Effectiveness of motivational interviewing with justice-involved people: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Psychosocial Intervention Psychosocial Intervention (2025) 34(1) 89-102 Cite this article as: Pinto e Silva, T., Gouveia, C., Santirso, F. A., Cunha, O., & Caridade, S. (2025). Effectiveness of motivational interviewing with justice-involved people: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PPsychosocial Intervention 34 (2), 89-102. https://doi.org/10.5093/pi2025a8 ISSN:1132-0559/© 2025 Colegio Oficial de la Psicología de Madrid. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Effectiveness of Motivational Interviewing with Justice-involved People: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Teresa Pinto e Silva1, Cláudia Gouveia1, Faraj A. Santirso2, Olga Cunha1, and Sónia Caridade1 1 Psychology Research Centre (CIPsi), University of Minho, Braga, Portugal; 2 University of Valencia, Spain https://journals.copmadrid.org/pi Funding : Teresa Pinto e Silva is supported by a PhD Fellowship from Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT; Ref. 2023.02008.BD). This work was conducted at Psychology Research Centre (CIPsi), School of Psychology, University of Minho, supported by FCT (UID/01662/2020) through the Portuguese State Budget. Correspondence: id11[email protected]t (T. Pinto e Silva). ARTICLE INFO Received 2 January 2025 Accepted 31 March 2025 Keywords: Motivational interviewing Justice-involved people Intervention programs Systematic review Meta-analysis ABSTRACT Objective: Motivational interviewing (MI) is increasingly recognized as an effective approach in forensic settings, particularly for overcoming resistance by avoiding confrontation and fostering intrinsic motivation. Research shows that interventions incorporating MI are more effective than other approaches in preventing and reducing offending behavior, highlighting its importance in improving intervention outcomes. Given this evidence, advocating for the integration of MI is crucial to enhance the effectiveness of interventions. Method: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to systematize knowledge and assess the effectiveness of interventions incorporating MI for justice-involved people who have been sentenced to custodial or non-custodial measures. Twenty-two studies were included. The total sample size of the studies ranged from 25 to 528 individuals convicted of various offences, including intimate partner violence, violent crimes, sexual offences, property crimes, driving offences, and drug offences. Results: Results indicated that MI is more effective in increasing session attendance and reducing dropout than interventions without MI. For official recidivism, evidence favored MI with a statistically significant reduction in recidivism rates. Conclusions: These findings highlight the importance of integrating MI into forensic settings, establishing its positive impact on numerous outcomes. The need for psychological intervention for justice-involved people is becoming increasingly urgent (Gonçalves et al., 2020). Andrews et al. (1990) introduced three general principles for effective correctional treatment: the risk, needs, and responsivity (RNR) principles. The RNR model of correctional assessment and treatment is rooted in general personality and cognitive social learning theories, incorporating criminal behavior and the key risk, need, and responsivity factors involved in crime prevention (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bonta & Andrews, 2016). This model emphasizes that i) interventions should target an individual’s risk of reoffending, ii) therapists should assess and prioritize the individual’s criminogenic needs in their interventions, and iii) interventions should be tailored to the individual’s learning style, strengths, abilities, and intrinsic motivation to foster positive behavioral change (Stinson & Clark, 2017). In this sense, it is important not to overlook the importance of motivational work (Gonçalves et al., 2020). Motivation for change is fundamental, and motivational interviewing (MI) has proven to be an innovative and effective approach when working with forensic populations, helping clients explore and resolve their ambivalence towards change (Gonçalves et al., 2020). When working with justice-involved people, it is important to first increase their engagement in the process of change (Polaschek & Wong, 2020). In this context, developing intervention programs that address the individual’s needs, characteristics, and risk level is fundamental (Gonçalves et al., 2020). In addition, various aspects should be considered, such as (i) the fact that the intervention is usually provided through a court order as an alternative to imprisonment and (ii) the context of the intervention itself (Gonçalves et al., 2020). Justice-involved people often approach intervention assessment with a lack of motivation to change and display argumentative behavior, impulsivity, and skepticism (Polaschek & Wong, 2020), and all these factors can increase resistance to intervention and undermine its success (Gonçalves et al., 2020). Consequently, intervention programs for these individuals must consider that the treatment process will be challenging and interventions must reflect all these challenges (Polaschek & Wong, 2020). For this reason, it is essential to adopt a motivational approach when working with justice-involved people in order to elicit changes in behavior and attitudes (Gonçalves et al., 2020). 90 T. Pinto e Silva et al. / Psychosocial Intervention (2025) 34(2) 89-102 Motivational Interviewing with Justice-involved People Intervention programs with justice-involved people tend to be highly structured and directive, which tends to increase resistance, and those with low motivation to change are less likely to benefit from this type of programs (Miller & Rollnick, 2002). MI appears to be an effective tool for managing this resistance by avoiding confrontation and promoting opportunities to enhance participants’ intrinsic motivation (Miller & Rollnick, 2016). MI is a collaborative communication approach designed to strengthen an individual’s motivation and commitment to a specific goal, stimulating and exploring the individual’s reasons for change in a climate of acceptance and compassion (Miller & Rollnick, 2016). MI enables the activation of an individual’s motivations and resources for change. Through high-quality reflective listening and a comprehensive communication style, it will be possible to promote a greater incidence of change talk – an individual’s own statements in favor of change – and unlock this ambivalence, develop commitment to change, and increase intrinsic motivation (Clark, 2019; Miller & Rollnick, 2016), which will be key aspects to integrate into an intervention program. The main objectives in using MI in forensic practice are to promote engagement in the supervision process and to elicit and explore an individual’s own motivations for change regarding relevant criminal risk factors and life areas (Tafrate et al., 2019). Intervention programs incorporating MI have been found to be more effective than other types of intervention in preventing and reducing the criminal conduct of justice-involved people (McMurran, 2009; Pinto e Silva et al., 2022; Santirso, Gilchrist, et al., 2020). Wong et al. (2007) suggested the integration of MI in intervention programs and showed an increase in motivation for change and a reduction in the risk of recidivism among more resistant people. Different studies have investigated the effectiveness of MI with justice-involved people. However, research has tended to focus on only one specific type of crime (e.g., intimate partner violence [IPV]), on a specific problematic (e.g., substance abuse), or on predominantly male samples. For example, Feldstein and Ginsburg (2006) reviewed the use of MI with juvenile justice populations, both male and female. They found that MI was effective in reducing substance use and increasing feelings of self-efficacy and emphasized the importance of using MI during the educational moment of entry into the juvenile justice system. A broader review of MI by McMurran (2009) analyzed its impact on various justice-involved populations. The review included 19 studies and found that while MI was most frequently used with substance abuse offenders, it was also applied to IPV perpetrators, drinkdriving offenders, and general offenders. Regarding gender, only one study in the review included both male and female justice-involved people in its sample. Regarding retention in treatment, results looked promising for substance abuse populations, though perhaps not for IPV perpetrators. In terms of behavior change, the effects of MI are ambiguous. There is mixed evidence for reductions in substance use, with both positive and negative outcomes. Additionally, there is also mixed evidence for reductions in offending, with positive effects on general offending, mixed results for drink-driving, and no effect on IPV. No distinctions were made with regard to gender. A review by Soleymani et al. (2018) analyzed the efficacy of MI as a pre-treatment intervention to promote commitment to treatment for men referred to attend IPV program. Results revealed a significant improvement among participants in engagement, session attendance, and homework compliance following MI. Santirso, Gilchrist, et al. (2020) and Pinto e Silva et al. (2022) evaluated the effectiveness of interventions that include MI for IPV male perpetrators. Santirso, Gilchrist, et al. found that IPV interventions that incorporated MI were significantly more effective in increasing the intervention dose and reducing dropout than interventions without MI. Additionally, for physical and psychological IPV and official recidivism, evidence favored interventions with MI, although not significantly. Pinto e Silva et al. found that MI had an influence on increasing attendance rates, treatment adherence, motivation for change, and other behavioral and attitudinal outcomes. Specifically, MI showed greater effectiveness among men with low readiness to change and in the early stages of change. Considering this, the present systematic review and metaanalysis aims to systematize knowledge and assess the effectiveness of interventions incorporating MI for justice-involved people sentenced to either custodial or non-custodial measures. It seeks to include both men and women, encompass various types of offences rather than focusing on a single category, and consider people serving both custodial and non-custodial sentences. These inclusions are intended to ensure that this systematic review and meta-analysis is as broad and comprehensive as possible, providing a deeper understanding of the effectiveness of MI in forensic contexts. Method This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Page et al., 2021) and was previously registered on the Open Science Framework [blind for review purposes]. Eligibility Criteria The following criteria were used to determine whether studies were eligible for inclusion: (i) men and women over 18 years old convicted for a crime, complying with custodial or non-custodial measures, (ii) address the application and/or evaluation of MI with individuals convicted of different types of crime, and (iii) peerreviewed original research articles. Only studies written in English, Spanish, and Portuguese were included. Studies representing grey literature, comments, reviews, conference articles, academic papers, books, and chapters of books were excluded. Search Strategies The literature search was conducted in January 2024 and updated in December 2024 in four databases (PubMed, Science Direct, PsycInfo, and Cochrane) using the following search strategy, which was adapted to each database’s specificities: (effectiveness OR efficacy) AND (motivational interviewing OR motivational strategies OR motivation*) AND (convicted OR custodial measures OR custodial settings OR prison) AND (community measures OR under probation OR probationer) AND (offend* OR agress* OR batterer OR perpetrator*) AND forens*. In addition, the reference lists of various reviews and meta-analyses were consulted. Literature Selection Process and Data Extraction Reference data were retrieved and exported to the Rayyan Management Software (Ouzzani et al., 2016). Duplicates were eliminated. Titles and abstracts were then screened by two coders (TS and CG) to determine if the articles met the inclusion criteria. Those that met the inclusion criteria were retrieved and fully read to reach a final decision (Figure 1). A codebook was developed to extract data from all the included manuscripts, including the following key characteristics: reference information, study characteristics, sample characteristics, design characteristics, intervention characteristics, and intervention 91 Motivational Interviewing with Offenders: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis results. All articles were independently coded by TS and CG, with a third reviewer (OC or SC) verifying all data. Discrepancies between coders were resolved through discussion with the third reviewer. Methodological Quality Assessment The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT; Hong et al., 2018) was used to assess the methodological quality of all studies included. This tool proved essential to limit the bias in synthesizing evidence. Five items are considered to assess the methodological quality of studies, depending on their quantitative design (e.g., randomized controlled trials, non-randomized trials). A detailed analysis of each criterion classification was conducted to identify the study’s weaknesses and inform the discussion on coder agreement. Two authors (TS and CG) independently assessed the studies’ methodological quality. Disagreements were resolved through discussion with another author. Records identified through database searching ( k = 611) Screening Additional records idenfied through other sources ( k = 17) Records after duplicates removed ( k = 394) Records screened ( k = 394) Records excluded ( k = 366) Full-text articles assessed for eligibility ( k = 28) Full-text articles excluded, with reasons ( k = 6) (2) Wrong sample (2) Review articles (2) Outcomes of interest not assessed Studies included ( k = 22) EligibilityIncluded Identification Figure 1. Flowchart. Table 1. Qualitative Assessment Author/s/Country Study design Quality criteria ( n ) Alexander et al., 2010/USA Randomized Controlled Trial 4 Anstiss et al., 2011/New Zealand Quasi-Experimental Study 5 Crane and Eckhardt, 2013/USA Randomized Controlled Trial 5 Cunha, Almeida, et al. 2024/Portugal Non-Randomized Controlled Trial 4 Easton et al., 2000/USA Randomized Controlled Trial 1 Kistenmacher and Weiss, 2008/USA Randomized Controlled Trial 4 Lerch et al., 2017/USA Randomized Controlled Trial 4 Lila et al., 2018/Spain Randomized Controlled Trial 4 Murphy et al., 2019/USA Randomized Controlled Trial 4 Musser et al., 2008/USA Randomized Controlled Trial 4 Owens and McCrady, 2016/USA Randomized Controlled Trial 4 Polcin et al., 2018/Canada Randomized Controlled Trial 4 Romero-Martínez, et al., 2019/Spain Randomized Controlled Trial 4 Santirso et al., 2020b/Spain Randomized Controlled Trial 4 Scott et al., 2011/Canada Randomized Controlled Trial 2 Shaul et al., 2016/the Netherlands Randomized Controlled Trial 4 Shaul et al., 2020/the Netherlands Randomized Controlled Trial 2 Soleymani et al., 2022/New Zealand Quasi-Experimental Study 3 Stein and Lebeau-Craven, 2002/USA Pilot Study 5 Stuart et al., 2013/USA Randomized Controlled Trial 4 Swogger et al., 2016/USA Randomized Controlled Trial 3 Zalmanowitz et al., 2013/Canada Quasi-Experimental Study 3 92 T. Pinto e Silva et al. / Psychosocial Intervention (2025) 34(2) 89-102 Table 2. Characteristics of the Studies ( k = 22) Included in the Systematic Review Author/s and country Sample size Sample Characteristics Gender (%) Setting Type of crime Treatment Control n Age M ( SD )Ethnicity or Nationality (%) n Age M ( SD )Ethnicity or Nationality (%) Alexander et al. (2010) USA 528 247 ES: 36.6 (9.9) SS: 31.4 (7.0) ES: Caucasian: 29.6 African American: 45.5 Latino: 11.1 Other: 13.3 SS: Caucasian: 0 African American: 0 Latino: 93.0 Other: 7.0 281 ES: 35.4 (10.4) SS: 33.3 (8.4) ES: Caucasian: 29.9 African American: 25.5 Latino: 14.4 Other: 10.2 SS: Caucasian: 2.0 African American: 0 Latino: 96.0 Other: 2.0 Men: 100 Probation IPV Anstiss, et al. (2011) New Zealand 116 58 34.3 (9.1) Mori: 55 Pacific Islands: 12 NZ European or other ethnicities: 33 58 34.4 (9.0) -Men: 100 Prison DC Cunha, Almeida, et al. (2024) Portugal 50 25 42.84 (9.26) Caucasian: 100 25 47.72 (12.79) Caucasian: 100 Men: 100 Probation IPV Crane and Eckhardt (2013) USA 82 48 34.0 (11.8) Caucasian: 37.5 African American: 60.4 34 33.9 (12.0) Caucasian: 58.8 African American: 41.2 Men: 100 Prison IPV Easton et al. (2000) USA 41 22 36.2 (13.4) Caucasian: 33 African American: 57 Hispanic: 5 Other: 5 19 33.2 (11.05) Caucasian: 26 African American: 63 Hispanic: 11 Other: 0 Men: 100 Probation IPV Kistenmacher and Weiss (2008) USA 33 16 35.1 (9.3) Euro American: 75 Native American: 13 African American: 6 Asian: 6 17 39.4 (12.1) Euro American: 94 Native American: 6 African American: 6 Asian: 6 Men: 100 Probation IPV Lerch, et al. (2017) USA 316 207 - - 109 - - Men and Women (% not indicated) Probation CAD Lila et al. (2018) Spain 160 80 46.36 (10.81) Spanish: 73.75 Latin American: 12.50 European (other than Spanish): 11.25 African: 2.5 Asian: 0 80 40.95 (12.29) Spanish: 70 Latin American: 13.75 European (other than Spanish): 7.50 African: 7.50 Asian: 1.25 Men: 100 Probation IPV Murphy et al. (2019) USA 228 110 33.25 (9.33) Asian / Asian American: 0 Black / African American: 54.5 Hispanic / Latino: 8.2 Native American: 0.9 Caucasian: 31.8 Other: 4.5 118 34.40 (11.00) Asian/Asian American: 1.7 Black/African American: 54.2 Hispanic/Latino: 13.6 Native American: 0.8 Caucasian: 29.7 Other: 0 Men: 100 Probation IPV Musser et al. (2008) USA 108 55 35.8 (7.9) -53 35.6 (9.40) -Men: 100 Probation IPV Owens and McCrady (2016) USA 40 23 34.8 (10.50) Hispanic: 17.4 Non-Hispanic White: 30.4 Native American/Alaskan Native: 21.7 African American: 13.0 Biracial/Multiracial/ Other: 17.4 17 33.7 (8.90) Hispanic: 41.2 Non-Hispanic White: 5.9 Native American/Alaskan Native: 11.8 African American: 0 Biracial/Multiracial /Other: 41.2 Men: 100 Prison CAD Polcin et al. (2018) Canada 330 149 39.3 (11.60) Caucasian: 45.6 African American: 30.9 Hispanic: 15.4 Other/mixed: 8.0 181 38.1 (11.90) Caucasian: 48.1 African American: 18.8 Hispanic: 22.1 Other/mixed: 11.0 Men: 74.2 Women: 25.8 Probation CAD Romero-Martínez et al. (2019) Spain 93 53 39.75 (10.19) Spanish: 70 Latin American: 12 Africans: 4 Eastern Europe Countries: 14 40 41.80 (10.69) Spanish: 75 Latin American: 8 Africans: 3 Eastern Europe Countries: 14 Men: 100 Prison IPV Santirso et al. (2020b) Spain 153 74 39.39 (11.66) Spanish: 73.4 Latin American: 10.1 European (other than Spanish): 7.6 African: 7.6 Asian: 1.3 79 41.99 (12.23) Spanish: 69.9 Latin American: 12.3 European (other than Spanish): 9.6 African: 6.8 Asian: 1.4 Men: 100 Probation IPV 93 Motivational Interviewing with Offenders: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Table 2. Characteristics of the Studies ( k = 22) Included in the Systematic Review (continued) Author/s and country Sample size Sample Characteristics Gender (%) Setting Type of crime Treatment Control n Age M ( SD )Ethnicity or Nationality (%) n Age M ( SD )Ethnicity or Nationality (%) Scott et al. (2011) Canada 486 243 36.33 (9.94) -243 35.49 (10.34) -Men: 100 Probation IPV Shaul et al. (2016) The Netherlands 220 111 37.1 (11.31) Native: 65.5 109 37.5 (10.66) Native: 68.8 Men: 100 Probation CAD Shaul et al. (2020) The Netherlands 220 111 37 The Netherlands: 65.5 109 38 The Netherlands: 68.8 Men: 100 Probation CAD Soleymani, et al. (2022) New Zealand 25 15 35.27 (11.10) NZ European: 80 Mori: 20 10 32 (9.84) NZ European: 60 Mori: 10 Pacific Islander: 20 Other: 10 Men: 100 Probation IPV Stein and LebeaCraven (2002) USA 38 38 32.44 (6.97) Caucasian: 100 - - - Men: 100 Prison DWI Stuart et al. (2013) USA 252 123 31.5 (9.60) Caucasian: 71.5 Black: 8.1 Hispanic/Latino: 15.4 Other race: 4.9 129 31.6 (9.90) Caucasian: 72.1 Black: 11.6 Hispanic/ Latino: 12.4 Other race: 3.9 Men: 100 Probation IPV Swogger et al. (2016) USA 115 53 33.1 (10.00) Caucasian: 45.3 Black: 39.6 Other race: 15.1 52 33.8 (11.80) Caucasian: 50 Black: 46.2 Other race: 3.8 Men: 64.8 Women: 35.2 Probation DC Zalmanowitz et al. (2013) Canada 211 105 33.1 -106 36.08 -Men: 100 Probation IPV Alexander et al. (2010) USA IPV Perpetration Readiness to change Motivational Interviewing Group 26 sessions No additional intervention -6 and 12 months Anstiss et al. (2011) New Zealand Stage of Change Recidivism Brief MI Intervention Individual 4 sessions, 1 hour Cognitive-behavioral or Psycho-educational 70 hours (group intervention) 9 weeks Cunha, Almeida, et al. (2024) Portugal Treatment compliance Motivation to change IPV Perpetration IPV risk MI Techniques Individual 4 to 6 session, 60 minutes each Cognitive-behavioral and Psycho-educational 18 sessions, 90-120 minutes each (group intervention) No followup Crane and Eckhardt (2013) USA Readiness to change Brief Motivational Enhancement Individual 1 session, 45-55 minutes No additional intervention -6 months Easton et al. (2000) USA Motivation to change Motivational Enhancement Intervention Not specified 1 session Psycho-educational 10 sessions (group intervention) No followup Kistenmacher and Weiss (2008) USA Stage of change Motivational Interviewing Individual 1 session, 50-60 minutes No additional intervention -No followup Lerch et al. (2017) USA Substance use Recidivism risk i. Motivational Interviewing and ii. Motivational Computer Intervention Individual 2 sessions, 45 minutes each No additional intervention -2 and 6 months Lila et al. (2018) Spain Recidivism Treatment compliance Stage of change Individualized Motivational Plan Individual and group 5 sessions, 1 hour + 3 group sessions Cognitive-behavioral 5 sessions, 70 hours (group intervention) 6 months Murphy et al. (2019) USA reatment compliance Readiness to change Substance use IPV risk Motivational Enhancement Therapy Individual 4 sessions No additional intervention -3, 6, 9, and 12 months Musser et al. (2008) USA eadiness to change Working alliance Treatment compliance Motivational Interviewing Individual 2 sessions Cognitive-behavioral 16 sessions (group intervention) No followup Owens and McCrady (2016) USA Treatment compliance Readiness to change Substance use Motivational Interviewing Individual 1 session, 50-60 minutes No additional intervention -28 to 49 days after release 94 T. Pinto e Silva et al. / Psychosocial Intervention (2025) 34(2) 89-102 Statistical Analysis Standardized mean differences (SMD) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios ( OR ) for dichotomous outcomes were employed as the primary summary measures in this meta-analysis. The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each study included were calculated. A random-effects model was adopted to manage the expected heterogeneity among the studies, with heterogeneity assessed using the I² statistic as outlined by Higgins et al. (2003), where values of 25%, 50%, and 75% indicate low, moderate, and high heterogeneity, respectively. This model choice reflects the diversity in study outcomes and methodologies. Preference was given to data analyzed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis, aligning with recommendations for preserving the random assignment and maintaining external validity in meta-analysis (Ahn & Kang et al., 2023; Bai et al., 2021). The ITT approach mitigates bias by including all participants as originally allocated, thus providing a more realistic measure of intervention effectiveness. When studies reported multiple follow-up periods, data from the longest followup were selected to comprehensively assess any enduring effects of the interventions (Cuzick, 2023). Meta-analyses were carried out using the Metafor package (Viechtbauer, 2010) within the R software environment (R Core Team, 2021). Results Screening and Study Selection Our electronic database search yielded 628 references, 234 out of them were duplicates and consequently removed. Thus, 394 titles were screened to assess eligibility and 366 were excluded because they were unrelated to the topic. Then, 28 articles were analyzed. Of those, six were excluded because they did not meet the eligibility criteria. The main reasons for exclusion were: (i) the sample did not meet the inclusion criteria (e.g., Tafrate et al., 2023), (ii) the studies were review articles (e.g., Santirso, Gilchrist, et al., 2020), and (iii) the outcomes of interest were not assessed (e.g., Cowell, et al., 2018). As a result, 22 manuscripts were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis and marked with an “*” in the references’ section. The main results are displayed in Table 1 (Qualitative Assessment), Table 2 (Characteristics of the studies [ k = 22] included in the Systematic Review), and Table 3 (Main Results of the Studies [ k = 22] included in the Systematic Review). Quality Assessment Of the twenty-two studies included, three met all the criteria of excellent, eleven presented four out of five criteria, three showed Table 2. Characteristics of the Studies ( k = 22) Included in the Systematic Review (continued) Author/s and country Dimensions evaluated Motivational intervention Complementary intervention Length of follow-up Type of intervention MI Modality Number of sessions (or hours) Type of intervention Number of sessions (or hours) Polcin et al. (2018) Canada Substance use Social network Motivation to change Motivational Interviewing Individual 3 initial sessions + monthly sessions for 12 months No additional intervention -6 and 12 months RomeroMartínez et al. (2019) Spain Empathy Individualized Motivational Plan Individual and group 5 sessions, 1 hour + 3 group sessions Cognitive-behavioral 35 sessions, 70 hours (group intervention) 9 months Santirso et al. (2020b) Spain Working alliance Protherapeutic behaviors Individualized Motivational Plan Individual and group 5 sessions, 1 hour + 3 group sessions Cognitive-behavioral 35 sessions, 70 hours (group intervention) Postintervention Scott et al. (2011) Canada Treatment compliance Accountability Motivation Enhancing Intervention Group 6 weeks Duluth-style 10 weeks (group intervention) Postintervention Shaul et al. (2016) The Netherlands Recidivism Motivation Enhancing Intervention Individual 4-6 sessions of 1520 minutes No additional intervention -12 months Shaul et al. (2020) The Netherlands Treatment initiation Substance use Motivation Enhancing Intervention Individual 4-6 sessions of 1520 minutes No additional intervention -12 months Soleymani et al. (2022) New Zealand Readiness to change Treatment compliance Motivation to change Motivational Interviewing Individual 2 sessions, 20-40 minutes IPV intervention 12-16 sessions, 2.5 hours (group intervention) or 6-12 sessions, 1 hour (individual intervention) No followup Stein and Lebeau-Craven (2002) USA Coping skills Motivational Interviewing Individual MI: 1 session Psycho-educational 4 weeks (group intervention) No followup Stuart et al. (2013) USA Substance use IPV risk Brief Alcohol Intervention Individual 1 session, 90 minutes Standard Batterer Intervention Program 40 hours (group intervention) 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up Swogger et al. (2016) USA Substance use Psychopathy Brief Motivational Intervention Individual 4 sessions, 40 minutes Standard Intervention Not indicated 6-month follow-up Zalmanowitz et al. (2013) Canada Stage of change Global functioning Motivational Interviewing Individual 2 sessions Cognitivebehavioral 14 weeks (group intervention) No followup Note. ES = English-speaking; SS = Spanish-speaking; IPV = intimate partner violence; DC = diverse crimes; CAD = crimes related to alcohol and drugs use; DWI = driving while intoxicated. 95 Motivational Interviewing with Offenders: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Table 3. Main Results of the Studies ( k = 22) Included in the Systematic Review Author/s, year of publication Main results Alexander et al. (2010) USA Violence reported by the victim: Significantly fewer partners of men assigned to the SOCMI treatment condition as opposed to the CBTGR condition reported having experienced physical aggression at follow-up; The two treatment conditions did not differ concerning partner follow-up reports of psychological aggression. Readiness to change: Men who were less ready to change at intake were more likely to benefit from the SOCMI condition, while men who were more ready to change at intake were more likely to benefit from the standard CBTGR condition. Anstiss, et al. (2011) New Zealand Recidivism: The overall reconviction rate was 57% for the treatment group, and 78% for the control group. Also, 24% of the treatment condition participants were re-imprisoned, compared to 41% of the control condition participants. Stage of Change: The mean change for treatment condition participants represented a move from the Precontemplation to Contemplation stage, while control condition participants remained midway between Precontemplation and Contemplation. Crane and Eckhardt (2013) USA Treatment compliance: 72.9% of the treatment group had either successfully completed their BIP or remained in good standing 6 months post-adjudication, relative to control participants (50%). Readiness to Change: Regarding participants low in readiness to change, 82.6% of the treatment group were more likely to be compliant with treatment, relative to the control group (41.2%). Cunha, Almeida, et al. (2024) Portugal Treatment compliance: Although SPIP plus MIT participants revealed higher treatment adherence than SPIP alone participants, results did not reach statistical significance. Stage of change: Participants in treatment group finished the intervention in a more advanced stage of change than the participants in the control condition. Readiness to change: SPIP plus MIT participants revealed more readiness to change than participants in the SPIP alone condition. IPV perpetration: Participants from the treatment group presented lower scores of perpetration of global violence and physical and psychological violence than the control group. IPV risk: Both groups showed significant reductions at post-treatment, with larger effect sizes for the treatment group. Dropout: Dropout rate was high in both groups. Easton et al. (2000) USA Motivation to change: At post-session, individuals reported an increase in their motivation to take steps to change their substance use. Kistenmacher & Weiss, 2008 USA Stage of change: The treatment group demonstrated a significant pre-to-post increase in self-reported action toward changing their violent behavior and the control group reported taking less action over time. Responsibility for the abuse: Men who received the MI intervention were able to take more responsibility for their behavior than those who did not receive MI. Lerch, et al., 2017 USA Treatment initiation: Participants of the treatment groups were more likely to report treatment initiation, compared to the control group. Also, the odds of initiating treatment for those assigned to the treatment condition were 65% higher than those assigned to the control condition. Lila et al. (2018) Spain Recidivism: At post-intervention, participants assigned to the treatment condition showed 1.36 times lower risk of recidivism levels informed by therapists. Stage of change: At post-intervention, treatment group participants showed 1.11 times higher stage of change levels. Treatment compliance: Treatment group participants attended 3.82 more sessions than control group participants. Self-reported violence: At post-intervention, participants assigned to the treatment condition were 1.79 times less likely to perpetrate acts of physical violence than the participants in the control condition. Dropout: 23% of participants dropped out of the treatment. Musser et al. (2008) USA Treatment compliance: MI sessions significantly enhanced treatment engagement and help-seeking behavior. Readiness to change: MI sessions did not significantly alter treatment session attendance or subjective self-reports of readiness to change. Working alliance: MI participants revealed a stronger working alliance than SI participants. Murphy et al. (2019) USA Substance use: Participants on the treatment condition displayed greater acknowledgment of alcohol problems. Owens and McCrady (2016) USA Substance use: Compared to pre-incarceration, only the treatment group had significant increases in abstinence and percentage of days only using drug significantly decreased. Social networks: The treatment group reduced both the proportion of heavy drug users and users of any kind in their social networks from preto post-incarceration. Polcin et al. (2018) Canada Recidivism: At 6-months follow-up, arrests and convictions were lower among participants in the treatment condition. Substance use: Women assigned to the treatment condition reported higher rates of abstinence at 12 months compared to the control group. Romero-Martínez et al. (2019) Spain Empathy: Only the treatment group became more accurate in decoding emotional facial signals and improved their perspective taking after the intervention program. Santirso et al. (2020b) Spain Working alliance: Participants on the treatment condition showed higher general working alliance. Protherapeutic behaviors: Participants on the treatment condition showed higher responsibility for abuse early and late in intervention. Also, participants in this condition had significantly higher participant role behavior scores. Scott et al. (2011) Canada Treatment compliance: Completion rates for resistant clients attending MET (84.2%) were higher than those of both the resistant clients in standard intervention (46.5%) and for non-resistant clients (61.1%). Dropout: Resistant batterers who attended 6 weeks of MET followed by 10 weeks of a standard program were much less likely to dropout than resistant men attending 16-weeks of standard treatment. Shaul et al. (2016) The Netherlands Treatment compliance: On average, the treatment group completed 4.8 steps out of 7 of the intervention. Shaul et al. (2020) The Netherlands Substance use treatment: During the 12-month follow-up period, 46.8% of the 111 offenders from the treatment condition and 47.7% of the 109 offenders from the control condition remained for at least 90 days in substance abuse treatment. 96 T. Pinto e Silva et al. / Psychosocial Intervention (2025) 34(2) 89-102 three out of five criteria, two showed two out of five criteria and one showed one out of five criteria. Results are presented in Table 1. Qualitative Analysis Of the included articles, most were designed as Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT; k = 17) with only five studies using a different design: quasi-experimental studies ( k = 2), a non-randomized controlled trial ( k = 1), and a pilot study ( k = 1). The publication years of the articles ranged from 2000 to 2024. The highest number of publications occurred in 2013 and 2016, with three studies each, followed by 2020, 2019, 2018, 2011, and 2008, each with two studies. The majority of the studies were conducted in the United States of America (USA; k = 11). Six studies were carried out in Europe, mostly in Spain ( k = 3). The other three European studies were conducted in the Netherlands ( k = 2) and in Portugal ( k = 1). Additionally, two studies were conducted in New Zealand and three in Canada. Seventeen studies were delivered with people in probation and five with people in prison. The total sample size of the studies ranged between 25 and 528 individuals. Regarding treatment condition, the sample size for the treatment group ranged between 15 and 247, and for the control group between 10 and 281. Regarding the gender of the participants, most of the studies were conducted on men ( k = 19), with only three of them being conducted on both men and women. No studies conducted only with women were found. Most of the studies included participants who had been convicted of IPV (k = 14). Five studies included individuals convicted of drugrelated offences. Two studies included various types of crimes, such as violence, sexual, property, drug, and driving offences, and one study included participants convicted for driving while intoxicated (DWI). Studies used MI to assess its effectiveness in a variety of ways: i) in increasing intervention’s efficacy ( k = 6), ii) in increasing treatment initiation and compliance ( k = 6), iii) in reducing recidivism ( k = 3), and iv) regarding its impact on other outcomes such as substance use ( k = 4), empathy ( k = 1), working alliance ( k = 1), global functioning ( k = 1), and violence perpetration ( k = 2). Regarding the type of MI intervention used, 12 studies conducted interventions that focused on MI as described by Miller and Rollnick (2023), one of which was delivered online. Besides the usual MI intervention, three different types of motivational intervention were identified, such as: i) the Individualized Motivational Plan (IMP; k = 3), ii) motivation enhancing interventions ( k = 6), with one of them being a briefer intervention, and iii) the Brief Alcohol Intervention (BAI). IMP includes a set of motivational strategies to increase treatment compliance and motivation for change and is based on MI, the stages of change approach, solution-focused brief therapy, the good lives model, and therapeutic alliance (Lila et al., 2018). Motivation enhancing interventions are based on the principles of MI and include personalized assessment feedback on the treatment target (Murphy et al., 2018; Scott et al., 2011). BAI relies on MI techniques to minimize resistance and includes building rapport, expressing empathy, and personalized feedback regarding alcohol use and IPV (Stuart et al., 2013). The majority of the MI interventions were conducted individually ( k = 16). Two studies conducted their interventions in a group format and three conducted in both formats (individual and group). The duration of the MI individual interventions ranged between one and 26 sessions. Each session lasted 15 to 90 minutes. In addition to the MI intervention, 13 studies included a complementary intervention. Five of them added a cognitivebehavioral intervention and two added a psychoeducational intervention. Two studies added either a cognitive-behavioral or psychoeducational intervention and one added a Duluth style intervention. The other three studies did not specify the type of intervention added. In terms of length of follow-up, it was more common to conduct a single follow-up session ( k = 10), at six ( k = 3) and 12 months ( k = 2); or two or more follow-up sessions ( k = 5): i) at two and six months and six and 12 months, ii) at three, six, and 12 months, and iii) at three, six, nine, and 12 months. Treatment Compliance and Initiation Regarding treatment compliance and initiation, there were little differences between applying a MI intervention alone or complementing it with other interventions as both conditions showed that MI was successful in improving participants’ compliance with treatment. For MI intervention alone, Lerch et al. (2017) found that the odds of initiating treatment for those assigned to the treatment condition were 65% higher than those assigned to the control condition. Shaul et al. (2016) found that the treatment group completed 4.8 steps out of seven of their intervention and Crane and Eckhardt (2013) found that 82.6% of the treatment group were more likely to be compliant with treatment, relative to the control group (41.2%). For MI complemented with other intervention, Cunha, Pedrosa, et al. (2024), Lila et al. (2018), Scott et al. (2011), and Soleymani et al. (2022) found that the treatment group attended more sessions compared to the control group. Specifically, Scott et al. (2011) found that treatment completion rates for resistant clients attending MI intervention were higher than those of both the resistant clients in standard intervention and for non-resistant clients. In addition, Author/s, year of publication Main results Soleymani, et al. (2022) New Zealand Treatment compliance: The treatment group attended more intervention sessions compared to the control group. Stein and Lebeau-Craven (2002) USA Coping skills: Results suggest improvement in clients identifying triggers to relapse as well as aspects of their lives that may assist in preventing relapse. Stuart, et al. (2013) USA Substance use: Participants in the treatment condition showed improved alcohol outcomes at 3-month follow-up. Violence perpetration: Participants in the treatment condition showed less severe physical aggression at 3-month follow-up, less severe psychological aggression, and fewer injuries to partners at 3and 6-month follow-up. Swogger, et al. (2016) USA Psychopathy: For participants both low in affective traits of psychopathy and with sufficient emotional range, the treatment showed sufficient effectiveness in minimizing resistance and in eliciting ideas about change. Zalmanowitz et al. (2013) Canada Global functioning: Individuals in the later stages of change (specifically, preparation and action) scored significantly higher on the OQ, while individuals in the earlier stages of change (precontemplation and contemplation) scored significantly lower on the OQ. The average difference on the OQ score was almost 6 points, from preto post-test. Men who engaged in MI sessions reported less distress on the OQ regardless of their stage of change. Table 3. Main Results of the Studies ( k = 22) Included in the Systematic Review (continued) 97 Motivational Interviewing with Offenders: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Musser et al. (2008) found that MI sessions significantly enhanced treatment engagement and help-seeking behavior. Dropout Rates Regarding treatment dropout, Crane and Eckhardt (2013) reported that 72.9% of the treatment group remained in good standing six months post-adjudication compared to 50% in the control group, revealing the positive effects of MI. Also, Scott et al. (2011) found that resistant participants in the treatment condition were less likely to dropout than those in the control condition. On the other hand, Lila et al. (2018) found no significant effect of MI on reducing dropout rates, with 20% of the treatment group dropping out compared to 26.25% in the control group. Similarly, Cunha, Pedrosa, et al. (2024) reported high dropout rates in both groups. Impact on Substance Use Substance use was one of the most studied dimensions and various results regarding MI’s effectiveness were found. Murphy et al. (2019) found MI to be beneficial in increasing participant’s recognition of alcohol problems, while Stuart et al. (2013) observed general improvements in alcohol outcomes for the treatment group. Regarding substance abstinence, both Owens and McCrady (2016) and Polcin et al. (2018) reported significant increases in substance abstinence among MI groups compared to the controls. Notably, Polcin et al. (2018) found higher abstinence rates in women at 12-month follow-up compared to the control group. However, regarding substance use treatment, Shaul et al. (2020) found minimal differences between conditions, with 46.8% of the treatment group and 47.7% of the control group remaining in substance abuse treatment for at least 90 days. Considering participants’ motivation to change their substance use, Easton et al. (2000) reported that participants showed increased motivation to take steps toward change at post sessions. Recidivism Rates Regarding recidivism, studies have found that MI has an impact on reducing recidivism in both conditions. Polcin et al. (2018) applied MI as a stand-alone intervention and found that at six-months follow-up participants in the treatment condition evidenced a lower number of arrests and convictions compared to those in the control condition. Both Anstiss et al. (2011) and Lila et al. (2018) employed MI alongside a complementary intervention. Anstiss et al. (2011) found that 57% of the treatment group were reconvicted and 24% were re-imprisoned, compared to 78% reconvicted and 41% re-imprisoned in the control group. Lila et al. (2018) found no differences between the treatment group and the control group, although the treatment group had 1.36 times lower risk of recidivism than the control group. Change Outcomes In terms of change outcomes, Owens and McCrady (2016) found that after MI the treatment group reduced the proportion of drug users in their social networks from preto post-incarceration. Additionally, Anstiss et al. (2011), Cunha, Pedrosa, et al. (2024), Lila et al. (2018), and Kistenmacher and Weiss (2008) found that the participants in the treatment condition concluded the intervention at more advanced stages of change, compared to those in the control condition. More specifically, Anstiss et al. (2011) found that the mean motivation of MI participants increased from 1.4 ( SD = 0.50) to 2.4 ( SD = 1.1), whereas the control group’s mean motivation was more stable, with a pre-treatment score of 1.15 ( SD = 0.53) and a post-treatment score of 1.4 ( SD = 0.55). Similar results were found by Lila et al. (2018), with the mean motivation of MI participants increasing from 1.11 ( SD = 0.32) to 2.86 ( SD = 1.46), and that of the control group increasing slightly from 1.16 ( SD = 0.40) to 1.99 (SD = 1.13). Regarding readiness to change, there were distinct findings. While Alexander et al. (2010) and Cunha, Pedrosa, et al. (2024) found that participants with lower readiness to change benefited more from the MI intervention, Musser et al. (2008) found that MI sessions did not significantly alter self-reports of readiness to change. Other Outcomes Other outcomes were identified, both in MI intervention alone and in MI with a complementary intervention. Regarding MI intervention alone, Alexander et al. (2010) observed that at follow-up physical violence reports by the victim significantly decreased among participants in the treatment condition as opposed to the participants in the control condition. However, there were no differences regarding reports of psychological violence. Kistenmacher and Weiss (2008) found that participants who received the MI intervention were able to take more responsibility for their behavior than those who did not receive MI. Regarding MI complemented with other intervention, Cunha, Pedrosa, et al. (2024), Lila et al. (2018), and Stuart et al. (2013) found a positive influence of MI regarding violence perpetration, with the treatment being effective in reducing the likelihood of perpetration of both global violence and physical and psychological violence. Regarding IPV risk, Cunha, Pedrosa, et al. (2024) found that both groups showed significant reductions at post-treatment, with larger effect sizes for the treatment group. Romero-Martínez et al. (2019) observed that the treatment group demonstrated enhanced accuracy in decoding emotional facial signals and improved perspective-taking abilities following the intervention. Musser et al. (2008) and Santirso, Lila, et al. (2020) observed that participants in the treatment condition revealed a stronger working alliance than participants in the control condition. Additionally, Santirso, Lila, et al. found that, regarding protherapeutic behaviors, participants in the treatment condition exhibited greater responsibility for abuse, a higher overall working alliance, and higher scores in agreement and bond. Swogger et al. (2016) observed that the treatment was effective in minimizing resistance and in eliciting ideas about change among participants with low affective traits of psychopathy and sufficient emotional range. Stein and Lebeau-Craven (2002) found that the MI intervention improved the participants’ ability of identifying triggers to relapse as well as aspects of their lives that may assist in preventing relapse. Zalmanowitz et al. (2013) observed that participants in the later stages of change (specifically, preparation, and action) scored significantly higher on the global functioning instrument (OQ), while individuals in the earlier stages of change (precontemplation and contemplation) scored significantly lower. Meta-analysis The main outcomes analyzed in the meta-analysis were session attendance, dropout, and recidivism. The rest of the outcomes could not be analyzed due to the great variability in the measures used in the reviewed studies. Results for the outcomes analyzed are shown in Figures 2-7. Session Attendance Four trials, comprising 527 participants (Crane & Eckhardt, 2013; Lila et al., 2018; Murphy et al., 2018; Musser et al., 2008), were