week period, following training procedures established by Moyers and colleagues (2009). Six sessions from the 135 recordings in the clinical trial were used in coder training and subsequently excluded from all analyses, leaving 129 sessions for the present study.

Each session was randomly assigned to one of four coders for assessment. Approximately 20% of sessions were randomly selected for double-coding throughout the duration of the study. Coders were blind to whether the session they were coding was for double-coding. After initial training, coder meetings were held every two weeks to address progress, prevent coder drift, and to discuss sessions that were difficult to code. Coders also group-coded gold-standard recordings in meetings or double coded sessions already coded by at least one group member to verify accuracy. These meetings were supervised by an expert in CT coding and the lead author of the MISC manual (JMH).

Subtypes of Change Talk and Sustain Talk

Subtypes of CT and ST included statements of Desire for change (D+) or for the status quo (D-), Ability to change (A+) or inability to change (A-), Reasons to change (R+) or to maintain (R-), Need for change (N+) or no need for change (N-), Commitment to change (C+) or not change (C-), recently Taken Steps toward changing (TS+) or maintaining (TS-) the target behavior, and Other statements that clearly indicated movement toward change (O+) or support for the status quo (O-) that did not fit into any other category, typically hypothetical language or statements of problem recognition (e.g., “I guess I'd feel comfortable saying ‘no’ if I'd had a bad experience the night before” or “It doesn't really cause me any problems.” (Houck et al., 2010; Miller, Moyers, Ernst, & Amrhein, 2003).

Outcome measures

Alcohol use, consequences, and intentions

Items from the RAND Adolescent/Young Adult Panel Study (Ellickson, Tucker, & Klein, 2001; Tucker, Orlando, & Ellickson, 2003) assessed frequency of drinking (i.e., “at least one drink of alcohol”) and frequency of heavy drinking (i.e., “five or more drinks of alcohol in a row, that is, within a couple of hours”) in the past 30 days. Eight response options ranged from “0 days” to “21 to 30 days”. Alcohol-related consequences were assessed with 6 items from these studies (e.g., missed school or work, passed out; α = .81). Four response options ranged from “0 = never” to “3 = 3 or more times.” Intention to use alcohol was assessed with a single item regarding whether the participant thought they would drink any alcohol in the next six months. Responses for each item ranged from “1 = definitely yes” to “4 = definitely no”, and were reverse coded so that a higher value indicated greater intentions to use.

Marijuana use, consequences, and intentions

Items from the RAND Adolescent/Young Adult Panel Study (Ellickson, Tucker, & Klein, 2001; Tucker et al., 2003) assessed use, consequences, and intentions to use marijuana. Frequency of marijuana use was assessed with a single item (i.e., “In the past 30 days, how many days did you use marijuana [pot, weed, grass, hash, bud, sins]?) with 8 response options (“0 days” to “21 to 30 days”). Five items with response options of “never” to “3 or more times” assessed marijuana-related consequences (e.g., blacked out, missed school or work, passed out, regretted activities, got in trouble, trouble concentrating; α = .77). Intentions to use marijuana in the next 6 months were assessed with a single item and response ranging from “definitely yes” to “definitely no.”

Statistical Analysis

We first examined whether session content was associated with group-level CT and ST to determine which sessions were more or less likely to elicit this type of language. For each of the six sessions, we calculated the number and percent of change remarks, and number and percent of sustain remarks. We then used regression analysis with effect coding to compare the session mean to the overall mean across all sessions to determine whether that specific session had more or less change or sustain talk than the average session.

Next, we examined whether different subtypes of CT at the group-level were associated with improved youth individual-level AOD outcomes and whether different types of ST were associated with worse individual-level AOD outcomes. Again using effect coding, we compared the session mean of CT and ST subtypes and compared it to the overall mean of the subtypes across the sessions, and used these session totals to predict teen outcomes using the model described below. Several subtypes of change and sustain talk were rarely expressed; thus, we only analyzed the subtypes that occurred in at least 50% of sessions as the measures were otherwise highly skewed. Because of the rolling groups design, there was no specific ‘group’ structure of teens at any given session (Morgan-Lopez & Fals-Stewart, 2008; Paddock, Hunter, Watkins, & McCaffrey, 2010). To account for this non-independence, we used a cross classified multilevel model (Browne, Goldstein, & Rasbash, 2001; D'Amico et al., 2013). We used the baseline measure of the outcome, age, race and gender as covariates in the models.

Results

Session Content

Table 1 provides the mean number of change and sustain talk remarks for each of the six sessions, and shows a significance test to compare each session to the average change and sustain talk across all the sessions. Overall, about a third of the total remarks teens spoke were CT (min=28.23% in Session 6, max=38.24% in session 4), whereas about 15% of remarks were ST (min=10.15 in Session 6, max=20.45 in Session 1). Second, we examined each session by change and sustain talk remarks. Session 1 had a significantly greater number of change and sustain remarks than the average session, and Session 4 (Emotions and Communication) had significantly fewer sustain remarks. We then controlled for the total number of remarks given that some sessions generated more discussion than other sessions. We calculated the percentage of change and sustain remarks for each session and compared it with the percentage of these remarks across sessions. We found no significant differences in the mean percentage of CT remarks by session compared to the average session. With regard to sustain remarks, we found that Session 1 had a significantly higher percentage of sustain remarks, and Sessions 4 and 6 were significantly lower in the percentage of sustain remarks compared to the average session.

Table 1.

Means and standard deviations for outcome variables for each session.

Session Content Number of Sessions Total Client Remarks Change Remarks Sustain Remarks Change as % of Total Sustain as % of Total
1 personalized normative feedback, pros/cons of substance use, wheel of change 22 165.91*** (47.78) 50.05* (23.94) 34.27** (20.09) 29.35 (11.5) 20.45* (8.8)
2 motivation rulers, alcohol expectancies, balanced placebo design 23 114.43 (40.96) 39.78 (18.39) 19.65 (11.39) 36.33 (14.43) 17.45 (9.83)
3 internal and external triggers, path to addiction 23 127.74 (43.48) 37.17 (17.54) 21.96 (11.34) 30.40 (11.2) 17.00 (7.18)
4 managing emotions, communication styles 20 106.2** (42.82) 37.4 (12.89) 10.9** (7.28) 38.24 (14.39) 10.63* (7.04)
5 effects of alcohol and drugs on the developing brain 24 97.29*** (31.93) 33.29 (24.27) 18.08 (18.69) 36.47 (26.86) 18.60 (16.67)
6 negative consequences, setting and attaining goals 25 162.8*** (39.26) 42.12 (24.77) 17.96 (18.13) 28.23 (19.29) 10.15** (9.34)
All 137 129.55 (48.48) 39.93 (21.25) 20.53 (16.6) 33.04 (17.51) 15.73 (10.98)
Open in a new tab
*

p < 0.05 for difference between that session type and mean.

**

p < 0.01 for difference between that session type and mean.

Change and Sustain Talk Subtypes

Table 2 shows descriptive statistics for the subtypes of change and sustain remarks in an average session. Youth more frequently expressed the following subtypes of CT: Other (M=8.33, SD=12.62), Reason (M=8.44, SD=7.7), Ability (M=5.19, SD=5.79), and Commitment (M=2.87, SD=3.48). Youth more frequently expressed Reason (M=4.11, SD=4.84) and Other ST (M=2.23, SD=3.08).

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics for the amount of change and sustain talk subtypes across all six sessions.

Mean* sd min max
Change Talk Subtype
    Desire 0.79 1.47 0 12
    Ability 5.19 5.79 0 29
    Reason 8.44 7.7 0 38
    Need 0.25 0.69 0 4
    Commitment 2.87 3.48 0 18
    Taking Steps 1.07 2.2 0 13
    Other 8.44 12.62 0 61
Sustain Talk Subtype
    Desire 0.57 1.04 0 5
    Ability 0.91 1.58 0 8
    Reason 4.11 4.84 0 24
    Need 0.19 0.56 0 4
    Commitment 1.14 2.23 0 12
    Taking Steps 0.06 0.29 0 2
    Other 2.23 3.08 0 18
Open in a new tab
*

Mean refers to how often a subtype occurred in an average session

Change talk subtypes included in the analyses were Ability, Reason, and Commitment, and Other (Table 3). For ST, only the Reason subtype occurred with sufficient frequency to be included in the analyses. Commitment CT was associated with the most positive effects, with this type of CT being associated with fewer days of alcohol use in the past month, less heavy drinking in the past month, fewer alcohol consequences, lower alcohol intentions, and lower marijuana intentions at the three-month follow-up. Reason CT was associated with fewer days of alcohol use, less heavy drinking, and fewer alcohol intentions at three-month follow-up. Finally, Ability CT was associated with increases in marijuana use in the past month, greater marijuana-related consequences, and higher marijuana intentions at three-month follow-up. Reason ST was not significantly associated with outcomes.

Table 3.

Association between change talk and sustain talk subtypes and individual level outcome measures.

Alcohol past 30 days Heavy drinking past 30 days Alcohol consequences Alcohol intentions Marijuana past 30 days Marijuana consequences Marijuana intention
Change Talk Subtype
Ability+ Est −0.01 0.00 0.00 0.045 0.16 0.03 0.11
SE (0.06) (0.05) (0.01) (0.030) (0.07) (0.01) (0.04)
P 0.911 0.981 0.770 0.134 0.027 <0.001 0.004
Reason+ Est −0.09 −0.08 −0.02 −0.06 −0.07 0.00 −0.05
SE (0.04) (0.04) (0.01) (0.02) (0.06) (0.04) (0.029)
P 0.040 0.036 0.153 0.019 0.254 0.959 0.084
Commitment+ Est −0.20 −0.15 −0.05 −0.10 −0.21 −0.01 −0.14
SE (0.08) (0.08) (0.02) (0.04) (0.11) 0(.02) (0.06)
P 0.017 0.048 0.044 0.023 0.075 0.594 0.018
Other+ Est −0.04 −0.04 0.00 0.02 −0.07 −0.01 −0.03
SE (0.03) (0.02) (0.01) (0.01) (0.04) (0.01) (0.02)
P 0.116 0.093 0.584 0.153 0.060 0.189 0.122
Sustain Talk Subtype
Reason- Est −0.04 −0.05 −0.01 −0.01 −0.04 0.00 0.00
SE (0.07) (0.06) (0.02) (0.04) (0.09) (0.01) (0.05)
P 0.623 0.427 0.540 0.863 0.653 0.907 0.988
Open in a new tab

Discussion

This study contributes to our growing understanding of the adolescent group process by examining whether session content was associated with CT/ST, and whether subtypes of CT/ST were related to AOD outcomes. We found that CT remarks were approximately twice as prevalent as ST remarks, which suggests that Free Talk, a manualized MI intervention (D'Amico et al., 2013; D'Amico et al., 2010), was successful in eliciting CT among non-treatment seeking at-risk youth. Overall, teens had more CT and ST in sessions that provided a discussion of personalized normative feedback and pros/cons and content focused on the consequences and goals for AOD use. Teens had the least amount of CT and ST remarks with content related to how AOD use affects the brain. This is not surprising as the former two sessions tended to elicit more discussion given the content (e.g., open-ended questions regarding reactions to normative feedback, discussion of personal goals), whereas Session 5 provided more education in the initial part of the session with opened-ended questions facilitating the discussion about the long-term consequences of AOD use after the information was presented.

The percentage of CT did not differ significantly between sessions. However, the percentage of ST was higher in Session 1 and lower in Sessions 4 and 6. Sessions 4 and 6, which focused on emotions, effective communication styles, negative AOD consequences, and future goals, may have generated fewer ST remarks because content focused on enhancing coping skills and identifying effects of AOD use on present and future circumstances. Session 1 contained personalized normative feedback and may have generated more ST remarks as feedback commonly elicits surprise and ambivalence among adolescents, who may view their use as “normal” (Borsari & Carey, 2001; Prentice & Miller, 1993). Group ST has been associated with decreased motivation to change and increased alcohol expectancies (D'Amico et al., in press); however, several studies show that normative feedback is an effective way to decrease drinking and marijuana use (Neighbors, Lee, Lewis, Fossos, & Larimer, 2007; Spirito et al., 2011). Future research could explore whether ST in the context of normative feedback may help youth consider change. For many youth, a discussion of normative feedback is likely the first time that they have questioned their perceptions surrounding AOD use so ST is likely, but whether ST in this context is a catalyst for changing their misperceptions and future AOD use remains a question.

Findings further emphasize that it is important to strengthen the facilitator's ability to elicit CT and minimize ST (e.g., It's hard to believe this information and you're wondering if you should cut down), especially for manualized interventions that may have a lot of new content for the facilitator to learn. When therapists are trained to evoke CT, clients produce more CT in individual sessions (Glynn & Moyers, 2010; Moyers, Houck, Glynn, & Manuel, 2011). Beyond intervention content, clinical training efforts should also consider the role of interpersonal process in group MI because MI strategies such as open-ended questions and reflections have been shown to elicit more youth CT, which is associated with improved AOD outcomes (D'Amico et al., in press). Facilitator empathy may also have direct effects on treatment outcomes and indirect influences through increasing the likelihood of client CT (Engle et al., 2010; Miller & Rose, 2009; Moyers & Miller, 2013). In addition, recent evidence highlights the importance of tone and vocal synchrony in communicating empathy (Imel et al., 2014).

Finally, we examined subtypes of CT and ST. Despite the fact that Commitment CT was less frequent than other CT subtypes, it was positively associated with decreased drinking and marijuana use. Reason CT was also associated with decreased drinking. Findings suggest that when teens assert their commitment towards changing their AOD use and share reasons why change is important, this may help them and others in the group make different choices. Thus, it is important to not only evoke CT, but also to attempt to elicit the subtypes of CT that are related to better individual and group-level AOD outcomes. Although in less structured sessions this could be a challenge for clinicians, our results suggest that they can successfully draw more commitment and reasons to change using exercises such as rulers (e.g., How important is it to change your use?) and decisional balance (e.g., What are the pros and cons to changing your use?). The relative infrequency of subtypes of speech such as Desire, Need, and Taking Steps is consistent with other studies evaluating individual adult change talk where Reason and Other subtypes are most commonly observed [e.g., see Supplementary Material in (Moyers et al., 2009)] and other research showing that the mere occurrence of subcategories such as Commitment change talk may be important in influencing AOD outcomes (Amrhein et al., 2003).

Being able to predict group-level change is important especially in the context of youth who are at-risk for future negative consequences from their AOD use. Interestingly, Ability CT was associated with increases in marijuana use consequences and intentions. Previous research has found that Ability CT may operate differently than the other subtypes of CT (Gaume, Gmel, Faouzi, & Daeppen, 2009; Martin, Christopher, Houck, & Moyers, 2011), and may be interpreted as client confidence versus motivation to change (Barnett et al., 2014). This is consistent with our observation that youth who were using marijuana would often state in group that although changing their marijuana use was not important to them at this time, they were very confident that they could stop at any point if they needed to stop (D'Amico et al., in press). Ability language may warrant differential response and further research is needed to understand its influence on the association between self-efficacy and AOD outcomes (Barnett et al., 2014).

Study Limitations

Our sample was from a Teen Court setting in Santa Barbara, and therefore may not generalize well to other Teen Courts or with at-risk youth in other settings. Our sample was restricted to youth with a first-time AOD offense who could speak and understanding English, although many youth were bilingual. Thus, this sample may not generalize to other samples with more severe problems. Facilitators were trained extensively in MI and therefore facilitated the sessions with high MI competency. Future research may explore whether counselors in Teen Court settings with varying MI skill can also elicit comparable rates of CT in youth. We believe youth reported truthfully in their surveys as evidenced by baseline levels of AOD; however, it is important to note that some youth in these circumstances may not be completely honest about their use. Also, many youth expressed ST during the MI sessions, which likely reflects their comfort in expressing themselves without feeling judged. We examined group-level CT and ST, and were not able to link these remarks directly to the speaking teen; however youth may not necessarily need to produce all of the CT by themselves—mere exposure to their peers’ CT in the group could positively affect their behavior (D'Amico et al., in press). Future studies could examine whether AOD outcomes are linked directly to the speaker. Given that our follow-up period was limited to three months after the group ended, this restricted our ability to assess improvement in longer-term outcomes. It is important for research to examine how CT and ST during group sessions may continue to affect AOD outcomes over the long-term.

Conclusions

Overall, results show that it is important that teens are exposed to CT in their group counseling sessions. In addition, specific subtypes of CT appear to have differential effects on group outcomes, with better outcomes for Commitment and Reasons to change, and poorer outcomes for Ability language. Thus, training and supervision sessions could focus on helping facilitators to elicit CT from youth in the group, and teach skills to identify and reinforce youth expressions of Commitment and Reason CT. Given the significance of these findings, future research should continue to focus on these group processes and examine them for other populations, different target behaviors, and assess longer term outcomes.

Acknowledgments

The current study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01DA019938 and R21AA020546, Principal Investigator: Elizabeth J. D'Amico) and supported in part by a grant from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (K01AA021431, Principal Investigator: Jon M. Houck).

Footnotes

1

A copy of the Free Talk manual can be found at www.groupmiforteens.org/programs/freetalk.

References

  1. Amrhein PC, Miller WR, Yahne CE, Palmer M, Fulcher L. Client commitment language during motivational interviewing predicts drug use outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2003;71(5):862–878. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.71.5.862. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baer JS, Beadnell B, Garrett SB, Hartzler B, Wells EA, Peterson PL. Adolescent change language within a brief motivational intervention and substance use outcomes. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2008;22(4):570–575. doi: 10.1037/a0013022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Barnett E, Moyers TB, Sussman S, Smith C, Rohrbach LA, Sun P, Spruijt-Metz D. From Counselor Skill to Decreased Marijuana Use: Does Change Talk Matter? Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2014;46(4):498–505. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2013.11.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bertholet N, Faouzi M, Gmel G, Gaume J, Daeppen J-B. Change talk sequence during brief motivational intervention, towards or away from drinking. Addiction. 2010;105(12):2106–2112. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03081.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Borsari B, Carey K. Peer influences on college drinking. Journal of Substance Abuse. 2001;13:391–424. doi: 10.1016/s0899-3289(01)00098-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Browne WJ, Goldstein H, Rasbash J. Multiple membership multiple classification (MMMC) models. Statistical Modelling. 2001;1(2):103–124. [Google Scholar]
  7. D'Amico E, Houck J, Hunter S, Miles J, Osilla K, Ewing B. Group motivational interviewing for adolescents: Change talk and alcohol and marijuana outcomes. doi: 10.1037/a0038155. (in press) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. D'Amico E, Hunter S, Miles J, Ewing B, Osilla K. A randomized controlled trial of a group motivational interviewing intervention for adolescents with a first time alcohol or drug offense. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2013;45(5):400–408. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2013.06.005. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2013.06.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. D'Amico E, Osilla K, Hunter S. Developing a group motivational interviewing intervention for first-time adolescent offenders at-risk for an alcohol or drug use disorder. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly. 2010;28(4):417–436. doi: 10.1080/07347324.2010.511076. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Ellickson P, Tucker J, Klein D. Sex differences in predictors of adolescent smoking cessation. Health Psychology. 2001;20:186–195. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Engle B, Macgowan MJ, Wagner EF, Amrhein PC. Markers of marijuana use outcomes within adolescent substance abuse group treatment. Research on Social Work Practice. 2010;20(3):271–282. [Google Scholar]
  12. Gaume J, Bertholet N, Faouzi M, Gmel G, Daeppen J-B. Does change talk during brief motivational interventions with young men predict change in alcohol use? Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2013;44(2):177–185. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2012.04.005. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2012.04.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Gaume J, Gmel G, Faouzi M, Daeppen J-B. Counselor skill influences outcomes of brief motivational interventions. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2009;37:151–159. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2008.12.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Glynn L, Hallgren K, Houck J, Moyers T. CACTI: Free, open-source software for the sequential coding of behavioral interactions. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(7):e39740. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039740. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Glynn LH, Moyers TB. Chasing change talk: The clinician's role in evoking client language about change. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2010;39(1):65–70. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2010.03.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Houck J, Moyers T, Miller W, Glynn L, Hallgren K. Motivational Interviewing Skill Code (MISC) version 2.5. 2010 [Google Scholar]
  17. Imel ZE, Barco JS, Brown HJ, Baucom BR, Baer JS, Kircher JC, Atkins DC. The association of therapist empathy and synchrony in vocally encoded arousal. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 2014;61(1):146–153. doi: 10.1037/a0034943. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Kaminer Y. Challenges and opportunities of group therapy for adolescent substance abuse: A critical review. Addictive Behaviors. 2005;30(9):1765–1774. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.07.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. LaBrie JW, Pedersen ER, Earleywine M, Olsen H. Reducing heavy drinking in college males with the decisional balance: Analyzing an element of Motivational Interviewing. Addictive Behaviors. 2006;31(2):254–263. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.05.001. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.05.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Martin C, Christopher P, Houck J, Moyers T. The structure of client language and drinking outcomes in project match. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2011;25:439–445. doi: 10.1037/a0023129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Miller W, Moyers T, Ernst D, Amrhein P. Manual for the motivational interviewing skill code (MISC) version 2.0. 2003 [Google Scholar]
  22. Miller W, Rollnick S. Motivational Interviewing: Helping people change. 3rd ed. Guilford Press; New York: 2012. [Google Scholar]
  23. Miller WR, Rose GS. Toward a theory of motivational interviewing. American Psychologist. 2009;64(6):527–537. doi: 10.1037/a0016830. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Miller WR, Rose GS. Motivational Interviewing and Decisional Balance: Contrasting Responses to Client Ambivalence. Behavioural and cognitive psychotherapy. 2013:1–13. doi: 10.1017/S1352465813000878. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Morgan-Lopez A, Fals-Stewart W. Analyzing data from open enrollment groups: Current considerations and future directions. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2008;35:36–40. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2007.08.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Moyers TB, Houck JM, Glynn LH, Manuel JK. Can specialized training teach clinicians to recognize, reinforce, and elicit client language in Motivational Interviewing? Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 2011;35(S1):296. [Google Scholar]
  27. Moyers TB, Martin T, Houck JM, Christopher PJ, Tonigan JS. From in-session behaviors to drinking outcomes: a causal chain for motivational interviewing. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2009;77(6):1113–1124. doi: 10.1037/a0017189. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Moyers TB, Martin T, Manuel JK, Hendrickson SM, Miller WR. Assessing competence in the use of motivational interviewing. Journal of substance abuse treatment. 2005;28(1):19–26. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2004.11.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Moyers TB, Miller WR. Is low therapist empathy toxic? Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2013;27(3):878–884. doi: 10.1037/a0030274. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Neighbors C, Lee CM, Lewis MA, Fossos N, Larimer ME. Are social norms the best predictor of outcomes among heavy-drinking college students? Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2007;68(4):556–565. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2007.68.556. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Paddock S, Hunter S, Watkins K, McCaffrey D. Analysis of rolling group therapy data using conditionally autoregressive priors.. Paper presented at the Joint Statistical Meeting; Vancouver, Canada. 2010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Prentice D, Miller D. Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus: Some consequences of misperceiving the social norm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1993;64(2):243–256. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.64.2.243. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Rohsenow DJ, Marlatt GA. The balanced placebo design: Methodological considerations. Addictive Behaviors. 1981;6(2):107–122. doi: 10.1016/0306-4603(81)90003-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Rollnick S, Miller WR, Butler C. Motivational interviewing in health care: helping patients change behavior. Guilford Press; New York: 2008. [Google Scholar]
  35. Spirito A, Sindelar-Manning H, Colby SM, Barnett NP, Lewander W, Rohsenow DJ, Monti PM. Individual and family motivational interventions for alcohol-positive adolescents treated in an emergency department: results of a randomized clinical trial. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 2011;165(3):269–274. doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2010.296. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Tucker J, Orlando M, Ellickson P. Patterns and correlates of binge drinking trajectories from early adolescence to young adulthood. Health Psychology. 2003;22:79–87. doi: 10.1037//0278-6133.22.1.79. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Vader AM, Walters ST, Prabhu GC, Houck JM, Field CA. The language of motivational interviewing and feedback: Counselor language, client language, and client drinking outcomes. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2010;24(2):190–197. doi: 10.1037/a0018749. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Wagner CC, Ingersoll KS. Motivational interviewing in groups. Guilford Press; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  39. Walker DD, Roffman R, A, Stephens RS, Wakana K, Berghuis J. Motivational enhancement therapy for adolescent marijuana users: A preliminary randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2006;74(3):628–632. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.74.3.628. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.74.3.628. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES