Objective: To conduct a systematic review of instruments for assessing the competency of therapists in motivational interviewing (MI) for training purposes.
Methods: A search of Medline, Emcare, CINAHL, Scopus, Proquest, and Web of Science databases yielded 20,313 articles, of which 105 were included in the review. Data were summarised in terms of the instruments’ development, adherence to MI principles, administration characteristics, psychometric properties, advantages, and disadvantages.
Results: Twelve instruments were identified. Tools tended to be better at covering simpler MI techniques. Differences in administration burden allow users to choose between briefer but cheaper and more detailed yet costly tools. Psychometric testing was often limited, and even if more extensive, the quality was often inconsistent. Although each tool tended to have relatively unique advantages (e.g. use of client ratings), they shared common disadvantages (e.g. lack of psychometric testing).
Conclusion: A number of tools can be used to assess MI competency, each with their own strengths but notable weaknesses that should be considered by potential users.
Practice implications: There is a need to further test existing tools before creating new ones, due to the repetition of the same limitations. Standardised guidelines should also be created to ensure each tool meets the same quality standards.
- Motivational interviewing
- Training and supervision
- Treatment fidelity
- Treatment integrity