An Evaluation of Training for Lay Providers in the Use of Motivational Interviewing to Promote Academic Achievement Among Urban Youth

Introduction: Addressing pervasive low academic performance among low-income and minority students continues to challenge educators nationwide. The concomitant effects of poverty, neighborhood depravity, and crime often negatively impact students’ academic motivation (Whitaker et al., 2012). In addition, lack of structural supports at school can exacerbate disengagement and academic amotivation (Mickelson, 1990; Whitaker et al., 2012).

To promote academic achievement, many under-resourced schools rely heavily on lay persons, who volunteer to provide academic support to students. Among these providers, turnover is often high because of limited funding for training. To retain this vital community resource, quality training of lay service providers is necessary. Such training will equip providers to meet the academic, social-emotional and behavioral health needs of youth ( ASCA, 2004; Haski-Leventhal & Cnaan, 2009). 

Motivational interviewing (MI; Miller & Rollnick, 2002) is one approach that has demonstrated preliminary evidence of increasing students’ academic engagement and motivation (Strait et al., 2012).  However, MI training methods for school-based lay persons have been understudied (Madson et al., 2009). Thus, we studied MI training outcomes for lay service providers who worked with low-income and minority students enrolled in a mid-sized urban school district in New England.

Method: Twenty lay providers (30 % male, 70 % female) participated in an MI training program that included a16-hour workshop, a 2-hour booster session and ongoing group supervision. At pretest and after the workshop, we assessed providers’ MI knowledge and skill using the MI Knowledge and Attitudes Test for Evaluation of Training Outcomes (Leffingwell, 2006), and the Video Assessment of Simulated Encounters-Revised (VASE-R; Rosengren, et al., 2005).  The Change Questionnaire assessed participants’ motivation to learn MI and their self-efficacy for MI (Miller et al., 2005). 

Results: We used paired-samples t-tests to examine the effects of the MI training program on MI knowledge and skill. We found that MI training was associated with increased knowledge about MI and increased MI proficiency, as indicated by scores on the VASE-R (t=-7.62, df = 16, p<.001). Additionally, high motivation to learn MI and high self-efficacy for MI were observed among lay providers at pretest and maintained at posttest (t=.11, df = 17, p=.91).

Conclusions: Participation in an MI training program was associated with increased MI knowledge and increased proficiency when responding to simulated clients. These findings are consistent with training outcomes observed for health professionals (Madson et al., 2009). Implications for fidelity of implementation of MI for lay providers are discussed.