Assessment of motivational interviewing with the VASE-(Mental) Healthcare: Mixed-methods study to examine feasibility and validity in the general practice setting. Issue 7 (July 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Boom, Saskia M.; Oberink, Riëtta; van Dijk, Nynke; Visser, Mechteld R.M.
• Is Part Of: Patient education and counseling. Volume 103:Issue 7(2020)
• Page Start: 1319
• Page End: 1325
• Publication Date: 2020-07
• Subjects: Motivational interviewing -- General practice -- Family medicine -- Process assessment -- Formative feedback -- General practitioners -- Practice nurses -- Mental healthcare; Patient education -- Periodicals; Health counseling -- Periodicals; Health education -- Periodicals; Counseling -- Periodicals; Patient Education -- Periodicals; Éducation des patients -- Périodiques; Counseling -- Périodiques; Éducation sanitaire -- Périodiques; 615.5071
• DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2020.02.018
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0738-3991

Abstract

Highlights: We revised an instrument to assess competency in Motivational Interviewing. This study provides support for the feasibility and validity evidence. A wider range of (nuances in) MI skills can be evaluated. Improved differentiation between basic and advanced skills. Broader applicability. Abstract: Objective: The VASE-(M)HC is an instrument to evaluate Motivational Interviewing (MI) skills. We adjusted the previous version for use in the broader (mental) healthcare context, incorporated new MI insights, expanded the scoring system and created a parallel version. Feasibility and validity evidence in the general practice setting was explored. Methods: The teaching staff of the GP specialty-training, GP-, and PN-trainees (N = 156) completed the VASE-(M)HC. In this mixed-methods study, we examined psychometric characteristics, compared parallel versions, and interviewed assessors. Results: Our adjustments enable assessment of a wider range of MI skills, and allow differentiation of basic and advanced skills. Inter-rater reliability was excellent and internal consistency of the total scale was good for both versions. The parallel versions are comparable in terms of difficulty. Conclusion: The VASE-(M)HC is improved by our revisions and adds multiple advantages to the domain of available MI assessment tools. Practice implications: Due to the adjustments, the instrument can be used in the GP setting (instead of sole focus on substance abuse). The parallel version is useful for research (pretest/posttest) and selective assessment (retake of a test). It is promising to further explore its applicability in the broader (mental) healthcare context and as training material.