Observation Rating Sheet: Oarslisten For Examples Of The Int

Observation Rating Sheet Oarslisten For Examples Of The Interviewers

Observation Rating Sheet: OARS Listen for examples of the interviewer’s use of each of the OARS responses. As you hear them, place a hash mark (I) in the appropriate row. Make notes of examples of each type of OARS responses that you heard. Interviewer Response Count (hash marks) Good Examples (Notes) Questions Open Closed Assumptions Reflections Summaries Roadblocks/Traps Goals: Goal Met? Y/N 1. At least twice as many Reflections as total Questions (combined Open & Closed). 2. At least twice as many Open-Ended Questions as Closed-Ended Questions. 3. Few Affirmations 4. One or Two Summaries 5. Avoid Advice, Teaching, Confrontation

Paper For Above instruction

The evaluation of interviewers, particularly in motivational interviewing (MI), relies heavily on their use of specific communication techniques known as OARS—Open-ended questions, Affirmations, Reflections, and Summaries. These components serve as foundational strategies to foster client engagement, enhance motivation, and facilitate positive behavioral change. An effective interviewer employs these techniques to create a supportive environment, encouraging clients to explore their motivations and resolve ambivalence.

The Observation Rating Sheet is designed to systematically analyze an interviewer’s use of OARS strategies during a session. The sheet prompts observers to listen attentively and record instances of each response type, using hash marks to quantify the frequency. This quantitative approach enables a detailed assessment of whether the interviewer adheres to the principles of MI, which emphasize a balanced and conversational style of communication.

Key to this assessment is noting specific examples for each response type, which provides qualitative data to complement the quantitative counts. These examples help evaluate whether the interviewer’s responses are genuinely open-ended, reflective, or affirming, rather than superficial or inauthentic. Additionally, the "Good Examples" notes allow observers to capture effective techniques or areas for improvement for future training.

The evaluation also involves assessing the overall balance of questions and reflections. The desired ratio, as outlined in the instructions, is at least twice as many reflections as questions (both open and closed), illustrating that the therapist is primarily listening and reflecting rather than questioning. Furthermore, maintaining a higher number of open-ended questions relative to closed-ended questions is crucial for encouraging clients to talk more deeply about their thoughts and feelings.

Other critical aspects include minimizing the use of affirmations, which, if overused, may seem insincere, and limiting the number of summaries to one or two per session to avoid dominance of the session structure over client voices. An effective MI session also avoids advice, teaching, or confrontation, which can impede client-centered dialogue, hinder trust, or provoke defensiveness.

The goal metrics incorporated into the sheet assess whether these standards are met, emphasizing the importance of reflections, open questions, and avoiding roadblocks or traps that can hinder progress. Evaluating whether the client's goal was met (Y/N) allows the observer to link communication style to client outcomes, emphasizing the importance of skillful, empathetic dialogue in facilitating change.

In conclusion, this Observation Rating Sheet is a comprehensive tool for training and evaluating MI techniques. Effective use of OARS enhances rapport, encourages client exploration, and supports behavioral change. Consistent application of the principles reflected in the evaluation metrics leads to more effective intervention outcomes and fosters a client-centered approach that is respectful, nonjudgmental, and goal-oriented.

References

• Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2013). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change. Guilford press.
• Hettema, J., Steele, J., & Miller, W. R. (2005). Motivational interviewing. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 91-111.
• Baer, J. S., et al. (2013). Evaluating motivational interviewing fidelity: The development of a practical coding system. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 45(1), 87-92.
• Moyers, T. B., Martin, T., Manuel, J., Hendrickson, E., & Miller, W. R. (2005). Revised global scales for the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity Code (MITI 3). Motivational Interviewing Newsletter, 11(1), 1–4.
• Agneessens, F., et al. (2017). Using the OARS techniques in clinical practice: A review. Psychology & Health, 32(3), 340-355.
• Bernard, J., et al. (2017). Training clinicians in motivational interviewing: A systematic review. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 73(10), 1344-1358.
• Westra, H. A., & Arkowitz, H. (2014). Incorporating motivational interviewing into cognitive-behavioral therapy. The Behavior Therapist, 37(2), 46-52.
• Forsberg, L., et al. (2018). The role of reflective listening in motivational interviewing training. Psychotherapy Research, 28(4), 486–494.
• Rubak, S., et al. (2005). Motivational interviewing: A systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of General Practice, 55(513), 305-312.
• Martinez, D., et al. (2018). Assessing fidelity to motivational interviewing: A review. Research in Social Work Practice, 28(2), 208-218.