Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2016/Motivational interviewing

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments[edit]

HI, also made an edit direct in your chapter to align the Table 1 Title to APA requirements. U109993 (discusscontribs) 21:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I just read through your chapter. Very interesting topic, and a challenging problem. I made a suggestion below on the overview paragraphs, if you want to move them around so the problem statement is clearer up front. Something like below as a suggestion. Mayb e then have the questions separately at the end? Just some thoughts.

Clients presenting to health clinics for help often carry a wide range of readiness (Miller & Rollnick, 2012). Yet statistics show that eight out of ten people are ambivalent about the change needed (Miller & Rollnick, 2012). Hesitancy to change is part of the innate human nature (Hettema, Steele & Miller, 2005). According to Prochaska and Diclemente’s transtheoretical model, behaviour changes encompass a cycle of stages of change which include: precontemplation; contemplation; preparation; action; and maintenance. At the earliest stages, while people generally don't make changes, they do often ponder change. The primary goal here for therapists is to help clients overcome the hesitation hurdle in the direction of change (Hettema et al., 2005; Miller, 2004). U109993 (discusscontribs) 20:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)  

Hi there! This is really interesting topic that has very practical applications. I came across an article concerned with MI and health behaviours including diet and exercise, diabetes management and oral health. The article also makes an interesting points about the direction of future research, including whether MI effectiveness might be impacted by culture or ethnicity. http://h2175703.stratoserver.net/media/1048/review_of_mi_inpromotinghealthbehaviors-martins-et-al-2009-.pdf

Hope this if use to you. Thanks--U985072 (discusscontribs) 09:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

meta-analysis[edit]

Hi I have found an article which was a meta-analysis which may be helpful for your chapter, it is titled: Motivational interviewing to increase physical activity in people with chronic health conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. It can be accessed through the university library website using EBSCOhost http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.canberra.edu.au/ehost/detail/detail?vid=14&sid=3328bdcc-5c98-43de-b878-d65d93af9a4b%40sessionmgr4008&hid=4109&bdata=#AN=99360044&db=s3h The introduction will be helpful for you to start defining MI and also in the introduction it talks about MI being a promising approach for improved physical activity which would be a good concept/ heading to include in your chapter. All the best --LeoDean1993 (discusscontribs) 10:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

some articles that could help[edit]

Hey, I love this topic. I hope you are finding it interesting!! I have found some articles that may be of use: Csillik, A. (2015). Positive motivational interviewing: Activating clients’ strengths and intrinsic motivation to change. Journal Of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 45(2), 119- 128. doi:10.1007/s10879-014-9288-6

Miller, W., & Rollinick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Simon, P., & Ward, N. L. (2014). An evaluation of training for lay providers in the use of motivational interviewing to promote academic achievement among urban youth. Advances In School Mental Health Promotion, 7(4), 255-270. doi:10.1080/1754730X.2014.949062 --JEMwarren (discusscontribs) 09:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

You Tube[edit]

Hi, Interesting topic, can't wait to see the end result of your chapter. I have provided a link to an online lecture from Dr. William Miller from Columbia University, on facilitating change through motivational interviewing. I hope it is of some help and best of luck with your chapter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EeCirPyq2w--U3090066 (discusscontribs) 19:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Heading casing[edit]

Crystal Clear app ktip.svg
FYI, the convention on Wikiversity is for lower-cased headings. For example, use:

==Cats and dogs==

rather than

==Cats and Dogs==

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


Chapter review and feedback

This chapter has been reviewed according to the marking criteria. Written feedback is provided below, plus there is a general feedback page. Please also check the chapter's page history to check for editing changes made whilst reviewing through the chapter. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below and/or contacting the reviewer. Chapter marks will be available later via Moodle, along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.

Wikiuutiset logo typewriter.png

Overall[edit]

  1. Overall, this is a moderately strong chapter which offers a very good theoretical review of MI and briefly summarises research about MI effectiveness. The chapter could be significantly improved by addressing numerous grammatical errors.
  2. For more feedback see these copyedits and the comments below.
  3. Feel free to make ongoing changes to the chapter if you wish to address any of these comments or make other improvements.

Theory[edit]

  1. MI theory and practice is well explained.
  2. The dialogue examples are helpful, as are the tables.

Research[edit]

  1. Research in this chapter is underemphasised compared to theory - the chapter could be improved by abbreviating the theory material and expanding the research review.
  2. Some statements are unreferenced (e.g., see the [factual?] tags)
  3. When describing important research studies, provide some indication of the nature of the method.
  4. When discussing important research findings, indicate the size of effects in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship.

Written expression[edit]

  1. Written expression
    1. The quality of written expression could be improved (e.g., see where clarification templates such as [Rewrite to improve clarity], [explain?], [say what?], and [vague] may have been added to the page).
    2. For academic writing in psychology, such as this book chapter, write in third person rather than first (e.g., avoid "I', "we", "our") or second (e.g., "you", "your" etc.) person perspective.
  2. Structure and headings
    1. Each section should start with at least one introductory paragraph before branching into sub-sections.
  3. Layout
    1. No images were used.
    2. Tables and Figures should be referred to in the main text.
  4. Integration with other chapters
    1. Little integration with other chapters is evident - Add interwiki links links to a wider range of other relevant chapters.
  5. Learning features
    1. Add Interwiki links (to relevant Wikipedia articles) to make the text more interactive.
    2. Quiz questions are used effectively to encourage reader engagement.
  6. Spelling
    1. Spelling could be improved - see the [spelling?] tags.
  7. Grammar and proofreading
    1. The grammar of some sentences could be improved (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags).
    2. Check and correct the use of ownership apostrophes (e.g., individuals vs. individual's vs. individuals').
  8. APA style
    1. Use APA style for table and figure captions.
    2. Check and correct the APA style for how to report numbers (Numbers under 10 should be written in words (e.g., five); numbers 10 and over should be written in numbers (e.g., 10)).
    3. The APA style for the reference list is very good; remove issue numbers for paginated journals.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


Multimedia feedback

The accompanying multimedia presentation has been marked according to the marking criteria. Marks are available via the unit's Moodle site. Written feedback is provided below, plus see the general feedback page. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below. If you would like further clarification about the marking or feedback, contact the unit convener.

Multimedia.png

Overall[edit]

  1. Overall, this is a basic, but sufficient presentation.

Structure and content[edit]

  1. Overview
    1. The Overview could take some more time to better explain MI (less time could be spent on the detailed theoretical aspects)
  2. Selection and organisation
    1. Well structured.
    2. SDT wasn't in the chapter - but is in the presentation?
    3. Otherwise, content well selected - perhaps less detailed theory might allow for an example - e.g., client-therapist dialogue scenario
    4. Research was reasonable - but, what, is the take-home message about the research findings?
    5. Include citations about evidence for claims.
  3. Conclusion
  4. Take-home messages / key points are well summarised.

Communication[edit]

  1. Audio
    1. Audio is reasonably well-paced.
    2. Consider using greater intonation to enhance engagement.[1]
  2. Video
    1. Consider including images.

Production quality[edit]

  1. Meta-data
    1. Rename the title so that it includes the subtitle (and matches the book chapter).
    2. A copyright license for the presentation is shown.
  2. Image and video recording quality
    1. Sufficient
  3. Audio recording quality
    1. Quality is low, mainly due to distortion.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)