↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of motivational interviewing: a qualitative study of response process validity, content validity and feasibility of the motivational interviewing target scheme (MITS) in general practice

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Assessment of motivational interviewing: a qualitative study of response process validity, content validity and feasibility of the motivational interviewing target scheme (MITS) in general practice
Published in
BMC Medical Education, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-1052-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Riëtta Oberink, Saskia M. Boom, Nynke van Dijk, Mechteld R. M. Visser

Abstract

The Motivational Interviewing target Scheme (MITS) is an instrument to assess competency in Motivational Interviewing (MI) and can be used to assess MI in long and brief consultations. In this qualitative study we examined two sources of the Unified Model of Validity, the current standard of assessment validation, in the context of General Practice. We collected evidence concerning response process validity and content validity of the MITS in general practice. Furthermore, we investigated its feasibility. Assessing consultations of General Practitioners and GP-trainees (GPs), the assessors systematically noted down their considerations concerning the scoring process and the content of the MITS in a semi-structured questionnaire. Sampling of the GPs was based on maximum variation and data saturation was used as a stopping criterion. An inductive approach was used to analyse the data. In response to scoring problems the score options were adjusted and all consultations were assessed using the original and the adjusted score options. Twenty seven assessments were needed to reach data saturation. In most consultations, the health behaviour was not the reason for encounter but was discussed on top of discussing physical problems. The topic that was most discussed in the consultations was smoking cigarettes. The adjusted score options increased the response process validity; they were more in agreement with theoretical constructs and the observed quality of MI in the consultations. Concerning content validity, we found that the MITS represents the broad spectrum and the current understanding of MI. Furthermore, the MITS proved to be feasible to assess MI in brief consultations in general practice. Based on the collected evidence the MITS seems a promising instrument to measure MI interviewing in brief consultations. The evidence gathered in this study lays the foundation for research into other aspects of validation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 22%
Researcher 7 19%
Lecturer 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 24%
Psychology 8 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 11 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 December 2017.
All research outputs
#13,648,438
of 23,552,911 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,691
of 3,495 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#212,696
of 440,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#59
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,552,911 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,495 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 440,630 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.