Skip to main content



Child-Maltreatment-Research-L (CMRL) List Serve

Database of Past CMRL Messages

Welcome to the database of past Child-Maltreatment-Research-L (CMRL) list serve messages. The table below contains all past CMRL messages (text only, no attachments) from Nov. 20, 1996 - December 22, 2017 and is updated quarterly.

Instructions: Postings are listed for browsing with the newest messages first. Click on the linked ID number to see a message. You can search the author, subject, message ID, and message content fields by entering your criteria into this search box:

Message ID: 8662
Date: 2010-10-13

Author:Chaffin, Mark J. (HSC)

Subject:RE: motivational interviewing

In a recent study, we randomized a fairly severe cohort of child welfare parents (mean of around 6 prior referrals, mostly neglect) in a 2 X 2 sequentially randomized design to a motivational interviewing based orientation condition vs. a standard care orientation; then afterwards randomized them to either PCIT or a standard parent group condition. This was a field study, i.e. not done in a laboratory or university, but in a front-line service setting. The retention findings are described in Chaffin, et al. (2009) in the journal Child Maltreatment; and the downstream recidivism findings are described in Chaffin, et al (in press) in the J. of Consulting and Clinical Psych. Those interested in the details will probably be able to locate these. The digest version: Both retention and downstream recidivism were substantially better with the combination of the MI based pre-treatment and PCIT. Either one, by itself didn't have much effect, but the combination appeared fairly powerful for achieving outcomes. This suggests that one may need to combine motivational approaches with an EBT parenting program in order to improve outcomes. If you combine MI with a more regular didactic "talk" parenting group, you get no advantage. The findings extend, but also replicate those of our 2004 (J. Cons. and Clinical) laboratory randomized trial that also found reduced recidivism from the motivational + PCIT package with less deeply chronic physically abusive parents. The note of caution in the study, which has precedent in the substance abuse MI literature, is that motivational approaches with relatively more motivated clients may not be beneficial or may reduce retention, so there may be some clinical value in applying MI selectively, which is fairly standard MI practice. Also, the effect of motivation + PCIT tended to be concentrated among those parents who either had their children or got children back from foster care sooner rather than later (e.g. had opportunity to apply and practice the skills). But. we found it encouraging that this combination was able to achieve some fairly substantial recidivism reductions even among some of child welfare's most chronic and severe cases (e.g. many were on the verge of TPR and had been through multiple past service episodes). MC ________________________________________ From: Todd McDonald [tmac5528@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 4:35 PM Subject: motivational interviewing Is there any evidence that motivational interviewing works with child welfare populations? We are looking specifically for studies that used a rigorous design, the best case would be a randomized trial. Todd

In a recent study, we randomized a fairly severe cohort of child welfare parents (mean of around 6 prior referrals, mostly neglect) in a 2 X 2 sequentially randomized design to a motivational interviewing based orientation condition vs. a standard care orientation; then afterwards randomized them to either PCIT or a standard parent group condition. This was a field study, i.e. not done in a laboratory or university, but in a front-line service setting. The retention findings are described in Chaffin, et al. (2009) in the journal Child Maltreatment; and the downstream recidivism findings are described in Chaffin, et al (in press) in the J. of Consulting and Clinical Psych. Those interested in the details will probably be able to locate these. The digest version: Both retention and downstream recidivism were substantially better with the combination of the MI based pre-treatment and PCIT. Either one, by itself didn't have much effect, but the combination appeared fairly powerful for achieving outcomes. This suggests that one may need to combine motivational approaches with an EBT parenting program in order to improve outcomes. If you combine MI with a more regular didactic "talk" parenting group, you get no advantage. The findings extend, but also replicate those of our 2004 (J. Cons. and Clinical) laboratory randomized trial that also found reduced recidivism from the motivational + PCIT package with less deeply chronic physically abusive parents. The note of caution in the study, which has precedent in the substance abuse MI literature, is that motivational approaches with relatively more motivated clients may not be beneficial or may reduce retention, so there may be some clinical value in applying MI selectively, which is fairly standard MI practice. Also, the effect of motivation + PCIT tended to be concentrated among those parents who either had their children or got children back from foster care sooner rather than later (e.g. had opportunity to apply and practice the skills). But. we found it encouraging that this combination was able to achieve some fairly substantial recidivism reductions even among some of child welfare's most chronic and severe cases (e.g. many were on the verge of TPR and had been through multiple past service episodes). MC ________________________________________ From: Todd McDonald [tmac5528yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 4:35 PM Subject: motivational interviewing Is there any evidence that motivational interviewing works with child welfare populations? We are looking specifically for studies that used a rigorous design, the best case would be a randomized trial. Todd