Psychosocial In e en ion
Psychosocial In e en ion (2025) 34(1) 89-102
Ci e his a icle as: Pin o e Sil a, T., Gou eia, C., San i so, F. A., Cunha, O., & Ca idade, S. (2025). E ec i eness o mo i a ional in e iewing wi h jus ice-in ol ed people: A sys ema ic
e iew and me a-analysis.
PPsychosocial In e en ion 34
(2), 89-102. h ps://doi.o g/10.5093/pi2025a8
ISSN:1132-0559/© 2025 Colegio O icial de la Psicología de Mad id. This is an open access a icle unde he CC BY-NC-ND license (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
E ec i eness o Mo i a ional In e iewing wi h Jus ice-in ol ed People: A
Sys ema ic Re iew and Me a-analysis
Te esa Pin o e Sil a1, Cláudia Gou eia1, Fa aj A. San i so2, Olga Cunha1, and Sónia Ca idade1
1
Psychology Resea ch Cen e (CIPsi), Uni e si y o Minho, B aga, Po ugal;
2
Uni e si y o Valencia, Spain
h ps://jou nals.copmad id.o g/pi
Funding : Te esa Pin o e Sil a is suppo ed by a PhD Fellowship om Fundação pa a a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT; Re . 2023.02008.BD). This wo k was conduc ed a Psychology
Resea ch Cen e (CIPsi), School o Psychology, Uni e si y o Minho, suppo ed by FCT (UID/01662/2020) h ough he Po uguese S a e Budge .
Co espondence: id11[email p o ec ed] (T. Pin o e Sil a).
ARTICLE INFO
Recei ed 2 Janua y 2025
Accep ed 31 Ma ch 2025
Keywo ds:
Mo i a ional in e iewing
Jus ice-in ol ed people
In e en ion p og ams
Sys ema ic e iew
Me a-analysis
ABSTRACT
Objec i e:
Mo i a ional in e iewing (MI) is inc easingly ecognized as an e ec i e app oach in o ensic se ings,
pa icula ly o o e coming esis ance by a oiding con on a ion and os e ing in insic mo i a ion. Resea ch shows ha
in e en ions inco po a ing MI a e mo e e ec i e han o he app oaches in p e en ing and educing o ending beha io ,
highligh ing i s impo ance in imp o ing in e en ion ou comes. Gi en his e idence, ad oca ing o he in eg a ion o
MI is c ucial o enhance he e ec i eness o in e en ions.
Me hod:
This sys ema ic e iew and me a-analysis aimed o
sys ema ize knowledge and assess he e ec i eness o in e en ions inco po a ing MI o jus ice-in ol ed people who
ha e been sen enced o cus odial o non-cus odial measu es. Twen y- wo s udies we e included. The o al sample size o
he s udies anged om 25 o 528 indi iduals con ic ed o a ious o ences, including in ima e pa ne iolence, iolen
c imes, sexual o ences, p ope y c imes, d i ing o ences, and d ug o ences.
Resul s:
Resul s indica ed ha MI is mo e
e ec i e in inc easing session a endance and educing d opou han in e en ions wi hou MI. Fo o icial ecidi ism,
e idence a o ed MI wi h a s a is ically signi ican educ ion in ecidi ism a es.
Conclusions:
These indings highligh
he impo ance o in eg a ing MI in o o ensic se ings, es ablishing i s posi i e impac on nume ous ou comes.
The need o psychological in e en ion o jus ice-in ol ed
people is becoming inc easingly u gen (Gonçal es e al., 2020).
And ews e al. (1990) in oduced h ee gene al p inciples o
e ec i e co ec ional ea men : he isk, needs, and esponsi i y
(RNR) p inciples. The RNR model o co ec ional assessmen and
ea men is oo ed in gene al pe sonali y and cogni i e social
lea ning heo ies, inco po a ing c iminal beha io and he key isk,
need, and esponsi i y ac o s in ol ed in c ime p e en ion (And ews
& Bon a, 2006; Bon a & And ews, 2016). This model emphasizes ha
i) in e en ions should a ge an indi idual’s isk o eo ending, ii)
he apis s should assess and p io i ize he indi idual’s c iminogenic
needs in hei in e en ions, and iii) in e en ions should be ailo ed
o he indi idual’s lea ning s yle, s eng hs, abili ies, and in insic
mo i a ion o os e posi i e beha io al change (S inson & Cla k,
2017). In his sense, i is impo an no o o e look he impo ance
o mo i a ional wo k (Gonçal es e al., 2020). Mo i a ion o change
is undamen al, and mo i a ional in e iewing (MI) has p o en o be
an inno a i e and e ec i e app oach when wo king wi h o ensic
popula ions, helping clien s explo e and esol e hei ambi alence
owa ds change (Gonçal es e al., 2020).
When wo king wi h jus ice-in ol ed people, i is impo an o
i s inc ease hei engagemen in he p ocess o change (Polaschek
& Wong, 2020). In his con ex , de eloping in e en ion p og ams
ha add ess he indi idual’s needs, cha ac e is ics, and isk le el is
undamen al (Gonçal es e al., 2020). In addi ion, a ious aspec s
should be conside ed, such as (i) he ac ha he in e en ion
is usually p o ided h ough a cou o de as an al e na i e o
imp isonmen and (ii) he con ex o he in e en ion i sel
(Gonçal es e al., 2020). Jus ice-in ol ed people o en app oach
in e en ion assessmen wi h a lack o mo i a ion o change and
display a gumen a i e beha io , impulsi i y, and skep icism
(Polaschek & Wong, 2020), and all hese ac o s can inc ease
esis ance o in e en ion and unde mine i s success (Gonçal es
e al., 2020). Consequen ly, in e en ion p og ams o hese
indi iduals mus conside ha he ea men p ocess will be
challenging and in e en ions mus e lec all hese challenges
(Polaschek & Wong, 2020). Fo his eason, i is essen ial o adop a
mo i a ional app oach when wo king wi h jus ice-in ol ed people
in o de o elici changes in beha io and a i udes (Gonçal es e
al., 2020).
90
T. Pin o e Sil a e al. / Psychosocial In e en ion (2025) 34(2) 89-102
Mo i a ional In e iewing wi h Jus ice-in ol ed People
In e en ion p og ams wi h jus ice-in ol ed people end o be
highly s uc u ed and di ec i e, which ends o inc ease esis ance,
and hose wi h low mo i a ion o change a e less likely o bene i
om his ype o p og ams (Mille & Rollnick, 2002). MI appea s
o be an e ec i e ool o managing his esis ance by a oiding
con on a ion and p omo ing oppo uni ies o enhance pa icipan s’
in insic mo i a ion (Mille & Rollnick, 2016).
MI is a collabo a i e communica ion app oach designed o
s eng hen an indi idual’s mo i a ion and commi men o a speci ic
goal, s imula ing and explo ing he indi idual’s easons o change
in a clima e o accep ance and compassion (Mille & Rollnick,
2016). MI enables he ac i a ion o an indi idual’s mo i a ions and
esou ces o change. Th ough high-quali y e lec i e lis ening and a
comp ehensi e communica ion s yle, i will be possible o p omo e a
g ea e incidence o change alk – an indi idual’s own s a emen s in
a o o change – and unlock his ambi alence, de elop commi men
o change, and inc ease in insic mo i a ion (Cla k, 2019; Mille
& Rollnick, 2016), which will be key aspec s o in eg a e in o an
in e en ion p og am.
The main objec i es in using MI in o ensic p ac ice a e o p omo e
engagemen in he supe ision p ocess and o elici and explo e an
indi idual’s own mo i a ions o change ega ding ele an c iminal
isk ac o s and li e a eas (Ta a e e al., 2019). In e en ion p og ams
inco po a ing MI ha e been ound o be mo e e ec i e han o he
ypes o in e en ion in p e en ing and educing he c iminal conduc
o jus ice-in ol ed people (McMu an, 2009; Pin o e Sil a e al., 2022;
San i so, Gilch is , e al., 2020). Wong e al. (2007) sugges ed he
in eg a ion o MI in in e en ion p og ams and showed an inc ease in
mo i a ion o change and a educ ion in he isk o ecidi ism among
mo e esis an people.
Di e en s udies ha e in es iga ed he e ec i eness o MI wi h
jus ice-in ol ed people. Howe e , esea ch has ended o ocus on
only one speci ic ype o c ime (e.g., in ima e pa ne iolence [IPV]),
on a speci ic p oblema ic (e.g., subs ance abuse), o on p edominan ly
male samples. Fo example, Felds ein and Ginsbu g (2006) e iewed
he use o MI wi h ju enile jus ice popula ions, bo h male and emale.
They ound ha MI was e ec i e in educing subs ance use and
inc easing eelings o sel -e icacy and emphasized he impo ance
o using MI du ing he educa ional momen o en y in o he ju enile
jus ice sys em.
A b oade e iew o MI by McMu an (2009) analyzed i s impac on
a ious jus ice-in ol ed popula ions. The e iew included 19 s udies
and ound ha while MI was mos equen ly used wi h subs ance
abuse o ende s, i was also applied o IPV pe pe a o s, d ink-
d i ing o ende s, and gene al o ende s. Rega ding gende , only one
s udy in he e iew included bo h male and emale jus ice-in ol ed
people in i s sample. Rega ding e en ion in ea men , esul s looked
p omising o subs ance abuse popula ions, hough pe haps no o
IPV pe pe a o s. In e ms o beha io change, he e ec s o MI a e
ambiguous. The e is mixed e idence o educ ions in subs ance use,
wi h bo h posi i e and nega i e ou comes. Addi ionally, he e is also
mixed e idence o educ ions in o ending, wi h posi i e e ec s on
gene al o ending, mixed esul s o d ink-d i ing, and no e ec on
IPV. No dis inc ions we e made wi h ega d o gende .
A e iew by Soleymani e al. (2018) analyzed he e icacy o MI as
a p e- ea men in e en ion o p omo e commi men o ea men
o men e e ed o a end IPV p og am. Resul s e ealed a signi ican
imp o emen among pa icipan s in engagemen , session a endance,
and homewo k compliance ollowing MI. San i so, Gilch is , e al.
(2020) and Pin o e Sil a e al. (2022) e alua ed he e ec i eness o
in e en ions ha include MI o IPV male pe pe a o s. San i so,
Gilch is , e al. ound ha IPV in e en ions ha inco po a ed MI
we e signi ican ly mo e e ec i e in inc easing he in e en ion dose
and educing d opou han in e en ions wi hou MI. Addi ionally,
o physical and psychological IPV and o icial ecidi ism, e idence
a o ed in e en ions wi h MI, al hough no signi ican ly. Pin o e
Sil a e al. ound ha MI had an in luence on inc easing a endance
a es, ea men adhe ence, mo i a ion o change, and o he
beha io al and a i udinal ou comes. Speci ically, MI showed g ea e
e ec i eness among men wi h low eadiness o change and in he
ea ly s ages o change.
Conside ing his, he p esen sys ema ic e iew and me a-
analysis aims o sys ema ize knowledge and assess he
e ec i eness o in e en ions inco po a ing MI o jus ice-in ol ed
people sen enced o ei he cus odial o non-cus odial measu es. I
seeks o include bo h men and women, encompass a ious ypes
o o ences a he han ocusing on a single ca ego y, and conside
people se ing bo h cus odial and non-cus odial sen ences. These
inclusions a e in ended o ensu e ha his sys ema ic e iew and
me a-analysis is as b oad and comp ehensi e as possible, p o iding
a deepe unde s anding o he e ec i eness o MI in o ensic
con ex s.
Me hod
This sys ema ic e iew and me a-analysis was conduc ed
acco ding o he P e e ed Repo ing I ems o Sys ema ic Re iews
and Me a-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Page e al., 2021) and was
p e iously egis e ed on he Open Science F amewo k [blind o
e iew pu poses].
Eligibili y C i e ia
The ollowing c i e ia we e used o de e mine whe he s udies
we e eligible o inclusion: (i) men and women o e 18 yea s old
con ic ed o a c ime, complying wi h cus odial o non-cus odial
measu es, (ii) add ess he applica ion and/o e alua ion o MI wi h
indi iduals con ic ed o di e en ypes o c ime, and (iii) pee -
e iewed o iginal esea ch a icles. Only s udies w i en in English,
Spanish, and Po uguese we e included. S udies ep esen ing
g ey li e a u e, commen s, e iews, con e ence a icles, academic
pape s, books, and chap e s o books we e excluded.
Sea ch S a egies
The li e a u e sea ch was conduc ed in Janua y 2024 and
upda ed in Decembe 2024 in ou da abases (PubMed, Science
Di ec , PsycIn o, and Coch ane) using he ollowing sea ch s a egy,
which was adap ed o each da abase’s speci ici ies: (e ec i eness
OR e icacy) AND (mo i a ional in e iewing OR mo i a ional
s a egies OR mo i a ion*) AND (con ic ed OR cus odial measu es
OR cus odial se ings OR p ison) AND (communi y measu es OR
unde p oba ion OR p oba ione ) AND (o end* OR ag ess* OR
ba e e OR pe pe a o *) AND o ens*. In addi ion, he e e ence
lis s o a ious e iews and me a-analyses we e consul ed.
Li e a u e Selec ion P ocess and Da a Ex ac ion
Re e ence da a we e e ie ed and expo ed o he Rayyan
Managemen So wa e (Ouzzani e al., 2016). Duplica es we e
elimina ed. Ti les and abs ac s we e hen sc eened by wo code s (TS
and CG) o de e mine i he a icles me he inclusion c i e ia. Those
ha me he inclusion c i e ia we e e ie ed and ully ead o each
a inal decision (Figu e 1).
A codebook was de eloped o ex ac da a om all he included
manusc ip s, including he ollowing key cha ac e is ics: e e ence
in o ma ion, s udy cha ac e is ics, sample cha ac e is ics, design
cha ac e is ics, in e en ion cha ac e is ics, and in e en ion
91
Mo i a ional In e iewing wi h O ende s: Sys ema ic Re iew and Me a-Analysis
esul s. All a icles we e independen ly coded by TS and CG, wi h a
hi d e iewe (OC o SC) e i ying all da a. Disc epancies be ween
code s we e esol ed h ough discussion wi h he hi d e iewe .
Me hodological Quali y Assessmen
The Mixed Me hods App aisal Tool (MMAT; Hong e al., 2018)
was used o assess he me hodological quali y o all s udies
included. This ool p o ed essen ial o limi he bias in syn hesizing
e idence. Fi e i ems a e conside ed o assess he me hodological
quali y o s udies, depending on hei quan i a i e design (e.g.,
andomized con olled ials, non- andomized ials). A de ailed
analysis o each c i e ion classi ica ion was conduc ed o iden i y
he s udy’s weaknesses and in o m he discussion on code
ag eemen . Two au ho s (TS and CG) independen ly assessed he
s udies’ me hodological quali y. Disag eemen s we e esol ed
h ough discussion wi h ano he au ho .
Reco ds iden i ied h ough
da abase sea ching (
k
= 611)
Sc eening
Addi ional eco ds iden ied
h ough o he sou ces (
k
= 17)
Reco ds a e duplica es emo ed
(
k
= 394)
Reco ds sc eened
(
k
= 394) Reco ds excluded
(
k
= 366)
Full- ex a icles assessed o
eligibili y (
k
= 28) Full- ex a icles excluded,
wi h easons (
k
= 6)
(2) W ong sample
(2) Re iew a icles
(2) Ou comes o in e es
no assessed
S udies included
(
k
= 22)
Eligibili yIncluded
Iden i ica ion
Figu e 1. Flowcha .
Table 1. Quali a i e Assessmen
Au ho /s/Coun y S udy design Quali y c i e ia (
n
)
Alexande e al., 2010/USA Randomized Con olled T ial 4
Ans iss e al., 2011/New Zealand Quasi-Expe imen al S udy 5
C ane and Eckha d , 2013/USA Randomized Con olled T ial 5
Cunha, Almeida, e al. 2024/Po ugal Non-Randomized Con olled T ial 4
Eas on e al., 2000/USA Randomized Con olled T ial 1
Kis enmache and Weiss, 2008/USA Randomized Con olled T ial 4
Le ch e al., 2017/USA Randomized Con olled T ial 4
Lila e al., 2018/Spain Randomized Con olled T ial 4
Mu phy e al., 2019/USA Randomized Con olled T ial 4
Musse e al., 2008/USA Randomized Con olled T ial 4
Owens and McC ady, 2016/USA Randomized Con olled T ial 4
Polcin e al., 2018/Canada Randomized Con olled T ial 4
Rome o-Ma ínez, e al., 2019/Spain Randomized Con olled T ial 4
San i so e al., 2020b/Spain Randomized Con olled T ial 4
Sco e al., 2011/Canada Randomized Con olled T ial 2
Shaul e al., 2016/ he Ne he lands Randomized Con olled T ial 4
Shaul e al., 2020/ he Ne he lands Randomized Con olled T ial 2
Soleymani e al., 2022/New Zealand Quasi-Expe imen al S udy 3
S ein and Lebeau-C a en, 2002/USA Pilo S udy 5
S ua e al., 2013/USA Randomized Con olled T ial 4
Swogge e al., 2016/USA Randomized Con olled T ial 3
Zalmanowi z e al., 2013/Canada Quasi-Expe imen al S udy 3
92
T. Pin o e Sil a e al. / Psychosocial In e en ion (2025) 34(2) 89-102
Table 2. Cha ac e is ics o he S udies (
k
= 22) Included in he Sys ema ic Re iew
Au ho /s and
coun y Sample
size
Sample Cha ac e is ics
Gende (%) Se ing Type o
c ime
T ea men Con ol
n
Age
M
(
SD
)E hnici y o Na ionali y (%)
n
Age
M
(
SD
)E hnici y o Na ionali y (%)
Alexande e al.
(2010)
USA 528 247 ES: 36.6 (9.9)
SS: 31.4 (7.0)
ES:
Caucasian: 29.6
A ican Ame ican: 45.5
La ino: 11.1
O he : 13.3
SS:
Caucasian: 0
A ican Ame ican: 0
La ino: 93.0
O he : 7.0
281 ES: 35.4 (10.4)
SS: 33.3 (8.4)
ES:
Caucasian: 29.9
A ican Ame ican: 25.5
La ino: 14.4
O he : 10.2
SS:
Caucasian: 2.0
A ican Ame ican: 0
La ino: 96.0
O he : 2.0
Men:
100 P oba ion IPV
Ans iss, e al.
(2011)
New Zealand 116 58 34.3 (9.1)
Mo i: 55
Paci ic Islands: 12
NZ Eu opean o o he
e hnici ies: 33
58 34.4 (9.0) -Men:
100 P ison DC
Cunha, Almeida, e
al. (2024)
Po ugal 50 25 42.84 (9.26) Caucasian: 100 25 47.72 (12.79) Caucasian: 100 Men:
100 P oba ion IPV
C ane and
Eckha d (2013)
USA 82 48 34.0 (11.8) Caucasian: 37.5
A ican Ame ican: 60.4 34 33.9 (12.0) Caucasian: 58.8
A ican Ame ican: 41.2 Men:
100 P ison IPV
Eas on e al.
(2000) USA 41 22 36.2 (13.4)
Caucasian: 33
A ican Ame ican: 57
Hispanic: 5
O he : 5
19 33.2 (11.05)
Caucasian: 26
A ican Ame ican: 63
Hispanic: 11
O he : 0
Men:
100 P oba ion IPV
Kis enmache and
Weiss (2008) USA 33 16 35.1 (9.3)
Eu o Ame ican: 75
Na i e Ame ican: 13
A ican Ame ican: 6
Asian: 6
17 39.4 (12.1)
Eu o Ame ican: 94
Na i e Ame ican: 6
A ican Ame ican: 6
Asian: 6
Men: 100 P oba ion IPV
Le ch, e al. (2017)
USA 316 207 - - 109 - -
Men and
Women
(% no
indica ed)
P oba ion CAD
Lila e al. (2018)
Spain 160 80 46.36 (10.81)
Spanish: 73.75
La in Ame ican: 12.50
Eu opean (o he han
Spanish): 11.25
A ican: 2.5
Asian: 0
80 40.95 (12.29)
Spanish: 70
La in Ame ican: 13.75
Eu opean (o he han Span-
ish): 7.50
A ican: 7.50
Asian: 1.25
Men: 100 P oba ion IPV
Mu phy e al.
(2019) USA 228 110 33.25 (9.33)
Asian / Asian Ame ican: 0
Black / A ican Ame ican: 54.5
Hispanic / La ino: 8.2
Na i e Ame ican: 0.9
Caucasian: 31.8
O he : 4.5
118 34.40 (11.00)
Asian/Asian Ame ican: 1.7
Black/A ican Ame ican: 54.2
Hispanic/La ino: 13.6
Na i e Ame ican: 0.8
Caucasian: 29.7
O he : 0
Men: 100 P oba ion IPV
Musse e al.
(2008) USA 108 55 35.8 (7.9) -53 35.6 (9.40) -Men: 100 P oba ion IPV
Owens and
McC ady (2016)
USA 40 23 34.8 (10.50)
Hispanic: 17.4
Non-Hispanic Whi e: 30.4
Na i e Ame ican/Alaskan
Na i e: 21.7
A ican Ame ican: 13.0
Bi acial/Mul i acial/
O he : 17.4
17 33.7 (8.90)
Hispanic: 41.2
Non-Hispanic Whi e: 5.9
Na i e Ame ican/Alaskan
Na i e: 11.8
A ican Ame ican: 0
Bi acial/Mul i acial
/O he : 41.2
Men: 100 P ison CAD
Polcin e al. (2018)
Canada 330 149 39.3 (11.60)
Caucasian: 45.6
A ican Ame ican: 30.9
Hispanic: 15.4
O he /mixed: 8.0
181 38.1 (11.90)
Caucasian: 48.1
A ican Ame ican: 18.8
Hispanic: 22.1
O he /mixed: 11.0
Men: 74.2
Women:
25.8 P oba ion CAD
Rome o-Ma ínez
e al. (2019) Spain 93 53 39.75 (10.19)
Spanish: 70
La in Ame ican: 12
A icans: 4
Eas e n Eu ope Coun ies: 14
40 41.80 (10.69)
Spanish: 75
La in Ame ican: 8
A icans: 3
Eas e n Eu ope Coun ies: 14
Men: 100 P ison IPV
San i so e al.
(2020b) Spain 153 74 39.39 (11.66)
Spanish: 73.4
La in Ame ican: 10.1
Eu opean (o he han Span-
ish): 7.6
A ican: 7.6
Asian: 1.3
79 41.99 (12.23)
Spanish: 69.9
La in Ame ican: 12.3
Eu opean (o he han Span-
ish): 9.6
A ican: 6.8
Asian: 1.4
Men: 100 P oba ion IPV
93
Mo i a ional In e iewing wi h O ende s: Sys ema ic Re iew and Me a-Analysis
Table 2. Cha ac e is ics o he S udies (
k
= 22) Included in he Sys ema ic Re iew (con inued)
Au ho /s and
coun y Sample size
Sample Cha ac e is ics
Gende (%) Se ing Type o c ime
T ea men Con ol
n
Age
M
(
SD
)E hnici y o
Na ionali y (%)
n
Age
M
(
SD
)E hnici y o
Na ionali y (%)
Sco e al. (2011)
Canada 486 243 36.33 (9.94) -243 35.49 (10.34) -Men: 100 P oba ion IPV
Shaul e al.
(2016) The
Ne he lands 220 111 37.1 (11.31) Na i e: 65.5 109 37.5 (10.66) Na i e: 68.8 Men: 100 P oba ion CAD
Shaul e al.
(2020) The
Ne he lands 220 111 37 The Ne he -
lands: 65.5 109 38 The Ne he -
lands: 68.8 Men: 100 P oba ion CAD
Soleymani, e al.
(2022)
New Zealand 25 15 35.27 (11.10) NZ Eu opean:
80
Mo i: 20 10 32
(9.84)
NZ Eu opean:
60
Mo i: 10
Paci ic Island-
e : 20
O he : 10
Men: 100 P oba ion IPV
S ein and Lebea-
C a en (2002)
USA 38 38 32.44 (6.97) Caucasian:
100 - - - Men: 100 P ison DWI
S ua e al.
(2013) USA 252 123 31.5 (9.60)
Caucasian:
71.5
Black: 8.1
Hispanic/La i-
no: 15.4
O he ace:
4.9
129 31.6
(9.90)
Caucasian: 72.1
Black: 11.6
Hispanic/
La ino: 12.4
O he ace: 3.9
Men: 100 P oba ion IPV
Swogge e al.
(2016) USA 115 53 33.1 (10.00)
Caucasian:
45.3
Black: 39.6
O he ace:
15.1
52 33.8 (11.80) Caucasian: 50
Black: 46.2
O he ace: 3.8
Men: 64.8
Women: 35.2 P oba ion DC
Zalmanowi z e
al. (2013)
Canada 211 105 33.1 -106 36.08 -Men: 100 P oba ion IPV
Alexande e al.
(2010)
USA
IPV Pe pe a ion
Readiness o change Mo i a ional
In e iewing G oup 26 sessions No addi ional
in e en ion -6 and 12
mon hs
Ans iss e al.
(2011)
New Zealand
S age o Change
Recidi ism B ie MI
In e en ion Indi idual 4 sessions, 1 hou Cogni i e-beha io al o
Psycho-educa ional 70 hou s (g oup
in e en ion) 9 weeks
Cunha, Almeida,
e al. (2024)
Po ugal
T ea men compliance
Mo i a ion o change
IPV Pe pe a ion
IPV isk
MI Techniques Indi idual 4 o 6 session, 60 minu es
each Cogni i e-beha io al
and Psycho-educa ional
18 sessions, 90-120
minu es each (g oup
in e en ion)
No ollow-
up
C ane and
Eckha d (2013)
USA Readiness o change B ie
Mo i a ional
Enhancemen Indi idual 1 session, 45-55 minu es No addi ional
in e en ion -6 mon hs
Eas on e al.
(2000) USA Mo i a ion o change Mo i a ional
Enhancemen
In e en ion
No
speci ied 1 session Psycho-educa ional 10 sessions (g oup
in e en ion) No ollow-
up
Kis enmache
and Weiss
(2008) USA S age o change Mo i a ional
In e iewing Indi idual 1 session, 50-60 minu es No addi ional
in e en ion -No ollow-
up
Le ch e al.
(2017) USA Subs ance use
Recidi ism isk
i. Mo i a ional
In e iewing
and
ii. Mo i a ional
Compu e
In e en ion
Indi idual 2 sessions, 45 minu es each No addi ional
in e en ion -2 and 6
mon hs
Lila e al. (2018)
Spain
Recidi ism T ea men
compliance S age o change
Indi idualized
Mo i a ional
Plan
Indi idual
and g oup 5 sessions, 1 hou
+ 3 g oup sessions Cogni i e-beha io al 5 sessions, 70 hou s
(g oup in e en ion) 6 mon hs
Mu phy e al.
(2019)
USA
ea men compliance
Readiness o change
Subs ance use IPV isk
Mo i a ional
Enhancemen
The apy Indi idual 4 sessions No addi ional
in e en ion -3, 6, 9, and 12
mon hs
Musse e al.
(2008)
USA
eadiness o change
Wo king alliance
T ea men compliance
Mo i a ional
In e iewing Indi idual 2 sessions Cogni i e-beha io al 16 sessions (g oup
in e en ion) No ollow-
up
Owens and
McC ady (2016)
USA
T ea men compliance
Readiness o change
Subs ance use
Mo i a ional
In e iewing Indi idual 1 session, 50-60 minu es No addi ional
in e en ion -28 o 49 days
a e elease
94
T. Pin o e Sil a e al. / Psychosocial In e en ion (2025) 34(2) 89-102
S a is ical Analysis
S anda dized mean di e ences (SMD) o con inuous ou comes
and odds a ios (
OR
) o dicho omous ou comes we e employed
as he p ima y summa y measu es in his me a-analysis. The
95% con idence in e als (CIs) o each s udy included we e
calcula ed. A andom-e ec s model was adop ed o manage he
expec ed he e ogenei y among he s udies, wi h he e ogenei y
assessed using he I² s a is ic as ou lined by Higgins e al. (2003),
whe e alues o 25%, 50%, and 75% indica e low, mode a e, and
high he e ogenei y, espec i ely. This model choice e lec s he
di e si y in s udy ou comes and me hodologies. P e e ence was
gi en o da a analyzed on an in en ion- o- ea (ITT) basis, aligning
wi h ecommenda ions o p ese ing he andom assignmen
and main aining ex e nal alidi y in me a-analysis (Ahn & Kang
e al., 2023; Bai e al., 2021). The ITT app oach mi iga es bias by
including all pa icipan s as o iginally alloca ed, hus p o iding a
mo e ealis ic measu e o in e en ion e ec i eness. When s udies
epo ed mul iple ollow-up pe iods, da a om he longes ollow-
up we e selec ed o comp ehensi ely assess any endu ing e ec s
o he in e en ions (Cuzick, 2023). Me a-analyses we e ca ied
ou using he Me a o package (Viech baue , 2010) wi hin he R
so wa e en i onmen (R Co e Team, 2021).
Resul s
Sc eening and S udy Selec ion
Ou elec onic da abase sea ch yielded 628 e e ences, 234 ou
o hem we e duplica es and consequen ly emo ed. Thus, 394 i les
we e sc eened o assess eligibili y and 366 we e excluded because
hey we e un ela ed o he opic. Then, 28 a icles we e analyzed. O
hose, six we e excluded because hey did no mee he eligibili y
c i e ia. The main easons o exclusion we e: (i) he sample did no
mee he inclusion c i e ia (e.g., Ta a e e al., 2023), (ii) he s udies
we e e iew a icles (e.g., San i so, Gilch is , e al., 2020), and (iii) he
ou comes o in e es we e no assessed (e.g., Cowell, e al., 2018). As
a esul , 22 manusc ip s we e included in he sys ema ic e iew and
me a-analysis and ma ked wi h an “*” in he e e ences’ sec ion.
The main esul s a e displayed in Table 1 (Quali a i e
Assessmen ), Table 2 (Cha ac e is ics o he s udies [
k
= 22]
included in he Sys ema ic Re iew), and Table 3 (Main Resul s o
he S udies [
k
= 22] included in he Sys ema ic Re iew).
Quali y Assessmen
O he wen y- wo s udies included, h ee me all he c i e ia o
excellen , ele en p esen ed ou ou o i e c i e ia, h ee showed
Table 2. Cha ac e is ics o he S udies (
k
= 22) Included in he Sys ema ic Re iew (con inued)
Au ho /s and
coun y Dimensions e alua ed
Mo i a ional in e en ion Complemen a y in e en ion Leng h o
ollow-up
Type o in e en ion MI Modali y Numbe o sessions
(o hou s) Type o in e en ion Numbe o sessions (o
hou s)
Polcin e al.
(2018) Canada Subs ance use Social ne wo k
Mo i a ion o change Mo i a ional
In e iewing Indi idual 3 ini ial sessions +
mon hly sessions o
12 mon hs
No addi ional
in e en ion -6 and 12
mon hs
Rome o-
Ma ínez e al.
(2019) Spain Empa hy Indi idualized
Mo i a ional Plan Indi idual
and g oup 5 sessions, 1 hou
+ 3 g oup sessions Cogni i e-beha io al 35 sessions, 70 hou s
(g oup in e en ion) 9 mon hs
San i so e al.
(2020b)
Spain
Wo king alliance
P o he apeu ic beha io s Indi idualized
Mo i a ional Plan Indi idual
and g oup 5 sessions, 1 hou
+ 3 g oup sessions Cogni i e-beha io al 35 sessions, 70 hou s
(g oup in e en ion) Pos -
in e en ion
Sco e al. (2011)
Canada T ea men compliance
Accoun abili y Mo i a ion Enhancing
In e en ion G oup 6 weeks Dulu h-s yle 10 weeks (g oup
in e en ion) Pos -
in e en ion
Shaul e al.
(2016)
The Ne he lands Recidi ism Mo i a ion
Enhancing
In e en ion Indi idual 4-6 sessions o 15-
20 minu es No addi ional
in e en ion -12 mon hs
Shaul e al.
(2020)
The Ne he lands
T ea men ini ia ion
Subs ance use
Mo i a ion
Enhancing
In e en ion Indi idual 4-6 sessions o 15-
20 minu es No addi ional
in e en ion -12 mon hs
Soleymani e
al. (2022) New
Zealand
Readiness o change
T ea men compliance
Mo i a ion o change
Mo i a ional
In e iewing Indi idual 2 sessions, 20-40
minu es IPV in e en ion
12-16 sessions,
2.5 hou s (g oup
in e en ion) o
6-12 sessions, 1
hou (indi idual
in e en ion)
No ollow-
up
S ein and
Lebeau-C a en
(2002) USA Coping skills Mo i a ional
In e iewing Indi idual MI: 1 session Psycho-educa ional 4 weeks (g oup
in e en ion) No ollow-
up
S ua e al.
(2013) USA
Subs ance use
IPV isk B ie Alcohol
In e en ion Indi idual 1 session, 90
minu es
S anda d Ba e e
In e en ion
P og am
40 hou s (g oup
in e en ion)
3-, 6-, and
12-mon h
ollow-up
Swogge e al.
(2016) USA Subs ance use Psychopa hy B ie Mo i a ional
In e en ion Indi idual 4 sessions, 40
minu es S anda d
In e en ion No indica ed 6-mon h
ollow-up
Zalmanowi z e
al. (2013) Canada
S age o change
Global unc ioning Mo i a ional
In e iewing Indi idual 2 sessions Cogni i e-
beha io al 14 weeks (g oup
in e en ion) No ollow-
up
No e.
ES = English-speaking; SS = Spanish-speaking; IPV = in ima e pa ne iolence; DC = di e se c imes; CAD = c imes ela ed o alcohol and d ugs use; DWI = d i ing while
in oxica ed.
95
Mo i a ional In e iewing wi h O ende s: Sys ema ic Re iew and Me a-Analysis
Table 3. Main Resul s o he S udies (
k
= 22) Included in he Sys ema ic Re iew
Au ho /s, yea o publica ion Main esul s
Alexande e al. (2010)
USA Violence epo ed by he ic im: Signi ican ly ewe pa ne s o men assigned o he SOCMI ea men condi ion as
opposed o he CBTGR condi ion epo ed ha ing expe ienced physical agg ession a ollow-up; The wo ea men
condi ions did no di e conce ning pa ne ollow-up epo s o psychological agg ession.
Readiness o change: Men who we e less eady o change a in ake we e mo e likely o bene i om he SOCMI
condi ion, while men who we e mo e eady o change a in ake we e mo e likely o bene i om he s anda d
CBTGR condi ion.
Ans iss, e al. (2011)
New Zealand Recidi ism: The o e all econ ic ion a e was 57% o he ea men g oup, and 78% o he con ol g oup. Also, 24%
o he ea men condi ion pa icipan s we e e-imp isoned, compa ed o 41% o he con ol condi ion pa icipan s.
S age o Change: The mean change o ea men condi ion pa icipan s ep esen ed a mo e om he
P econ empla ion o Con empla ion s age, while con ol condi ion pa icipan s emained midway be ween
P econ empla ion and Con empla ion.
C ane and Eckha d (2013)
USA T ea men compliance: 72.9% o he ea men g oup had ei he success ully comple ed hei BIP o emained in
good s anding 6 mon hs pos -adjudica ion, ela i e o con ol pa icipan s (50%).
Readiness o Change: Rega ding pa icipan s low in eadiness o change, 82.6% o he ea men g oup we e mo e
likely o be complian wi h ea men , ela i e o he con ol g oup (41.2%).
Cunha, Almeida, e al. (2024)
Po ugal T ea men compliance: Al hough SPIP plus MIT pa icipan s e ealed highe ea men adhe ence han SPIP alone
pa icipan s, esul s did no each s a is ical signi icance.
S age o change: Pa icipan s in ea men g oup inished he in e en ion in a mo e ad anced s age o change han
he pa icipan s in he con ol condi ion.
Readiness o change: SPIP plus MIT pa icipan s e ealed mo e eadiness o change han pa icipan s in he SPIP
alone condi ion.
IPV pe pe a ion: Pa icipan s om he ea men g oup p esen ed lowe sco es o pe pe a ion o global iolence
and physical and psychological iolence han he con ol g oup.
IPV isk: Bo h g oups showed signi ican educ ions a pos - ea men , wi h la ge e ec sizes o he ea men
g oup.
D opou : D opou a e was high in bo h g oups.
Eas on e al. (2000)
USA Mo i a ion o change: A pos -session, indi iduals epo ed an inc ease in hei mo i a ion o ake s eps o change
hei subs ance use.
Kis enmache & Weiss, 2008
USA S age o change: The ea men g oup demons a ed a signi ican p e- o-pos inc ease in sel - epo ed ac ion owa d
changing hei iolen beha io and he con ol g oup epo ed aking less ac ion o e ime.
Responsibili y o he abuse: Men who ecei ed he MI in e en ion we e able o ake mo e esponsibili y o hei
beha io han hose who did no ecei e MI.
Le ch, e al., 2017
USA T ea men ini ia ion: Pa icipan s o he ea men g oups we e mo e likely o epo ea men ini ia ion, compa ed
o he con ol g oup. Also, he odds o ini ia ing ea men o hose assigned o he ea men condi ion we e 65%
highe han hose assigned o he con ol condi ion.
Lila e al. (2018)
Spain Recidi ism: A pos -in e en ion, pa icipan s assigned o he ea men condi ion showed 1.36 imes lowe isk o
ecidi ism le els in o med by he apis s.
S age o change: A pos -in e en ion, ea men g oup pa icipan s showed 1.11 imes highe s age o change le els.
T ea men compliance: T ea men g oup pa icipan s a ended 3.82 mo e sessions han con ol g oup pa icipan s.
Sel - epo ed iolence: A pos -in e en ion, pa icipan s assigned o he ea men condi ion we e 1.79 imes less
likely o pe pe a e ac s o physical iolence han he pa icipan s in he con ol condi ion.
D opou : 23% o pa icipan s d opped ou o he ea men .
Musse e al. (2008)
USA T ea men compliance: MI sessions signi ican ly enhanced ea men engagemen and help-seeking beha io .
Readiness o change: MI sessions did no signi ican ly al e ea men session a endance o subjec i e sel - epo s
o eadiness o change.
Wo king alliance: MI pa icipan s e ealed a s onge wo king alliance han SI pa icipan s.
Mu phy e al. (2019)
USA Subs ance use: Pa icipan s on he ea men condi ion displayed g ea e acknowledgmen o alcohol p oblems.
Owens and McC ady (2016)
USA Subs ance use: Compa ed o p e-inca ce a ion, only he ea men g oup had signi ican inc eases in abs inence and
pe cen age o days only using d ug signi ican ly dec eased.
Social ne wo ks: The ea men g oup educed bo h he p opo ion o hea y d ug use s and use s o any kind in
hei social ne wo ks om p e- o pos -inca ce a ion.
Polcin e al. (2018)
Canada Recidi ism: A 6-mon hs ollow-up, a es s and con ic ions we e lowe among pa icipan s in he ea men
condi ion.
Subs ance use: Women assigned o he ea men condi ion epo ed highe a es o abs inence a 12 mon hs
compa ed o he con ol g oup.
Rome o-Ma ínez e al. (2019)
Spain Empa hy: Only he ea men g oup became mo e accu a e in decoding emo ional acial signals and imp o ed hei
pe spec i e aking a e he in e en ion p og am.
San i so e al. (2020b)
Spain Wo king alliance: Pa icipan s on he ea men condi ion showed highe gene al wo king alliance.
P o he apeu ic beha io s: Pa icipan s on he ea men condi ion showed highe esponsibili y o abuse ea ly and
la e in in e en ion. Also, pa icipan s in his condi ion had signi ican ly highe pa icipan ole beha io sco es.
Sco e al. (2011)
Canada T ea men compliance: Comple ion a es o esis an clien s a ending MET (84.2%) we e highe han hose o bo h
he esis an clien s in s anda d in e en ion (46.5%) and o non- esis an clien s (61.1%).
D opou : Resis an ba e e s who a ended 6 weeks o MET ollowed by 10 weeks o a s anda d p og am we e much
less likely o d opou han esis an men a ending 16-weeks o s anda d ea men .
Shaul e al. (2016)
The Ne he lands T ea men compliance: On a e age, he ea men g oup comple ed 4.8 s eps ou o 7 o he in e en ion.
Shaul e al. (2020)
The Ne he lands Subs ance use ea men : Du ing he 12-mon h ollow-up pe iod, 46.8% o he 111 o ende s om he ea men
condi ion and 47.7% o he 109 o ende s om he con ol condi ion emained o a leas 90 days in subs ance abuse
ea men .
96
T. Pin o e Sil a e al. / Psychosocial In e en ion (2025) 34(2) 89-102
h ee ou o i e c i e ia, wo showed wo ou o i e c i e ia and
one showed one ou o i e c i e ia. Resul s a e p esen ed in Table 1.
Quali a i e Analysis
O he included a icles, mos we e designed as Randomized
Con olled T ials (RCT;
k
= 17) wi h only i e s udies using a di e en
design: quasi-expe imen al s udies (
k
= 2), a non- andomized
con olled ial (
k
= 1), and a pilo s udy (
k
= 1).
The publica ion yea s o he a icles anged om 2000 o 2024.
The highes numbe o publica ions occu ed in 2013 and 2016, wi h
h ee s udies each, ollowed by 2020, 2019, 2018, 2011, and 2008,
each wi h wo s udies.
The majo i y o he s udies we e conduc ed in he Uni ed S a es o
Ame ica (USA;
k
= 11). Six s udies we e ca ied ou in Eu ope, mos ly
in Spain (
k
= 3). The o he h ee Eu opean s udies we e conduc ed
in he Ne he lands (
k
= 2) and in Po ugal (
k
= 1). Addi ionally, wo
s udies we e conduc ed in New Zealand and h ee in Canada.
Se en een s udies we e deli e ed wi h people in p oba ion and
i e wi h people in p ison. The o al sample size o he s udies anged
be ween 25 and 528 indi iduals. Rega ding ea men condi ion, he
sample size o he ea men g oup anged be ween 15 and 247, and
o he con ol g oup be ween 10 and 281.
Rega ding he gende o he pa icipan s, mos o he s udies we e
conduc ed on men (
k
= 19), wi h only h ee o hem being conduc ed
on bo h men and women. No s udies conduc ed only wi h women
we e ound.
Mos o he s udies included pa icipan s who had been con ic ed
o IPV
(k
= 14). Fi e s udies included indi iduals con ic ed o d ug-
ela ed o ences. Two s udies included a ious ypes o c imes, such
as iolence, sexual, p ope y, d ug, and d i ing o ences, and one
s udy included pa icipan s con ic ed o d i ing while in oxica ed
(DWI).
S udies used MI o assess i s e ec i eness in a a ie y o ways: i) in
inc easing in e en ion’s e icacy (
k
= 6), ii) in inc easing ea men
ini ia ion and compliance (
k
= 6), iii) in educing ecidi ism (
k
= 3),
and i ) ega ding i s impac on o he ou comes such as subs ance use
(
k
= 4), empa hy (
k
= 1), wo king alliance (
k
= 1), global unc ioning
(
k
= 1), and iolence pe pe a ion (
k
= 2).
Rega ding he ype o MI in e en ion used, 12 s udies conduc ed
in e en ions ha ocused on MI as desc ibed by Mille and Rollnick
(2023), one o which was deli e ed online.
Besides he usual MI in e en ion, h ee di e en ypes
o mo i a ional in e en ion we e iden i ied, such as: i) he
Indi idualized Mo i a ional Plan (IMP;
k
= 3), ii) mo i a ion
enhancing in e en ions (
k
= 6), wi h one o hem being a b ie e
in e en ion, and iii) he B ie Alcohol In e en ion (BAI). IMP
includes a se o mo i a ional s a egies o inc ease ea men
compliance and mo i a ion o change and is based on MI, he
s ages o change app oach, solu ion- ocused b ie he apy, he good
li es model, and he apeu ic alliance (Lila e al., 2018). Mo i a ion
enhancing in e en ions a e based on he p inciples o MI and
include pe sonalized assessmen eedback on he ea men a ge
(Mu phy e al., 2018; Sco e al., 2011). BAI elies on MI echniques
o minimize esis ance and includes building appo , exp essing
empa hy, and pe sonalized eedback ega ding alcohol use and IPV
(S ua e al., 2013).
The majo i y o he MI in e en ions we e conduc ed indi idually
(
k
= 16). Two s udies conduc ed hei in e en ions in a g oup o ma
and h ee conduc ed in bo h o ma s (indi idual and g oup).
The du a ion o he MI indi idual in e en ions anged be ween
one and 26 sessions. Each session las ed 15 o 90 minu es.
In addi ion o he MI in e en ion, 13 s udies included a
complemen a y in e en ion. Fi e o hem added a cogni i e-
beha io al in e en ion and wo added a psychoeduca ional
in e en ion. Two s udies added ei he a cogni i e-beha io al
o psychoeduca ional in e en ion and one added a Dulu h s yle
in e en ion. The o he h ee s udies did no speci y he ype o
in e en ion added.
In e ms o leng h o ollow-up, i was mo e common o conduc a
single ollow-up session (
k
= 10), a six (
k
= 3) and 12 mon hs (
k
= 2);
o wo o mo e ollow-up sessions (
k
= 5): i) a wo and six mon hs
and six and 12 mon hs, ii) a h ee, six, and 12 mon hs, and iii) a
h ee, six, nine, and 12 mon hs.
T ea men Compliance and Ini ia ion
Rega ding ea men compliance and ini ia ion, he e we e
li le di e ences be ween applying a MI in e en ion alone o
complemen ing i wi h o he in e en ions as bo h condi ions
showed ha MI was success ul in imp o ing pa icipan s’ compliance
wi h ea men . Fo MI in e en ion alone, Le ch e al. (2017) ound
ha he odds o ini ia ing ea men o hose assigned o he
ea men condi ion we e 65% highe han hose assigned o he
con ol condi ion. Shaul e al. (2016) ound ha he ea men g oup
comple ed 4.8 s eps ou o se en o hei in e en ion and C ane and
Eckha d (2013) ound ha 82.6% o he ea men g oup we e mo e
likely o be complian wi h ea men , ela i e o he con ol g oup
(41.2%).
Fo MI complemen ed wi h o he in e en ion, Cunha, Ped osa,
e al. (2024), Lila e al. (2018), Sco e al. (2011), and Soleymani e
al. (2022) ound ha he ea men g oup a ended mo e sessions
compa ed o he con ol g oup. Speci ically, Sco e al. (2011) ound
ha ea men comple ion a es o esis an clien s a ending MI
in e en ion we e highe han hose o bo h he esis an clien s
in s anda d in e en ion and o non- esis an clien s. In addi ion,
Au ho /s, yea o publica ion Main esul s
Soleymani, e al. (2022)
New Zealand T ea men compliance: The ea men g oup a ended mo e in e en ion sessions compa ed o he con ol g oup.
S ein and Lebeau-C a en (2002)
USA Coping skills: Resul s sugges imp o emen in clien s iden i ying igge s o elapse as well as aspec s o hei li es
ha may assis in p e en ing elapse.
S ua , e al. (2013)
USA Subs ance use: Pa icipan s in he ea men condi ion showed imp o ed alcohol ou comes a 3-mon h ollow-up.
Violence pe pe a ion: Pa icipan s in he ea men condi ion showed less se e e physical agg ession a 3-mon h
ollow-up, less se e e psychological agg ession, and ewe inju ies o pa ne s a 3- and 6-mon h ollow-up.
Swogge , e al. (2016)
USA Psychopa hy: Fo pa icipan s bo h low in a ec i e ai s o psychopa hy and wi h su icien emo ional ange, he
ea men showed su icien e ec i eness in minimizing esis ance and in elici ing ideas abou change.
Zalmanowi z e al. (2013)
Canada Global unc ioning: Indi iduals in he la e s ages o change (speci ically, p epa a ion and ac ion) sco ed signi ican ly
highe on he OQ, while indi iduals in he ea lie s ages o change (p econ empla ion and con empla ion) sco ed
signi ican ly lowe on he OQ. The a e age di e ence on he OQ sco e was almos 6 poin s, om p e- o pos - es .
Men who engaged in MI sessions epo ed less dis ess on he OQ ega dless o hei s age o change.
Table 3. Main Resul s o he S udies (
k
= 22) Included in he Sys ema ic Re iew (con inued)
97
Mo i a ional In e iewing wi h O ende s: Sys ema ic Re iew and Me a-Analysis
Musse e al. (2008) ound ha MI sessions signi ican ly enhanced
ea men engagemen and help-seeking beha io .
D opou Ra es
Rega ding ea men d opou , C ane and Eckha d (2013)
epo ed ha 72.9% o he ea men g oup emained in good
s anding six mon hs pos -adjudica ion compa ed o 50% in he
con ol g oup, e ealing he posi i e e ec s o MI. Also, Sco e al.
(2011) ound ha esis an pa icipan s in he ea men condi ion
we e less likely o d opou han hose in he con ol condi ion. On
he o he hand, Lila e al. (2018) ound no signi ican e ec o MI on
educing d opou a es, wi h 20% o he ea men g oup d opping
ou compa ed o 26.25% in he con ol g oup. Simila ly, Cunha,
Ped osa, e al. (2024) epo ed high d opou a es in bo h g oups.
Impac on Subs ance Use
Subs ance use was one o he mos s udied dimensions and
a ious esul s ega ding MI’s e ec i eness we e ound. Mu phy
e al. (2019) ound MI o be bene icial in inc easing pa icipan ’s
ecogni ion o alcohol p oblems, while S ua e al. (2013) obse ed
gene al imp o emen s in alcohol ou comes o he ea men g oup.
Rega ding subs ance abs inence, bo h Owens and McC ady (2016)
and Polcin e al. (2018) epo ed signi ican inc eases in subs ance
abs inence among MI g oups compa ed o he con ols. No ably,
Polcin e al. (2018) ound highe abs inence a es in women a
12-mon h ollow-up compa ed o he con ol g oup.
Howe e , ega ding subs ance use ea men , Shaul e al. (2020)
ound minimal di e ences be ween condi ions, wi h 46.8% o
he ea men g oup and 47.7% o he con ol g oup emaining
in subs ance abuse ea men o a leas 90 days. Conside ing
pa icipan s’ mo i a ion o change hei subs ance use, Eas on e al.
(2000) epo ed ha pa icipan s showed inc eased mo i a ion o
ake s eps owa d change a pos sessions.
Recidi ism Ra es
Rega ding ecidi ism, s udies ha e ound ha MI has an
impac on educing ecidi ism in bo h condi ions. Polcin e al.
(2018) applied MI as a s and-alone in e en ion and ound ha
a six-mon hs ollow-up pa icipan s in he ea men condi ion
e idenced a lowe numbe o a es s and con ic ions compa ed o
hose in he con ol condi ion. Bo h Ans iss e al. (2011) and Lila e
al. (2018) employed MI alongside a complemen a y in e en ion.
Ans iss e al. (2011) ound ha 57% o he ea men g oup we e
econ ic ed and 24% we e e-imp isoned, compa ed o 78%
econ ic ed and 41% e-imp isoned in he con ol g oup. Lila e al.
(2018) ound no di e ences be ween he ea men g oup and he
con ol g oup, al hough he ea men g oup had 1.36 imes lowe
isk o ecidi ism han he con ol g oup.
Change Ou comes
In e ms o change ou comes, Owens and McC ady (2016) ound
ha a e MI he ea men g oup educed he p opo ion o d ug
use s in hei social ne wo ks om p e- o pos -inca ce a ion.
Addi ionally, Ans iss e al. (2011), Cunha, Ped osa, e al. (2024), Lila
e al. (2018), and Kis enmache and Weiss (2008) ound ha he
pa icipan s in he ea men condi ion concluded he in e en ion
a mo e ad anced s ages o change, compa ed o hose in he con ol
condi ion. Mo e speci ically, Ans iss e al. (2011) ound ha he mean
mo i a ion o MI pa icipan s inc eased om 1.4 (
SD
= 0.50) o 2.4 (
SD
= 1.1), whe eas he con ol g oup’s mean mo i a ion was mo e s able,
wi h a p e- ea men sco e o 1.15 (
SD
= 0.53) and a pos - ea men
sco e o 1.4 (
SD
= 0.55). Simila esul s we e ound by Lila e al. (2018),
wi h he mean mo i a ion o MI pa icipan s inc easing om 1.11 (
SD
= 0.32) o 2.86 (
SD
= 1.46), and ha o he con ol g oup inc easing
sligh ly om 1.16 (
SD
= 0.40) o 1.99
(SD
= 1.13).
Rega ding eadiness o change, he e we e dis inc indings. While
Alexande e al. (2010) and Cunha, Ped osa, e al. (2024) ound ha
pa icipan s wi h lowe eadiness o change bene i ed mo e om he
MI in e en ion, Musse e al. (2008) ound ha MI sessions did no
signi ican ly al e sel - epo s o eadiness o change.
O he Ou comes
O he ou comes we e iden i ied, bo h in MI in e en ion alone
and in MI wi h a complemen a y in e en ion. Rega ding MI
in e en ion alone, Alexande e al. (2010) obse ed ha a ollow-up
physical iolence epo s by he ic im signi ican ly dec eased among
pa icipan s in he ea men condi ion as opposed o he pa icipan s
in he con ol condi ion. Howe e , he e we e no di e ences ega ding
epo s o psychological iolence. Kis enmache and Weiss (2008)
ound ha pa icipan s who ecei ed he MI in e en ion we e able
o ake mo e esponsibili y o hei beha io han hose who did no
ecei e MI.
Rega ding MI complemen ed wi h o he in e en ion, Cunha,
Ped osa, e al. (2024), Lila e al. (2018), and S ua e al. (2013) ound
a posi i e in luence o MI ega ding iolence pe pe a ion, wi h he
ea men being e ec i e in educing he likelihood o pe pe a ion
o bo h global iolence and physical and psychological iolence.
Rega ding IPV isk, Cunha, Ped osa, e al. (2024) ound ha bo h
g oups showed signi ican educ ions a pos - ea men , wi h
la ge e ec sizes o he ea men g oup. Rome o-Ma ínez e al.
(2019) obse ed ha he ea men g oup demons a ed enhanced
accu acy in decoding emo ional acial signals and imp o ed
pe spec i e- aking abili ies ollowing he in e en ion. Musse e al.
(2008) and San i so, Lila, e al. (2020) obse ed ha pa icipan s in
he ea men condi ion e ealed a s onge wo king alliance han
pa icipan s in he con ol condi ion. Addi ionally, San i so, Lila, e
al. ound ha , ega ding p o he apeu ic beha io s, pa icipan s in
he ea men condi ion exhibi ed g ea e esponsibili y o abuse,
a highe o e all wo king alliance, and highe sco es in ag eemen
and bond. Swogge e al. (2016) obse ed ha he ea men was
e ec i e in minimizing esis ance and in elici ing ideas abou
change among pa icipan s wi h low a ec i e ai s o psychopa hy
and su icien emo ional ange. S ein and Lebeau-C a en (2002)
ound ha he MI in e en ion imp o ed he pa icipan s’ abili y
o iden i ying igge s o elapse as well as aspec s o hei li es
ha may assis in p e en ing elapse. Zalmanowi z e al. (2013)
obse ed ha pa icipan s in he la e s ages o change (speci ically,
p epa a ion, and ac ion) sco ed signi ican ly highe on he global
unc ioning ins umen (OQ), while indi iduals in he ea lie
s ages o change (p econ empla ion and con empla ion) sco ed
signi ican ly lowe .
Me a-analysis
The main ou comes analyzed in he me a-analysis we e session
a endance, d opou , and ecidi ism. The es o he ou comes
could no be analyzed due o he g ea a iabili y in he measu es
used in he e iewed s udies. Resul s o he ou comes analyzed a e
shown in Figu es 2-7.
Session A endance
Fou ials, comp ising 527 pa icipan s (C ane & Eckha d , 2013;
Lila e al., 2018; Mu phy e al., 2018; Musse e al., 2008), we e
