Module 8: OARS

Module 8: OARS (graded)
Samantha:

Hi all,

I believe someone who has little to no insight to reality, such as schizophrenia or other psychotic symptoms, would not be able to see the need for change, and thus may not find OARS of MI beneficial. MI helps people become motivated to change the behaviors that are preventing them from making healthier choices (Psychology Today, 2017),
(Links to an external site.)
and one who is out of touch with reality may not even realize they need to make healthier choices. They may exhibit a defensive bias, which according to Rosengren (2018), is the tendency to minimize the impact of personally threatening information. This tendency can present a challenge with MI.

One way to still engage people that have this tendency, is to have them explore the positive aspects of a problem area, before asking about the less positive aspects. This may reduce their defense mechanisms.

Reference:

Rosengren, D. B. (2018). Building motivational interviewing skills : a practitioner workbook (p. 70). The Guilford Press.

Module 8: Self-Reflection (graded)
Jerry:

Self-reflect on a potential client that you may have had an interaction with or you are soon to have an interaction with. If you do not have one at the moment, think of potential and prospective one if possible. How would you respond in a clinical manner to a client who is not responding well to an interview using MI skills?

If I had a client that was not responding well to a my MI skill I would then start asking open-ended questions, I would ask how do you feel I am approaching you with this. Do you feel that I am not assisting you how you feel it would help? I would get the dialogue started to get info from the client, which I would fallow up with a reflection, so you do not like to speak to me because you feel as if I don’t understand, when I am trying to understand but maybe I’m not fully grasping this. In which I would then ask, can you think of a way in which I might understand this better so I can better help you.

How would that influence and impact the progress of the treatment and services provided to the client and the relationship to be established between the two of you?

I believe that because I am forthright and direct with people, they will know that I care and I want to understand better how I can help them and that if I don’t understand it’s not that I am unwilling to. They will see that because I care about their wellbeing that they will know I am trying to connect with them to better understand, I think this would also show clients that have trust issues to feel more comfortable with me; due to asking how they feel about our session.

Module 8: Statistical Conclusion and Validity (graded)
Joseph:

Given a Common probability value of .05, and using 1-a to determine the alpha (or the likelihood that the null hypothesis will be correctly rejected) there would be a 95% likelihood that the null hypothesis would be correctly rejected. This however is prior to taking the Beta into account which is the probability of a type II error occurring. A type II error is “failing to reject a false null hypothesis in favor of a true alternative hypothesis” (https://www.statisticsteacher.org/2017/09/15/what-is-power/
(Links to an external site.)
). Using the equation 1-Beta, we can determine the probability of a type II error occurring. Here we have a Beta of .42 therefore 1 – 0.42 = 0.58. Meaning that there is a 58% probability that a type II error will occur within this study.

Cohen’s D is a type of effect size between two different means and allows researchers to observe the differences between groups. Given the d value of .028 in this study, it can be determined that the differences between the standard deviations would be small and would be “too small to see with the naked eye” (https://toptipbio.com/cohens-d/
(Links to an external site.)
)

When combining the above factors there are some possible errors that present themselves and would likely need to be addressed, specifically as it relates to the validity of the study. One such issue is that the sample size is so small and the deviation between the two test groups is too small to make an accurate determination. Also given that there is 58% chance of a type II error occurring, meaning that a true null hypothesis could be rejected then it is my opinion that this study needs to be reevaluated so that more accurate results can be determined.