Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Subst Abuse Treat. 2016 May 8;68:11–23. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2016.04.005

Table 4.

Clinician MI adherence and competence by supervision condition and trial case.

Supervision Condition
Variable MIA: STEP
M (SD)
SAU
M (SD)
Supervision Condition Trial Case Condition by Trial Interaction
Post-trial outcomes
 Fundamental MI Adherence
  Baseline 3.71 (.87) 3.55 (.78) F 8.16 8.22 3.12
  Post-Workshop 4.43 (.70) 4.07 (.72) p .01 .01 .08
  1 4.84 (.59) 4.27 (.96) df 1, 114 1, 238 1, 468
  2 4.68 (.93) 4.16 (.74) d .53 .08 .54
  3 4.53 (.81) 4.08 (.88)
  4 4.94 (.79) 4.06 (.86)
  5 4.65 (.84) 4.08 (.77)
  6 4.46 (.97) 3.90 (1.03)
  7 4.33 (.61) 3.87 (.74)
  16-week follow-up 4.73 (.59) 3.66 (1.18) F 7.21 8.22 6.44
p .01 .01 .11
df 1, 113 1, 228 1, 512
d .33 .05 .46
 Fundamental MI Competence
  Baseline 3.57 (.75) 3.74 (.69) F 1.76 9.29 5.73
  Post-Workshop 4.14 (.68) 3.91 (.79) p .19 .00 .01
  1 4.36 (.72) 4.04 (.74) df 1, 137 1, 480 1, 521
  2 4.21 (.83) 3.84 (.66) d .20 .08 .63
  3 4.28 (.84) 3.98 (.68)
  4 4.42 (.89) 3.90 (.58)
  5 4.15 (.71) 3.79 (.57)
  6 4.18 (.65) 3.90 (.80)
  7 4.35 (.74) 3.82 (.61)
  16-week follow-up 4.47 (.65) 3.87 (.63) F 1.87 11.63 7.18
p .17 .00 .01
df 1, 169 1, 524 1, 521
d .20 .08 .72
 Advanced MI Adherence
  Baseline 2.01 (.78) 2.03 (.83) F 4.51 6.95 2.46
  Post-Workshop 2.81 (.79) 2.54 (.85) p .04 .01 .12
  1 3.56 (1.04) 2.97 (1.25) df 1, 120 1, 125 1, 469
  2 3.25 (.97) 3.03 (1.20) d .33 .10 .43
  3 3.51 (1.26) 2.43 (.95)
  4 3.25 (1.11) 2.77 (1.21)
  5 3.47 (1.27) 2.72 (.96)
  6 3.17 (1.10) 2.68 (1.18)
  7 3.01 (.88) 2.65 (1.07)
  16-week follow-up 3.23 (.75) 2.19 (.65) F 4.23 9.07 4.45
p .04 .00 .04
df 1,122 1,238 1,516
d .36 .10 .65
 Advanced MI Competence
  Baseline 3.57 (.68) 3.85 (.37) F 0.004 16.09 12.23
  Post-Workshop 3.99 (.53) 3.85 (.66) p .95 .00 .00
  1 4.24 (.64) 4.09 (.66) df 1, 126 1, 272 1, 459
  2 4.28 (.69) 4.12 (.57) d .01 .09 .84
  3 4.24 (.73) 3.98 (.54)
  4 4.23 (.57) 3.88 (.45)
  5 4.03 (.65) 3.80 (.66)
  6 4.14 (.45) 4.00 (.45)
  7 4.35 (.64) 3.71 (.54)
  16-week follow-up 4.35 (.58) 3.96 (.71) F .02 16.14 11.31
p .89 .00 .00
df 1, 141 1, 511 1, 507
d .16 .08 .82
 MI Inconsistent Adherence
  Baseline 1.53 (.43) 1.66 (.56) F 5.08 .13 .04
  Post-Workshop 1.39 (.40) 1.79 (.78) p .03 .72 .84
  1 1.53 (.45) 1.71 (.53) df 1, 79 1, 76 1, 76
  2 1.55 (.54) 1.83 (.56) d .34 .01 .05
  3 1.75 (.61) 1.69 (.54)
  4 1.54 (.51) 1.84 (.55)
  5 1.55 (.53) 1.82 (.81)
  6 1.40 (.37) 1.57 (.39)
  7 1.62 (.47) 1.63 (.65)
  16-week follow-up 1.42 (.44) 1.69 (.63) F 4.86 .00 .00
p .03 .97 .98
df 1, 80 1, 71 1, 71
d .33 .00 .01

Note. MIA: STEP = Motivational Interviewing Assessment: Supervisory Tools for Enhancing Proficiency, SAU = Supervision-as-Usual. Adherence was rated 1 = not at all, 2 = a little, 3 = infrequently, 4 = somewhat, 5 = quite a bit, 6 = considerably, 7 = extensively. Competence was rated 1 = very poor, 2 = poor, 3 = acceptable, 4 = adequate, 5 = good, 6 = very good; 7 = excellent. The random effect of site is nested in training condition within the hierarchical linear regression models. A familywise alpha of p <.01 (.05/5) marked significant effects.