Substance Abuse Therapy Manual 1720935014

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
Project MATCH Monograph Series

Volume 2
MOTIVATIONAL
ENHANCEMENT
THERAPY
MANUAL
A Clinical Research Guide for
Therapists Treating Individuals
With Alcohol Abuse and Dependence
By:
William R. Miller, Ph.D.
Allen Zweben, D.S.W.
Carlo C. DiClemente, Ph.D.
Robert G. Rychtarik, Ph.D.
Project MATCH Monograph Series Editor:

Margaret E. Mattson, Ph.D.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Public Health Service
National Institutes of Health
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

6000 Executive Boulevard
Rockville, Maryland 20892-7003
Project MATCH is supported by grants under a cooperative
agreement funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism (NIAAA) and implemented by nine clinical research
units and a data coordinating center. The project was initiated
and is administered by the Treatment Research Branch, NIAAA.
All material appearing in this volume is in the public domain

and may be reproduced or copied without permission from the
Institute or the authors. Citation of the source is appropriate.
NIH Publication No. 94-3723

Reprinted 1999
Acknowledgments
The overall effort to design all three manuals in this series and to
implement the therapies in the Clinical Research Units was coordi-
nated by the investigators at Yale University under the leadership of
Drs. Kathleen Carroll and Bruce Rounsaville.
Project MATCH Research Group and

Other Contributors
Principal and William Miller, Ph.D.
Coinvestigators Reid Hester, Ph.D.
ath the Sites Center on Alcoholism, Substance Abuse and Addictions
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM
Gerard Connors, Ph.D.

Robert Rychtarik, Ph.D.
Research Institute on Alcoholism
Buffalo, NY
Carrie Randall, Ph.D.

Raymond Anton, M.D.
Medical University of South Carolina and
Veterans Administration Medical Center
Charleston, SC
Ronald Kadden, Ph.D.

Ned Cooney, Ph.D.
University of Connecticut School of Medicine
Farmington, CT
Carlo DiClemente, Ph.D.

Joseph Carbonari, Ed.D.
University of Houston
Houston, TX
Allen Zweben, D.S.W.

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Milwaukee, WI
iii
Motivational Enhancement Therapy Manual
Richard Longabaugh, Ed.D.

Robert Stout, Ph.D.
Brown University
Providence, RI
Dale Walker, M.D.

Dennis Donovan, Ph.D.
University of Washington and Seattle VA Medical Center
Seattle, WA
Coordinating Thomas Babor, Ph.D.

Center Frances Del Boca, Ph.D.
Principal and University of Connecticut
Farmington, CT
Coinvestigators
Kathleen Carroll, Ph.D.
Bruce Rounsaville, M.D.
Yale University
New Haven, CT
NIAAA Staff John Allen, Ph.D.

Project Officer for Project MATCH
Chief, Treatment Research Branch
Margaret Mattson, Ph.D.

Staff Collaborator for Project MATCH
Cooperative Lisa Marshall

Education Gallaudet University
Washington, DC
Program
Consultants Larry Muenz, Ph.D.
Gaithersburg, MD
Philip Wirtz, Ph.D.

George Washington University
Washington, DC
Contractor Jane K. Myers

President
Janus Associates
Bethesda, MD
iv
Foreword
A major focus of the efforts of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse

and Alcoholism (NIAAA) in treatment research is to rigorously test the
patient-treatment matching approach to the clinical management of
alcoholism. This commitment is particularly reflected in its multisite
clinical trial, Project MATCH. This study is the first national, multisite
trial of patient-treatment matching and one of the two largest current
initiatives of NIAAA. Established under a cooperative agreement that
allows direct collaboration between the Institute and the researcher,
the project involves nine geographically representative clinical sites
and a data coordinating center. Researchers in Project MATCH are
among the most senior and experienced treatment scientists in the
field. Both public and private treatment facilities, as well as hospital
and university outpatient facilities, are represented.
The manuals in this series are the result of the collaborative efforts of
the Project MATCH investigators and are used as guides by therapists
in the trial. They are presented to the alcohol research community as
standardized, well-documented intervention tools for alcoholism treat-
ment research. The final reports of Project MATCH will inform us on
the relative efficacy of the interventions being evaluated in the trial and
on the types of clients who benefit the most from each of the therapies.
Until the final results from Project MATCH are presented to the com-
munity, these interim manuals summarize the consensus of the
investigators on reasonable intervention approaches based on present
knowledge. We look forward to offering further refinements of these
approaches as Project MATCH data are analyzed and published and as
the alcohol treatment field advances through the efforts of other ongo-
ing research.
Enoch Gordis, M.D.

Director
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse
and Alcoholism
v
Preface
This manual for therapists is provided to the public to permit repli-

cation of the treatment procedures employed in Project MATCH, a
multisite clinical trial of patient-treatment matching sponsored by
the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). It
describes Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET), one of three
treatment approaches studied in Project MATCH. Therapist manuals
for the other treatments—Twelve-Step Facilitation Therapy (TSF) and
Cognitive-Behavioral Coping Skills Therapy (CBT)—are available in
volumes 1 and 3 of this series, respectively.
Rationale for Although a number of therapies have had varying degrees of success,
Patient- no single treatment has been shown to be effective for all individuals
diagnosed with alcohol abuse or dependence. In recent years, interest
Treatment in the field has increasingly focused on patient-treatment matching to
Matching improve outcome. The hypothesis is that more beneficial results can
be obtained if treatment is prescribed on the basis of individual patient
needs and characteristics as opposed to treating all patients with the
same diagnosis in the same manner.
Many investigators have turned their attention from main effects evalu-
ations (i.e., studies that ask whether one intervention is more effective
than another) to studies specifically designed to identify interactions
between particular treatments and patient variables. While treatments
may not appear to differ in effectiveness when applied to a heteroge-
neous client population, specific treatments may indeed be more or
less effective for specific, clinically meaningful subgroups.
This reasoning has led to a new generation of alcoholism treatment

research studies whose design is driven by the objective of finding
effective “matches.” Ultimately, the goal of this line of research is to
provide the clinician with valid and practical rules applicable across
a variety of treatment settings to assign patients to those treatment
regimens particularly suited to them.
vii
Project Project MATCH, a 5-year study, was initiated by the Treatment Research
MATCH: Branch of NIAAA in 1989. The details of the design and implementation
of Project MATCH will be described in full in forthcoming publications.
An Overview This section outlines the major features of the study.
The objective of Project MATCH is to determine if varying subgroups

of alcohol abusing or dependent patients respond differentially to
three treatments: (1) Twelve-Step Facilitation Therapy, (2) Cognitive-
Behavioral Coping Skills Therapy, and (3) Motivational Enhancement
Therapy. Each treatment is delivered during a 12-week period by
trained therapists following a standardized protocol.
The project consists of two independent treatment-matching studies,

one with clients recruited at five outpatient settings, the second with
patients receiving aftercare treatment at four sites following an episode
of standard inpatient treatment. Patients are randomly assigned to one
of the three treatment approaches. Each study evaluates the inter-
action effects between selected patient characteristics and the three
treatments.
Each of the nine study sites is recruiting approximately 150–200 clients.

Clients are evaluated at intake and again at 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 months.
Outcome measures for the trial include drinking behavior, psychologi-
cal and social function, and consequences of drinking Analyses of a
priori hypotheses, as well as exploratory analyses, will show whether
different patient characteristics are associated with differential treat-
ment outcomes in each of the three therapeutic interventions.
Motivational Enhancement Therapy. MET is based on principles

of motivational psychology and is designed to produce rapid, inter-
nally motivated change. This treatment strategy does not attempt to
guide and train the client, step by step, through recovery, but instead
employs motivational strategies to mobilize the client’s own resources.
MET consists of four carefully planned and individualized treatment
sessions. The first two sessions focus on structured feedback from the
initial assessment, future plans, and motivation for change. The final
two sessions at the midpoint and end of treatment provide opportuni-
ties for the therapist to reinforce progress, encourage reassessment,
and provide an objective perspective on the process of change.
The manual for this modality begins with an overview of MET and a
description of the general principles to be applied. A special section
discusses how to involve a significant other in MET. Then, specific
guidelines are provided for how to structure the four MET sessions.
Finally, recommendations are made for dealing with special problems
that can arise in conducting MET. Appendix A offers specific instruc-
tions for preparing and explaining an individualized client feedback
form. Copies of materials provided to MET clients are also included.
viii
Preface
Appendix B offers guidelines for how to apply the manual—written from

the perspective of outpatient treatment—within a program of aftercare
following residential care.
Twelve-Step Facilitation Approach. This therapy is grounded in the

concept of alcoholism as a spiritual and medical disease. The con-
tent of this intervention is consistent with the 12 Steps of Alcoholics
Anonymous (AA), with primary emphasis given to Steps 1 through 5.
In addition to abstinence from alcohol, a major goal of the treatment is
to foster the patient’s commitment to participation in AA. During the
course of the program’s 12 sessions, patients are actively encouraged
to attend AA meetings and to maintain journals of their AA attendance
and participation. Therapy sessions are highly structured, following
a similar format each week that includes symptoms inquiry, review
and reinforcement for AA participation, introduction and explication
of the week’s theme, and setting goals for AA participation for the next
week. Material introduced during treatment sessions is complemented
by reading assignments from AA literature.
Cognitive-Behavioral Coping Skills Therapy. This therapy is based on

the principles of social learning theory and views drinking behavior as
functionally related to major problems in the person’s life. It posits that
addressing this broad spectrum of problems will prove more effective
than focusing on drinking alone. Emphasis is placed on overcoming
skill deficits and increasing the person’s ability to cope with high-risk
situations that commonly precipitate relapse, including both inter-
personal difficulties and intrapersonal discomfort, such as anger or
depression. The program consists of 12 sessions with the goal of train-
ing the individual to use active behavioral or cognitive coping methods
to deal with problems, rather than relying on alcohol as a maladaptive
coping strategy. The skills also provide a means of obtaining social
support critical to the maintenance of sobriety.
Caveats and Although all three manuals were developed for a randomized clini-
Critical cal trial focusing on patient-treatment matching hypotheses, the
substance of the interventions is equally suitable for other research
Considerations questions and designs. However, the reader needs to be aware of the
parameters of Project MATCH.
Therapy is delivered in a structured research situation. All three treat-

ments are manual guided and administered by experienced therapists
who receive specialized training in one of the three project interventions.
Therapists closely follow the procedures outlined in their manual, with
regular supervision (by observation of videotapes) from both local and
projectwide clinical supervisors.
ix
This manual is written for therapists with similar intensive training

and supervision. A summary of the procedures used to select, train,
and supervise therapists in Project MATCH is provided in appendix C.
There is an important difference between a therapy textbook and a

therapy manual. A therapy textbook is a comprehensive presentation
of a particular therapeutic approach, usually describing a conceptual
model, general principles, and a broad range of applications and exam-
ples. It is typically meant to facilitate broad utilization of a therapeutic
approach by a wide range of practitioners in a variety of settings. A
therapy manual, on the other hand, is intended to operationalize and
standardize a treatment approach to be used in a particular context,
usually a specific clinical trial. In writing a therapy manual, the authors
must make a number of specific decisions (e.g., the number and timing
of sessions, the content of each session) that are ordinarily left to clini-
cal judgment in a therapy textbook.
This manual is designed to standardize MET as a four-session treat-

ment modality within the particular context of Project MATCH. All
treatments are preceded by the same extensive assessment battery,
requiring approximately 7–8 hours. Abstinence is the expressed goal of
all treatments, and except in unusual situations, all sessions are vid-
eotaped. Each treatment session is preceded by a breath test to ensure
sobriety, and a positive breath alcohol reading results in rescheduling
the session. Therapists are prohibited from mixing MET with other
treatment approaches, and the purity of approach is maintained by
local and national supervisors who review videotapes. All therapy has
to be completed within 90 days. A significant other can be invited to
participate in up to two sessions.
Other design requirements of clinical trials are likewise standardized

across all sites, including features such as defined patient eligibility
criteria, randomized assignment of treatment, and guidelines for deal-
ing with patients who are late or absent for treatment sessions or who
show significant clinical deterioration during the course of the inter-
vention. Guidelines regulate and document the amount and type of
therapy over and above that provided by Project MATCH that a client
receives during the study. Data collection and delivery of treatment
are kept strictly separate, with the former being handled by research
assistants under the supervision of the project coordinators. The three
manuals refer to these Project MATCH-specific procedures with the
knowledge that some readers may wish to follow similar guidelines,
while others may choose to devise new guidelines more appropriate to
the requirements of their own project.
The therapist style and many specific concepts embodied in this

manual were drawn from Miller and Rollnick’s (1991) Motivational
Interviewing. We are grateful to Guilford Press for their permission to
publish this specific adaptation Similar approaches have been more
x
Preface
briefly described elsewhere (Edwards and Orford 1977; Miller 1983;

van Bilsen and van Ernst 1986; Zweben et al. 1983, 1988). The bib-
liography of this manual provides a range of clinical, videotape, and
research resources for further reference.
The general therapeutic principles underlying MET can be applied in

many other ways than those delineated here (Miller and Rolinick 1991).
Under ordinary circumstances, the number, duration, and distribution
of sessions could be flexible. Significant others might be involved in
all sessions or none at all. The goals of therapy might be more flex-
ible (Miller 1987), and motivational-counseling procedures could be
intermixed with other therapeutic strategies. The specific prescriptions
outlined in this manual are imposed for purposes of standardization
and separation of treatments in Project MATCH.
The staffs of Project MATCH and NIAAA make no claims or guarantees

regarding the effectiveness of the treatment procedures described in
this manual. Although the principles of MET are well grounded in clini-
cal and experimental research, the specific efficacy of MET as outlined
in this manual remains to be tested. The final reports of Project MATCH
will provide clearer information on the efficacy of this approach relative
to others and on the types of clients for whom it may be optimal. In the
interim, this manual offers a detailed description of MET procedures as
constructed by consensus among the investigators and implemented
by the therapists of Project MATCH. All manuals of this kind should be
regarded as under development and subject to ongoing improvement
based on subsequent research and experience.
The planning and operation of Project MATCH and the products now
resulting from it, including this series of manuals, reflect the efforts of
many individuals over a period of several years. Their dedication and
collegial collaboration have been remarkable and will enrich the field of
alcoholism treatment research for years to come.
Margaret E. Mattson, Ph.D.

Project MATCH Staff Collaborator
Project MATCH Monograph Series Editor
Division of Clinical and Prevention
Research
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism
xi
Contents
Page
Acknowledgments ...................................................................... iii
Foreword ..................................................................................... v
Preface ...................................................................................... vii
Rationale for Patient-Treatment Matching ........................... vii
Project MATCH: An Overview .............................................. viii
Caveats and Critical Considerations ..................................... ix
Introduction .......................................................................... 1
Overview ................................................................................ 1
Research Basis for MET.......................................................... 2
Stages of Change ................................................................... 4
Clinical Considerations ......................................................... 7
Rationale and Basic Principles .............................................. 7
Express Empathy ............................................................. 7
Develop Discrepancy ........................................................ 8
Avoid Argumentation ........................................................ 8
Roll With Resistance ......................................................... 8
Support Self-Efficacy ........................................................ 8
Differences From Other Treatment Approaches ..................... 9
Practical Strategies ............................................................ 13
Phase 1: Building Motivation for Change ............................. 13
Eliciting Self-Motivational Statements ............................. 13
Listening With Empathy ................................................. 16
Questioning .................................................................... 19
Presenting Personal Feedback ........................................ 19
Affirming the Client ........................................................ 21
Handling Resistance ....................................................... 21
Reframing ...................................................................... 24
Summarizing .................................................................. 26
Phase 2: Strengthening Commitment to Change .................. 27
Recognizing Change Readiness ....................................... 27
Discussing a Plan ........................................................... 29
Communicating Free Choice ........................................... 29
Consequences of Action and Inaction .............................. 29
Information and Advice.................................................... 30
Emphasizing Abstinence ................................................. 31
Dealing With Resistance ................................................. 34
The Change Plan Worksheet ........................................... 34
Recapitulating................................................................. 37
xiii
Page
Asking for Commitment................................................... 38
Involving a Significant Other ............................................... 39
Goals for Significant Other Involvement ........................... 40
Explaining the Significant Other’s Role ........................... 40
The Significant Other in Phase 1 .................................... 41
The Significant Other in Phase 2 ..................................... 44
Handling SO Disruptiveness ........................................... 45
Phase 3: Followthrough Strategies ....................................... 47
Reviewing Progress ......................................................... 47
Renewing Motivation ...................................................... 47
Redoing Commitment ..................................................... 47
The Structure of MET Sessions ........................................... 49
The Initial Session ................................................................ 49
Preparation for the First Session ..................................... 49
Presenting the Rationale and Limits of Treatment ............ 50
Ending the First Session ................................................. 52
The Followup Note .......................................................... 53
Followthrough Sessions ....................................................... 54
The Second Session ........................................................ 54
Sessions 3 and 4 ............................................................ 54
Termination .................................................................... 55
Dealing With Special Problems............................................. 57
Treatment Dissatisfaction .................................................... 57
Missed Appointments .......................................................... 58
Telephone Consultation ....................................................... 59
Crisis Intervention ............................................................... 60
Recommended Reading and Additional Resources................ 61
Clinical Descriptions ........................................................... 61
Demonstration Videotapes .................................................. 62
References ........................................................................... 62
Appendix A: Assessment Feedback Procedures .................... 67
Preface ................................................................................ 67
Alcohol Consumption ..................................................... 67
Alcohol-Related Problems ............................................... 68
Alcohol Dependence ....................................................... 68
Physical Health .............................................................. 68
Neuropsychological Functioning ..................................... 68
Risk Factors ................................................................... 69
Motivation for Change .................................................... 69
Comprehensive Assessment Approaches .......................... 69
The Project MATCH Assessment Feedback Protocol and
Procedures for Completing the PFR .................................. 70
Estimated Blood Alcohol Concentration Peaks ................. 71
Risk Factors ................................................................... 73
Problem Severity ............................................................. 75
Serum Chemistry ........................................................... 75
xiv
Contents
Page
Neuropsychological Test Results ..................................... 75
Interpreting the PFR to Clients ............................................ 77
Estimated BAC Peaks ..................................................... 78
Risk Factors ................................................................... 78
Problem Severity ............................................................. 80
Serum Chemistry ........................................................... 80
Neuropsychological Test Results ..................................... 82
Assessment Instruments Used in Project MATCH Feedback... 83
Form 90 ......................................................................... 83
DRINC............................................................................. 83
MacAndrew Scale ........................................................... 84
Addiction Severity Index ................................................. 84
AUDIT............................................................................. 84
References ........................................................................... 84
Handouts for Clients ........................................................... 87
Personal Feedback Report
Understanding Your Personal Feedback Report
Alcohol and You
Appendix B: Motivational Enhancement Therapy in the
Aftercare Setting ......................................................... 109
Scheduling......................................................................... 109
Reviewing Progress ............................................................ 111
Generating Self-Motivational Statements............................ 112
Providing Personal Feedback ............................................. 112
Developing a Plan............................................................... 113
Integrating MET Aftercare With Inpatient Programing.......... 115
The Prepackaged Plan .................................................. 115
Disulfiram .................................................................... 115
Alcoholics Anonymous .................................................. 116
Feedback........................................................................... 117
Ambivalence and Attribution ............................................. 117
Appendix C: Therapist Selection, Training, and
Supervision in Project MATCH..................................... 119
Therapist Selection ............................................................ 119
Therapist Training ............................................................. 120
Ongoing Monitoring ........................................................... 120
xv
Introduction
Overview Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET) is a systematic interven-

tion approach for evoking change in problem drinkers. It is based
on principles of motivational psychology and is designed to produce
rapid, internally motivated change. This treatment strategy does not
attempt to guide and train the client, step by step, through recovery,
but instead employs motivational strategies to mobilize the client’s own
change resources.
Treatment is preceded by an extensive assessment battery (appendix

A) requiring approximately 7–8 hours. Each treatment session is pre-
ceded by a breath test to ensure sobriety, and a positive breath alcohol
reading is cause for rescheduling the session.
As offered in Project MATCH, MET consists of four carefully planned

and individualized treatment sessions. Whenever possible, the client’s
spouse or another “significant other” is included in the first two of
these four sessions. The first treatment session (week 1) focuses on (1)
providing structured feedback from the initial assessment regarding
problems associated with drinking, level of consumption and related
symptoms, decisional considerations, and future plans and (2) build-
ing client motivation to initiate or continue change. The second session
(week 2) continues the motivation enhancement process, working
toward consolidating commitment to change. In two followthrough ses-
sions, at week 6 and week 12, the therapist continues to monitor and
encourage progress. All therapy is completed within 90 days.
MET is not intended to be a minimal or control treatment condition. MET

is, in its own right, an effective outpatient treatment strategy which,
by virtue of its rationale and content, requires fewer therapist-directed
sessions than some alternatives. It may, therefore, be particularly use-
ful in situations where contact with problem drinkers is limited to few
or infrequent sessions (e.g., in general medical practice or in employee
assistance programs). Treatment outcome research strongly supports
MET strategies as effective in producing change in problem drinkers.
The initial presentation of MET in this manual is written from the

perspective of outpatient treatment. These procedures can also be
1
applied in aftercare, however, and such adaptation is addressed in

appendix B.
Research
Basis for MET For more than two decades, research has pointed to surprisingly
few differences in outcome between longer, more intensive alcohol
treatment programs and shorter, less intensive, even relatively brief
alternative approaches (Annis 1985; Miller and Hester 1986b; Miller
and Rollnick 1991; U. S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment
1983). One interpretation of such findings is that all alcohol treat-
ments are equally ineffective. A larger review of the literature, however,
does not support such pessimism. Significant differences among alco-
hol treatment modalities are found in nearly half of clinical trials, and
relatively brief treatments have been shown in numerous studies to be
more effective than no intervention (Holder et al. 1991).
An alternative interpretation of this outcome picture is that many

treatments contain a common core of ingredients which evoke change
and that additional components of more extensive approaches may
be unnecessary in many cases. This has led, in the addictions field as
elsewhere, to a search for the critical conditions that are necessary and
sufficient to induce change (e.g., Orford 1986). Miller and Sanchez (in
press) described six elements which they believed to be active ingre-
dients of the relatively brief interventions that have been shown by
research to induce change in problem drinkers, summarized by the
acronym FRAMES:
■ FEEDBACK of personal risk or impairment
■ Emphasis on personal RESPONSIBILITY for change
■ Clear ADVICE to change
■ A MENU of alternative change options
■ Therapist EMPATHY
■ Facilitation of client SELF-EFFICACY or optimism
These therapeutic elements are consistent with a larger review of

research on what motivates problem drinkers for change (Miller 1985;
Miller and Rollnick 1991).
Therapeutic interventions containing some or all of these motivational

elements have been demonstrated to be effective in initiating treatment
and in reducing long-term alcohol use, alcohol-related problems, and
health consequences of drinking. Table 1 summarizes this research.
It is noteworthy that, in a number of these studies, the motivational
2
Introduction
Table 1. Specific FRAMES components of evaluated brief interventions

Author Feedback Response Advice Menu Empathy Self-Efficacy Outcome
*Anderson and Scott 1992 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Brief > No counseling
*Babor and Grant 1991 Yes Yes Yes Manual Yes Yes Brief > No counseling
*Bien 1991 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Brief > No counseling
*Brown and Miller 1992 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Brief > No counseling
*Carpenter et al. 1985 Yes No Yes No No No Brief = Extended counseling
*Chapman and Huygens 1988 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Brief = IPT = OPT treatment
*Chick et al. 1985 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Brief > No counseling
*Chick et al. 1988 No Yes Yes No No No Brief < Extended motiv cnslg
Daniels et al. 1992 Yes No Yes Manual No No Advice + Manual = No advice
Drummond et al. 1992 Yes No Yes No No No Brief = OPT treatment
Edwards et al. 1977 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Brief = OPT/IPT treatment
Elvy et al. 1988 Yes No Yes No No No Brief > No counseling
*Harris and Miller 1990 No Yes Yes Manual Yes Yes Brief = Extended > No treatment
*Heather et al. 1986 Yes Yes Manual Manual No No Manual > No manual
*Heather et al. 1987 Yes Yes Yes Manual No No Brief = No counseling
*Heather et al. 1990 Yes Yes Yes Manual No No Manual > No manual
*Kristenson et al. 1983 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Brief > No counseling
Kuchipudi et al. 1990 Yes No Yes Yes No No Brief = No counseling
Maheswaran et al. 1990 Yes No Yes No No No Brief > No counseling
*Miller and Taylor 1980 No Yes Yes Manual Yes Yes Brief = Behavioral counseling
*Miller et al. 1980 No Yes Yes Manual Yes Yes Brief = Behavioral counseling
*Miller et al. 1981 No Yes Yes Manual Yes Yes Brief = Behavioral counseling
*Miller et al. 1988 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Brief > No counseling
*Miller et al. 1991 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Brief > No counseling
*Persson and Magnusson 1989 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Brief > No counseling
*Robertson et al. 1986 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Brief < Behavioral counseling
*Romelsjo et al. 1989 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Brief = OPT treatment
*Sannibale 1989 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Brief = OPT treatment
*Scott and Anderson 1990 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Brief = No counseling
*Skutle and Berg 1987 No Yes Yes Yes+ Yes Yes Brief = Behavioral counseling
Man
*Wallace et al. 1988 Yes Yes Yes Manual Yes Yes Brief > No counseling
*Zweben et al. 1988 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Brief = Conjoint therapy
Percent Yes 81 81 100 59 63 69
Source: Bien, Miller, and Tonigan 1992.

NOTE: Components listed are characteristics of the brief intervention in each study.
* Additional information obtained from the study’s authors.
Manual = Manual-guided therapy; IPT = Inpatient treatment setting; OPT = Outpatient treatment setting
3
intervention yielded comparable outcomes even when compared with

longer, more intensive alternative approaches.
Further evidence supports the efficacy of the therapeutic style that

forms the core of MET. The therapist characteristic of “accurate empa-
thy,” as defined by Carl Rogers and his students (e.g., Rogers 1957,
1959; Truax and Carkhuff 1967), has been shown to be a powerful
predictor of therapeutic success with problem drinkers, even when
treatment is guided by another (e.g., behavioral) rationale (Miller et al.
1980; Valle 1981). Miller, Benefield, and Tonigan (in press) reported
that the degree to which therapists engaged in direct confrontation
(conceptually opposite to an empathic style) was predictive of contin-
ued client drinking 1 year after treatment.
Stages of The MET approach is further grounded in research on processes of

Change natural discovery. Prechovaska and DiClemente (1982, 1984, 1985,
1986) have described a transtheoretical model of how people change
addictive behaviors, with or without formal treatment. In a transthe-
oretical perspective, individuals move through a series of stages of
change as they progress in modifying problem behaviors. This concept
of stages is important in understanding change. Each stage requires
certain tasks to be accomplished and certain processes to be used in
order to achieve change. Six separate stages were identified in this
model (Prochaska and DiClemente 1984, 1986).
People who are not considering change in their problem behavior are
described as PRECONTEMPLATORS. The CONTEMPLATION stage
entails individuals’ beginning to consider
both that they have a problem and the fea-
Figure 1. A Stage Model of the Process of Change
sibility and costs of changing that behavior.
Prochaska and DiClemente As individuals progress, they move on to the
DETERMINATION stage, where the deci-
sion is made to take action and change.
Once individuals begin to modify the prob-
lem behavior, they enter the ACTION stage,
which normally continues for 3–6 months.
After successfully negotiating the action
stage, individuals move to MAINTENANCE
or sustained change. If these efforts fail, a
RELAPSE occurs, and the individual begins
another cycle (see figure 1).
The ideal path is directly from one stage to

the next until maintenance is achieved. For
most people with serious problems related
to drinking, however, the process involves
several slips or relapses which represent
failed action or maintenance. The good
4
Introduction
news is that most who relapse go through the cycle again and move
back into contemplation and the change process. Several revolutions
through this cycle of change are often needed to learn how to maintain
change successfully.
From a stages-of-change perspective, the MET approach addresses

where the client currently is in the cycle of change and assists the per-
son to move through the stages toward successful sustained change.
For the ME therapist, the contemplation and determination stages
are most critical. The objective is to help clients seriously consider
two basic issues. The first is how much of a problem their drinking
behavior poses for them and how their drinking is affecting them (both
positively and negatively). Tipping the balance of these pros and cons
of drinking toward change is essential for movement from contempla-
tion to determination. Second, the client in contemplation assesses the
possibility and the costs/benefits of changing the problem behavior.
Clients consider whether they will be able to make a change and how
that change will affect their lives.
In the determination stage, clients develop a firm resolve to take action.

That resolve is influenced by past experiences with change attempts.
Individuals who have made unsuccessful attempts to change their
drinking behavior in the past need encouragement to decide to go
through the cycle again.
Understanding the cycle of change can help the ME therapist to empa-

thize with the client and can give direction to intervention strategies.
Though individuals move through the cycle of change in their own ways,
it is the same cycle. The speed and efficiency of movement through the
cycle, however, will vary. The task is to assist the individual in moving
from one stage to the next as swiftly and effectively as possible.
In sum, MET is well grounded in theory and research on the successful

resolution of alcohol problems. It is consistent with an understanding
of the stages and processes that underlie change in addictive behav-
iors. It draws on motivational principles that have been derived from
both experimental and clinical research. A summary of alcohol treat-
ment outcome research reveals that a motivational approach of this
kind is strongly supported by clinical trials: its overall effectiveness
compares favorably with outcomes of alternative treatments, and when
cost-effectiveness is considered, an MET strategy fares well indeed in
comparison with other approaches (Holder et al. 1991).
5
Clinical Considerations
Rationale and The MET approach begins with the assumption that the responsibility
Basic and capability for change lie within the client. The therapist’s task is to
create a set of conditions that will enhance the client’s own motivation
Principles for and commitment to change. Rather than relying upon therapy ses-
sions as the primary locus of change, the therapist seeks to mobilize
the client’s inner resources as well as those inherent in the client’s nat-
ural helping relationships. MET seeks to support intrinsic motivation
for change, which will lead the client to initiate, persist in, and comply
with behavior change efforts. Miller and Rollnick (1991) have described
five basic motivational principles underlying such an approach:
■■ Express empathy
■■ Develop discrepancy
■■ Avoid argumentation
■■ Roll with resistance
■■ Support self-efficacy
Express The ME therapist seeks to communicate great respect for the client.
Empathy Communications that imply a superior/inferior relationship between
therapist and client are avoided. The therapist’s role is a blend of sup-
portive companion and knowledgeable consultant. The client’s freedom
of choice and self-direction are respected. Indeed, in this view, only the
clients can decide to make a change in their drinking and carry out that
choice. The therapist seeks ways to compliment rather than denigrate,
to build up rather than tear down. Much of MET is listening rather than
telling. Persuasion is gentle, subtle, always with the assumption that
change is up to the client. The power of such gentle, nonaggressive per-
suasion has been widely recognized in clinical writings, including Bill
Wilson’s own advice to alcoholics on “working with others” (Alcoholics
Anonymous 1976). Reflective listening (accurate empathy) is a key skill
in motivational interviewing. It communicates an acceptance of clients
as they are, while also supporting them in the process of change.
7
Develop Motivation for change occurs when people perceive a discrepancy

Discrepancy between where they are and where they want to be. The MET approach
seeks to enhance and focus the client’s attention on such discrep-
ancies with regard to drinking behavior. In certain cases (e.g., the
pre-contemplators in Prochaska and DiClemente’s model), it may be
necessary first to develop such discrepancy by raising clients’ aware-
ness of the personal consequences of their drinking. Such information,
properly presented, can precipitate a crisis (critical mass) of motivation
for change. As a result, the individual may be more willing to enter into
a frank discussion of change options in order to reduce the perceived
discrepancy and regain emotional equilibrium. When the client enters
treatment in the later contemplation stage, it takes less time and effort
to move the client along to the point of determination for change.
Avoid If handled poorly, ambivalence and discrepancy can resolve into defen-
sive coping strategies that reduce the client’s discomfort but do not alter
Argumentation
drinking and related risks. An unrealistic (from the clients’ perspective)
attack on their drinking behavior tends to evoke defensiveness and
opposition and suggests that the therapist does not really understand.
The MET style explicitly avoids direct argumentation, which tends to

evoke resistance. No attempt is made to have the client accept or “admit”
a diagnostic label. The therapist does not seek to prove or convince by
force of argument. Instead, the therapist employs other strategies to
assist the client to see accurately the consequences of drinking and to
begin devaluing the perceived positive aspects of alcohol. When MET
is conducted properly, the client and not the therapist voices the argu-
ments for change (Miller and Rollnick 1991).
How the therapist handles client “resistance” is a crucial and defin-

Roll With ing characteristic of the MET approach. MET strategies do not meet
Resistance resistance head on, but rather “roll with” the momentum, with a goal
of shifting client perceptions in the process. New ways of thinking
about problems are invited but not imposed. Ambivalence is viewed
as normal, not pathological, and is explored openly. Solutions are usu-
ally evoked from the client rather than provided by the therapist. This
approach for dealing with resistance is described in more detail later.
People who are persuaded that they have a serious problem will still
Support not move toward change unless there is hope for success. Bandura
Self-Efficacy (1982) has described “self-efficacy” as a critical determinant of behav-
ior change. Self-efficacy is, in essence, the belief that one can perform
a particular behavior or accomplish a particular task. In this case, cli-
ents must be persuaded that it is possible to change their own drinking
and thereby reduce related problems. In everyday language, this might
be called hope or optimism, though an overall optimistic nature is not
crucial here. Rather, it is the clients’ specific belief that they can change
the drinking problem. Unless this element is present, a discrepancy cri-
sis is likely to resolve into defensive coping (e.g., rationalization, denial)
to reduce discomfort without changing behavior. This is a natural and
8
understandable protective process. If one has little hope that things

could change, there is little reason to face the problem.
The MET approach differs dramatically from confrontational treat-

Differences ment strategies in which the therapist takes primary responsibility for
From Other “breaking down the client’s denial.” Miller (1989, p. 75) provided these
contrasts between approaches:
Treatment
Approaches
Confrontation-of-Denial Motivational-Interviewing
Approach Approach
Heavy emphasis on acceptance Deemphasis on labels;

of self as “alcoholic”; acceptance acceptance of “alcoholism” label
of diagnosis seen as essential for seen as unnecessary for change
change to occur
Emphasis on disease of Emphasis on personal choice

alcoholism which reduces regarding future use of alcohol
personal choice and control and other drugs
Therapist presents perceived Therapist conducts objective

evidence of alcoholism in an evaluation but focuses on
attempt to convince the client of eliciting the client’s own concerns
the diagnosis
Resistance seen as “denial,” a Resistance seen as an

trait characteristic of alcoholics interpersonal behavior pattern
requiring confrontation influenced by the therapist’s
behavior
Resistance is met with Resistance is met with reflection

argumentation and correction
A goal of the ME therapist is to evoke from the client statements of

problem perception and a need for change (see “Eliciting Self-Motiva-
tional Statements”). This is the conceptual opposite of an approach in
which the therapist takes responsibility for voicing these perspectives
(“You’re an alcoholic, and you have to quit drinking”) and persuading
the client of the truth. The ME therapist emphasizes the client’s ability
to change (self-efficacy) rather than the client’s helplessness or pow-
erlessness over alcohol. As discussed earlier, arguing with the client
is carefully avoided, and strategies for handling resistance are more
reflective than exhortational. The ME therapist, therefore, does not—
■■ Argue with clients.
■■ Impose a diagnostic label on clients.
■■ Tell clients what they “must” do.
9
■■ Seek to “break down” denial by direct confrontation.
■■ Imply clients’ “powerlessness.”
The MET approach also differs substantially from cognitive-behavioral

treatment strategies that prescribe and attempt to teach clients specific
coping skills. No direct skill training is included in the MET approach.
Clients are not taught “how to.” Rather, the MET strategy relies on the
client’s own natural change processes and resources. Instead of telling
clients how to change, the ME therapist builds motivation and elic-
its ideas as to how change might occur. Thus, the following contrasts
apply:
Cognitive-Behavioral Approach Motivational Enhancement

Approach
Assumes that the client is Employs specific principles and

motivated; no direct strategies for strategies for building client
building motivation for change motivation
Seeks to identify and modify Explores and reflects client

maladaptive cognitions perceptions without labeling or
“correcting” them
Prescribes specific coping Elicits possible change strategies

strategies from the client and significant
other
Teaches coping behaviors Responsibility for change

through instruction, modeling, methods is left with the client; no
directed practice, and feedback training, modeling, or practice
Specific problem-solving Natural problem-solving

strategies are taught processes are elicited from the
client and significant other
(Miller and Rollnick 1991)
MET, then, is an entirely different strategy from skill training. It

assumes that the key element for lasting change is a motivational
shift that instigates a decision and commitment to change. In the
absence of such a shift, skill training is premature. Once such a shift
has occurred, however, people’s ordinary resources and their natural
relationships may well suffice. Syme (1988), in fact, has argued that
for many individuals a skill-training approach may be inefficacious
precisely because it removes the focus from what is the key element
of transformation: a clear and firm decision to change (cf. Miller and
Brown 1991).
10
Finally, it is useful to differentiate MET from nondirective approaches

with which it might be confused. In a strict Rogerian approach, the
therapist does not direct treatment but follows the client’s direction
wherever it may lead. In contrast, MET employs systematic strategies
toward specific goals. The therapist seeks actively to create discrep-
ancy and to channel it toward behavior change (Miller 1983). Thus
MET is a directive and persuasive approach, not a nondirective and
passive approach.
Nondirective Approach Motivational Enhancement

Approach
Allows the client to determine Systematically directs the client

the content and direction of toward motivation for change
counseling
Avoids injecting the counselor’s Offers the counselor’s own advice

own advice and feedback and feedback where appropriate
Empathic reflection is used Empathic reflection is used

noncontingently selectively to reinforce certain
points
Explores the client’s conflicts and Seeks to create and amplify the
emotions as they are currently client’s discrepancy in order to
enhance motivation for change
(Miller and Rollnick 1991
11
Practical Strategies
Phase 1: Motivational counseling can be divided into two major phases: build-
Building ing motivation for change and strengthening commitment to change
(Miller and Rollnick 1991). The early phase of MET focuses on develop-
Motivation ing clients’ motivation to make a change in their drinking. Clients will
for vary widely in their readiness to change. Some may come to treatment
Change largely decided and determined to change, but the following pro-
cesses should nevertheless be pursued in order to explore the depth
of such apparent motivation and to begin consolidating commitment.
Others will be reluctant or even hostile at the outset. At the extreme,
some true precontemplators may be coerced into treatment by family,
employer, or legal authorities. Most clients, however, are likely to enter
the treatment process somewhere in the contemplation stage. They
may already be dabbling with taking action but still need consolidation
of motivation for change.
This phase may be thought of as tipping the motivational balance

(Janis and Mann 1977; Miller 1989; Miller et al. 1988). One side of the
seesaw favors status quo (i.e., continued drinking as before), whereas
the other favors change. The former side of the decisional balance is
weighed down by perceived positive benefits from drinking and feared
consequences of change. Weights on the other side consist of perceived
benefits of changing one’s drinking and feared consequences of con-
tinuing unchanged. Your task is to shift the balance in favor of change.
Eight strategies toward this end (Miller and Rollnick 1991) are outlined
in this section.
Eliciting There is truth to the saying that we can “talk ourselves into” a change.
Self-Motivational Motivational psychology has amply demonstrated that when people are
subtly enticed to speak or act in a new way, their beliefs and values
Statements tend to shift in that direction. This phenomenon has sometimes been
described as cognitive dissonance (Festinger 1957). Self-perception
theory (Bem 1965, 1967, 1972), an alternative account of this phe-
nomenon, might be summarized: “As I hear myself talk, I learn what
I believe.” That is, the words which come out of a person’s mouth are
quite persuasive to that person—more so, perhaps, than words spoken
by another. “If I say it, and no one has forced me to say it, then I must
believe it!”
13
If this is so, then the worst persuasion strategy is one that evokes
defensive argumentation from the person. Head-on confrontation is
rarely an effective sales technique (“Your children are educationally
deprived, and you will be an irresponsible parent if you don’t buy this
encyclopedia”). This is a flawed approach not only because it evokes
hostility, but also because it provokes the client to verbalize precisely
the wrong set of statements. An aggressive argument that “You’re an
alcoholic and you have to stop drinking” will usually evoke a predict-
able set of responses: “No I’m not, and no I don’t.” Unfortunately,
counselors are sometimes trained to understand such a response as
client “denial” and to push all the harder. The likely result is a high
level of client resistance.
The positive side of the coin is that the ME therapist seeks to elicit from
the client certain kinds of statements that can be considered, within
this view, to be self-motivating (Miller 1983). These include statements
of—
■■ Being open to input about drinking.
■■ Acknowledging real or potential problems related to drinking
■■ Expressing a need, desire, or willingness to change.
There are several ways to elicit such statements from clients. One is to
ask for them directly, via open-ended questions. Some examples:
■■ I assume, from the fact that you are here, that you have been hav-
ing some concerns or difficulties related to your drinking. Tell me
about those.
■■ Tell me a little about your drinking. What do you like about drink-
ing’? What’s positive about drinking for you? And what’s the other
side? What are your worries about drinking?
■■ Tell me what you’ve noticed about your drinking. How has it changed
over time? What things have you noticed that concern you, that you
think could be problems, or might become problems?
■■ What have other people told you about your drinking? What are
other people worried about? (If a spouse or significant other is pres-
ent, this can be asked directly.)
■■ What makes you think that perhaps you need to make a change in
your drinking?
14
Once this process is rolling, simply keep it going by using reflective

listening (see below), by asking for examples, by asking “What else?,”
and so forth. If it bogs down, you can inventory general areas such as—
■■ Tolerance—does the client seem to be able to drink more than other

people without showing as much effect?
■■ Memory—has the client had periods of not remembering what hap-

pened while drinking or other memory problems?
■■ Relationships—has drinking affected relationships with spouse,

family, or friends?
■■ Health—is the client aware of any health problems related to using

alcohol?
■■ Legal—have there been any arrests or other brushes with the law
because of behavior while drinking?
■■ Financial—has drinking contributed to money problems?
Information from the pretreatment assessment (to be used as feedback

later) may also suggest some areas to explore.
If you encounter difficulties in eliciting client concerns, still another

strategy is to employ gentle paradox to evoke self-motivational state-
ments. In this table-turning approach, you subtly take on the voice
of the client’s “resistance,” evoking from the client the opposite side.
Some examples:
■■ You haven’t convinced me yet that you are seriously concerned.

You’ve come down here and gone through several hours of assess-
ment. Is that all you’re concerned about?
■■ I’ll tell you one concern I have. This program is one that requires
a fair amount of motivation from people, and frankly, I’m not sure
from what you’ve told me so far that you’re motivated enough to
carry through with it. Do you think we should go ahead?
■■ I’m not sure how much you are interested in changing, or even in
taking a careful look at your drinking. It sounds like you might be
happier just going on as before.
Particularly in the presence of a significant other, such statements

may elicit new self-motivational material. Similarly, a client may back
down from a position if you state it more extremely, even in the form of
a question. For example:
15
■■ So drinking is really important to you. Tell me about that.
■■ What is it about drinking that you really need to hang onto, that
you can’t let go of?
In general, however, the best opening strategy for eliciting self-moti-

vational statements is to ask for them:
■■ Tell me what concerns you about your drinking.
■■ Tell me what it has cost you.
■■ Tell me why you think you might need to make a change.
Listening With The eliciting strategies just discussed are likely to evoke some initial
Empathy offerings, but it is also crucial how you respond to clients’ statements.
The therapeutic skill of accurate empathy (sometimes also called active
listening, reflection, or understanding) is an optimal response within
MET.
Empathy is commonly thought of as “feeling with” people, or having

an immediate understanding of their situation by virtue of having
experienced it (or something similar) oneself. Carl Rogers, however,
introduced a new technical meaning for the term “empathy,” using it to
describe a particular skill and style of reflective listening (Rogers 1957,
1959). In this style, the therapist listens carefully to what the client is
saying, then reflects it back to the client, often in a slightly modified
or reframed form. Acknowledgment of the client’s expressed or implicit
feeling state may also be included. This way of responding offers a
number of advantages: (1) it is unlikely to evoke client resistance, (2)
it encourages the client to keep talking and exploring the topic, (3) it
communicates respect and caring and builds a working therapeutic
alliance, (4) it clarifies for the therapist exactly what the client means,
and (5) it can be used to reinforce ideas expressed by the client.
This last characteristic is an important one. You can reflect quite selec-
tively, choosing to reinforce certain components of what the client has
said and ignoring others. In this way, clients not only hear themselves
saying a self-motivational statement, but also hear you saying that
they said it. Further, this style of responding is likely to encourage the
client to elaborate the reflected statement. Here is an example of this
process.
THERAPIST: What else concerns you about your drinking?
CLIENT: Well, I’m not sure I’m concerned about it, but I do wonder
sometimes if I’m drinking too much.
16
T: Too much for . . .
C: For my own good, I guess. I mean it’s not like it’s really serious,
but sometimes when I wake up in the morning I feel really awful,
and I can’t think straight most of the morning.
T: It messes up your thinking, your concentration.
C: Yes, and sometimes I have trouble remembering things.
T: And you wonder if that might be because you’re drinking too

much.
C: Well, I know it is sometimes.
T: You’re pretty sure about that. But maybe there’s more.
C: Yeah—even when I’m not drinking, sometimes I mix things up,

and I wonder about that.
T: Wonder if . . .
C: If alcohol’s pickling my brain, I guess.
T: You think that can happen to people, maybe to you.
C: Well, can’t it? I’ve heard that alcohol kills brain cells.
T: Um-hmm. I can see why that would worry you.
C: But I don’t think I’m an alcoholic or anything.
T: You don’t think you’re that bad off, but you do wonder if maybe
you’re overdoing it and damaging yourself in the process.
C: Yeah.
T: Kind of a scary thought. What else worries you?
This therapist is responding primarily with reflective listening. This

is not, by any means, the only strategy used in MET, but it is an
important one. Neither is this an easy skill. Easily parodied or done
poorly, true reflective listening requires continuous alert tracking of
the client’s verbal and nonverbal responses and their possible mean-
ings, formulation of reflections at the appropriate level of complexity,
and ongoing adjustment of hypotheses. Optimal reflective listening
suspends advice, agreement, disagreement, suggestions, teaching,
warning, and questioning in favor of continued exploration of the
17
client’s own processes. (For more detail, see Egan 1982; Miller and
Jackson 1985.)
It may be of further help to contrast reflective with alternative thera-

pist responses to some client statements:
CLIENT: I guess I do drink too much sometimes, but I don’t think I

have a problem with alcohol.
■■ CONFRONTATION: Yes you do! How can you sit there and tell
me you don’t have a problem when...
■■ QUESTION: Why do you think you don’t have a problem?
■■ REFLECTION: So on the one hand, you can see some reasons

for concern, and you really don’t want to be labeled as “hav-
ing a problem.”
CLIENT: My wife is always telling me that I’m an alcoholic.
■■ JUDGING: What’s wrong with that? She probably has some

good reasons for thinking so.
■■ QUESTION: Why does she think that?
■■ REFLECTION: And that really annoys you.
CLIENT: If I quit drinking, what am I supposed to do for friends?
■■ ADVICE: I guess you’ll have to get some new ones.
■■ SUGGESTION: Well, you could just tell your friends that you
don’t drink anymore, but you still want to see them.
■■ REFLECTION: It’s hard for you to imagine living without

alcohol.
This style of reflective listening is to be used throughout MET. It is not

to be used to the exclusion of other kinds of responses, but it should be
your predominant style in responding to client statements. As the fol-
lowing sections indicate, however, the ME therapist also uses a variety
of other strategies.
Finally, it should be noted that selective reflection can backfire. For a

client who is ambivalent, reflection of one side of the dilemma (“So you
can see that drinking is causing you some problems”) may evoke the
other side from the client (“Well, I don’t think I have a problem really”).
If this occurs, the therapist should reflect the ambivalence. This is
often best done with a double-sided reflection that captures both sides
of the client’s discrepancy. These may be joined in the middle by the
18
conjunction “but” or “and,” though we favor the latter to highlight the

ambivalence:
DOUBLE-SIDED REFLECTIONS
■■ You don’t think that alcohol is harming you seriously now, and at
the same time you are concerned that it might get out of hand for
you later.
■■ You really enjoy drinking and would hate to give it up, and you can
also see that it is causing serious problems for your family and your
job.
Questioning The MET style also includes questioning as an important therapist

response. Rather than telling clients how they should feel or what to
do, the therapist asks clients about their own feelings, ideas, concerns,
and plans. Elicited information is then responded to with empathic
reflection, affirmation, or reframing (see below).
Presenting The first MET session should always include feedback to the client from
Personal the pretreatment assessment. This is done in a structured way, pro-
viding clients with a written report of their results (Personal Feedback
Feedback Report) and comparing these with normative ranges.
To initiate this phase, give the client (and significant other, if attend-
ing) the Personal Feedback Report (PFR), retaining a copy for your own
reference. Go through the PFR step by step, explaining each item of
information, pointing out the client’s score and comparing it with nor-
mative data. The specific protocol used in Project MATCH is provided in
appendix A along with suggestions for developing alternative batteries.
A very important part of this process is your own monitoring of and

responding to the client during the feedback. Observe the client as you
provide personal feedback. Allow time for the client (and significant
other) to respond verbally. Use reflective listening to reinforce self-
motivating statements that emerge during this period. Also respond
reflectively to resistance statements, perhaps reframing them or
embedding them in a double-sided reflection. Examples:
CLIENT: Wow! I’m drinking a lot more than I realized.

THERAPIST: It looks awfully high to you.
CLIENT: I can’t believe it. I don’t see how my drinking can be affect-
ing me that much.
THERAPIST: This isn’t what you expected to hear.
19
CLIENT: No, I don’t really drink that much more than other people.
THERAPIST: So this is confusing to you. It seems like you drink
about the same amount as your friends, yet here are the results.
Maybe you think there’s something wrong with the tests.
CLIENT: More bad news!

THERAPIST: This is pretty difficult for you to hear.
CLIENT: This gives me a lot to think about.

THERAPIST: A lot of reasons to think about making a change.
The same style of responding can be used with the client’s significant
other (SO). In this case, it is often helpful to reframe or emphasize the
caring aspects behind what the SO is saying:
WIFE: I always thought he was drinking too much.

THERAPIST: You’ve been worried about him for quite a while.
HUSBAND: (weeping) I’ve told you to quit drinking!

THERAPIST: You really care about her a lot. It’s hard to sit there
and hear these results.
After reflecting an SO’s statement, it is often wise to ask for the client’s
perceptions and to reflect self-motivational elements:
FRIEND: I never really thought he drank that much!

THERAPIST: This is taking you by surprise. (To client:) How about
you? Does this surprise you, too?
WIFE: I’ve been trying to tell you all along that you were drinking
too much. Now maybe you’ll believe me.
THERAPIST: You’ve been worrying about this for a long time, and I
guess you’re hoping now he’ll see why you’ve been so concerned.
(To client:) What are you thinking about all this? You’re getting
a lot of input here.
Often a client will respond nonverbally, and it is possible also to reflect

these reactions. A sigh, a frown, a slow sad shaking of the head, a
whistle, a snort, or tears can communicate a reaction to feedback. You
can respond to these with a reflection of the apparent feeling.
If the client is not volunteering reactions, it is wise to pause periodi-

cally during the feedback process to ask:
■■ What do you make of this?
■■ Does this make sense to you?

20
■■ Does this surprise you?
■■ What do you think about this?
■■ Do you understand? Am I being clear here?
Clients will have questions about their feedback and the tests on which
their results are based. For this reason, you need to be quite familiar
with the assessment battery and its interpretation. In Project MATCH,
additional interpretive information is provided for the client to take
home.
In the training videotape, “Motivational Interviewing,” developed by

and available from Dr. William Miller, this style of presenting assess-
ment feedback to a resistant problem drinker is demonstrated.
Affirming the You should also seek opportunities to affirm, compliment, and rein-
Client force the client sincerely. Such affirmations can be beneficial in a
number of ways, including (1) strengthening the working relationship,
(2) enhancing the attitude of self-responsibility and empowerment, (3)
reinforcing effort and self-motivational statements, and (4) supporting
client self-esteem. Some examples:
■■ I appreciate your hanging in there through this feedback, which

must be pretty rough for you.
■■ I think it’s great that you’re strong enough to recognize the risk
here and that you want to do something before it gets more serious.
■■ You’ve been through a lot together, and I admire the kind of love
and commitment you’ve had in staying together through all this.
■■ You really have some good ideas for how you might change.
■■ Thanks for listening so carefully today.
■■ You’ve taken a big step today, and I really respect you for it.
Handling Client resistance is a legitimate concern. Failure to comply with a ther-

Resistance apist’s instructions and resistant behaviors within treatment sessions
(e.g., arguing, interrupting, denying a problem) are responses that pre-
dict poor treatment outcome.
What is resistance? Here are some client behaviors that have been
found to be predictive of poor treatment outcome:
21
■■ Interrupting—cutting off or talking over the therapist
■■ Arguing—challenging the therapist, discounting the therapist’s

views, disagreeing, open hostility
■■ Sidetracking—changing the subject, not responding, not paying

attention
■■ Defensiveness—minimizing or denying the problem, excusing one’s

own behavior, blaming others, rejecting the therapist’s opinion,
showing unwillingness to change, alleged impunity, pessimism
What too few therapists realize, however, is the extent to which such
client resistance during treatment is powerfully affected by the thera-
pist’s own style. Miller, Benefield, and Tonigan (in press) found that
when problem drinkers were randomly assigned to two different
therapist styles (given by the same therapists), one confrontational-
directive and one motivational-reflective, those in the former group
showed substantially higher levels of resistance and were much less
likely to acknowledge their problems and need to change. These client
resistance patterns were, in turn, predictive of less long-term change.
Similarly, Patterson and Forgatch (1985) had family therapists switch
back and forth between these two styles within the same therapy ses-
sions and demonstrated that client resistance and noncompliance
went up and down markedly with therapist behaviors. The picture
that emerges is one in which the therapist dramatically influences
client defensiveness, which, in turn, predicts the degree to which the
client will change.
This is in contrast with the common view that alcoholics are resis-
tant because of pernicious personality characteristics that are part
of their condition. Denial is often regarded as a trait of alcoholics. In
fact, extensive research has revealed few or no consistent personality
characteristics among alcoholics, and studies of defense mechanisms
have found that alcoholics show no different pattern from nonalco-
holics (Miller 1985). In sum, people with alcohol problems do not, in
general, walk through the therapist’s door already possessing high
levels of denial and resistance. These important client behaviors are
more a function of the interpersonal interactions that occur during
treatment.
An important goal in MET, then, is to avoid evoking client resistance

(antimotivational statements). Said more bluntly, client resistance is
a therapist problem. How you respond to resistant behaviors is one of
the defining characteristics of MET.
A first rule of thumb is never meet resistance head on. Certain kinds
of reactions are likely to exacerbate resistance, back the client further
22
into a corner, and elicit antimotivational statements from the client

(Gordon 1970; Miller and Jackson 1985). These therapist responses
include—
■■ Arguing, disagreeing, challenging.
■■ Judging, criticizing, blaming.
■■ Warning of negative consequences.
■■ Seeking to persuade with logic or evidence.
■■ Interpreting or analyzing the “reasons” for resistance.
■■ Confronting with authority.
■■ Using sarcasm or incredulity.
Even direct questions as to why the client is “resisting” (e.g., Why do

you think that you don’t have a problem?) only serve to elicit from the
client further defense of the antimotivational position and leave you in
the logical position of counterargument. If you find yourself in the posi-
tion of arguing with the client to acknowledge a problem and the need
for change, shift strategies.
Remember that you want the client to make self-motivational state-

ments (basically, “I have a problem” and “I need to do something about
it”), and if you defend these positions it may evoke the opposite. Here
are several strategies for deflecting resistance (Miller and Rollnick
1991):
■■ Simple reflection. One strategy is simply to reflect what the client is

saying. This sometimes has the effect of eliciting the opposite and
balancing the picture.
■■ Reflection with amplification. A modification is to reflect but exag-

gerate or amplify what the client is saying to the point where the
client is likely to disavow it. There is a subtle balance here, because
overdoing an exaggeration can elicit hostility.
CLIENT: But I’m not an alcoholic, or anything like that.
THERAPIST: You don’t want to be labeled.
C: No. I don’t think I have a drinking problem.
T: So as far as you can see, there really haven’t been any problems
or harm because of your drinking.
23
C: Well, I wouldn’t say that.
T: Oh! So you do think sometimes your drinking has caused prob-

lems, but you just don’t like the idea of being called an alcoholic.
■■ Double-sided reflection. The last therapist statement in this exam-

ple is a double-sided reflection, which is another way to deal with
resistance. If a client offers a resistant statement, reflect it back
with the other side (based on previous statements in the session).
C: But I can’t quit drinking. I mean, all of my friends drink!
T: You can’t imagine how you could not drink with your friends,
and at the same time you’re worried about how it’s affecting
you.
■■ Shifting focus. Another strategy is to defuse resistance by shifting

attention away from the problematic issue.
T: You’re getting way ahead of things. I’m not talking about your
quitting drinking here, and I don’t think you should get stuck
on that concern right now. Let’s just stay with what we’re doing
here—going through your feedback—and later on we can worry
about what, if anything, you want to do about it.
■■ Rolling with. Resistance can also be met by rolling with it instead

of opposing it. There is a paradoxical element in this, which often
will bring the client back to a balanced or opposite perspective.
This strategy can be particularly useful with clients who present
in a highly oppositional manner and who seem to reject every idea
or suggestion.
T: And it may very well be that when we’re through, you’ll decide
that it’s worth it to keep on drinking as you have been. It may
be too difficult to make a change. That will be up to you.
Reframing Reframing is a strategy whereby therapists invite clients to examine

their perceptions in a new light or a reorganized form. New meaning
is given to what has been said. When a client is receiving feedback
that confirms drinking problems, a wife’s reaction of “I knew it” can
be recast from “I’m right and I told you so” to “You’ve been so worried
about him, and you care about him very much.”
24
The phenomenon of tolerance provides an excellent example for pos-

sible reframing (Miller and Rollnick 1991). Clients will often admit,
even boast of, being able to “hold their liquor”—to drink more than
other people without looking or feeling as intoxicated. This can be
reframed (quite accurately) as a risk factor, the absence of a built-in
warning system that tells people when they have had enough. Given
high tolerance, people continue to drink to high levels of intoxication
that can damage the body but fail to realize it because they do not
look or feel intoxicated. Thus, what seemed good news (“I can hold it”)
becomes bad news (“I’m especially at risk”).
Reframing can be used to help motivate the client and SO to deal

with the drinking behavior. In placing current problems in a more
positive or optimistic frame, the counselor hopes to communicate that
the problem is solvable and changeable (Bergaman 1985; Fisch et al.
1982). In developing the reframe, it is important to use the client’s
own views, words, and perceptions about drinking. Some examples of
reframes that can be utilized with problem drinkers are:
■■ Drinking as reward. “You may have a need to reward yourself on

the weekends for successfully handling a stressful and difficult job
during the week.” The implication here is that there are alternative
ways of rewarding oneself without going on a binge.
■■ Drinking as a protective function. “You don’t want to impose

additional stress on your family by openly sharing concerns or dif-
ficulties in your life [give examples]. As a result, you carry all this
yourself and absorb tension and stress by drinking, as a way of
trying not to burden your family.” The implication here is that the
problem drinker has inner strength or reserve, is concerned about
the family, and could discover other ways to deal with these issues
besides drinking.
■■ Drinking as an adaptive function. “Your drinking can be viewed

as a means of avoiding conflict or tension in your marriage. Your
drinking tends to keep the status quo, to keep things as they are.
It seems like you have been drinking to keep your marriage intact.
Yet both of you seem uncomfortable with this arrangement.” The
implication is that the client cares about the marriage and has
been trying to keep it together but needs to find more effective
ways to do this.
The general idea in reframing is to place the problem behavior in a

more positive light, which in itself can have a paradoxical effect (pre-
scribing the symptom), but to do so in a way that causes the person to
take action to change the problem.
25
Summarizing It is useful to summarize periodically during a session, particularly

toward the end of a session. This amounts to a longer, summary
reflection of what the client has said. It is especially useful to repeat
and summarize the client’s self-motivational statements. Elements of
reluctance or resistance may be included in the summary, to prevent a
negating reaction from the client. Such a summary serves the function
of allowing clients to hear their own self-motivational statements yet a
third time, after the initial statement and your reflection of it. Here is
an example of how you might offer a summary to a client at the end of
a first session:
Let me try to pull together what we’ve said today, and you can tell
me if I’ve missed anything important. I started out by asking you
what you’ve noticed about your drinking, and you told me several
things. You said that your drinking has increased over the years,
and you also notice that you have a high tolerance for alcohol—
when you drink a lot, you don’t feel it as much. You’ve also had
some memory blackouts, which I mentioned can be a worrisome
sign. There have been some problems and fights in the family that
you think are related to your drinking. On the feedback, you were
surprised to learn that you are drinking more than 95 percent of
the U.S. adult population and that your drinking must be getting
you to fairly high blood alcohol levels even though you’re not feel-
ing it. There were some signs that alcohol is starting to damage you
physically and that you are becoming dependent on alcohol. That
fits with your concerns that it would be very hard for you to give up
drinking And I remember that you were worried that you might be
labeled as an alcoholic, and you didn’t like that idea. I appreciate
how open you have been to this feedback, though, and I can see
you have some real concerns now about your drinking. Is that a
pretty good summary? Did I miss anything?
Along the way during a session, shorter “progress” summaries can be

given:
So, thus far, you’ve told me that you are concerned you may be
damaging your health by drinking too much and that sometimes
you may not be as good a parent to your children as you’d like
because of your drinking. What else concerns you?
26
Phase 2: Strengthening Commitment

To Change
Recognizing The strategies outlined above are designed to build motivation and
Change to help tip the client’s decisional balance in favor of change. A sec-
ond major process in MET is to consolidate the client’s commitment
Readiness to change, once sufficient motivation is present (Miller and Rol’nick
1991).
Timing is a key issue—knowing when to begin moving toward a com-

mitment to action. There is a useful analogy to sales here—knowing
when the customer has been convinced and one should move toward
“closing the deal.” Within the Prochaska/DiClemente model, this is the
determination stage, when the balance of contemplation has tipped in
favor of change, and the client is ready for action (but not necessarily
for maintenance). Such a shift is not irreversible. If the transition to
action is delayed too long, determination can be lost. Once the balance
has tipped, then, it is time to begin consolidating the client’s decision.
There are no universal signs of crossing over into the determination

stage. These are some changes you might observe (Miller and Rollnick
1991):
■■ The client stops resisting and raising objections.
■■ The client asks fewer questions.
■■ The client appears more settled, resolved, unburdened, or peaceful.
■■ The client makes self-motivational statements indicating a deci-

sion (or openness) to change (“I guess I need to do something about
my drinking “ “If I wanted to change my drinking, what could I
do?”).
■■ The client begins imagining how life might be after a change.
Here is a checklist of issues to assist you in determining a client’s

readiness to accept, continue in, and comply with a change program.
These questions may also be useful in recognizing individuals at risk
for prematurely withdrawing from treatment (Zweben et al. 1988).
■■ Has the client missed previous appointments or canceled prior

sessions without rescheduling?
27
■■ If the client was coerced into treatment (e.g., for a drunk-driving

offense), has the client discussed with you his or her reactions to
this involuntariness—anger, relief, confusion, acceptance, and so
forth?
■■ Does the client show a certain amount of indecisiveness or hesi-

tancy about scheduling future sessions?
■■ Is the treatment being offered quite different from what the client
has experienced or expected in the past? If so, have these differ-
ences and the client’s reactions been discussed?
■■ Does the client seem to be very guarded during sessions or other-

wise seem to be hesitant or resistant when a suggestion is offered?
■■ Does the client perceive involvement in treatment to be a degrading

experience rather than a “new lease on life”?
If the answers to these questions suggest a lack of readiness for change,

it might be valuable to explore further the client’s uncertainties and
ambivalence about drinking and change. It is also wise to delay any
decisionmaking or attempts to obtain firm commitment to a plan of
action.
For many clients, there may not be a clear point of decision or deter-
mination. Often, people begin considering and trying change strategies
while they are in the later part of the contemplation stage. For some,
their willingness to decide to change depends in part upon trying out
various strategies until they find something that is satisfactory and
effective. Then they commit to change. Thus, the shift from contem-
plation to action may be a gradual, tentative transition rather than a
discrete decision.
It is also important to remember that even when a client appears to

have made a decision and is taking steps to change, ambivalence is still
likely to be present. Avoid assuming that once the client has decided to
change, Phase 1 strategies are no longer needed. Likewise, you should
proceed carefully with clients who make a commitment to change too
quickly or too emphatically. Even when a person seems to enter treat-
ment already committed to change, it is useful to pursue some of the
above motivation-building and feedback strategies before moving into
commitment consolidation.
In any event, a point comes when you should move toward strategies
designed to consolidate commitment. The following strategies are use-
ful once the initial phase has been passed and the client is moving
toward change.
28
Discussing a The key shift for the therapist is from focusing on reasons for change
Plan (building motivation) to negotiating a plan for change. Clients may ini-
tiate this by stating a need or desire to change or by asking what they
could do. Alternatively, the therapist may signal this shift (and test the
water) by asking a transitional question such as:
■■ What do you make of all this? What are you thinking you’ll do
about it?
■■ Where does this leave you in terms of your drinking? What’s your
plan?
■■ I wonder what you’re thinking about your drinking at this point.
■■ Now that you’re this far, I wonder what you might do about these
concerns.
Your goal during this phase is to elicit from the client (and SO) some
ideas and ultimately a plan for what to do about the client’s drinking It
is not your task to prescribe a plan for how the client should change or
to teach specific skills for doing so. The overall message is, “Only you
can change your drinking, and it’s up to you.” Further questions may
help: “How do you think you might do that? What do you think might
help?” and to the SO, “How do you think you might help?” Reflecting
and summarizing continue to be good therapeutic responses as more
self-motivational statements and ideas are generated.
Communicating An important and consistent message throughout MET is the client’s

Free Choice responsibility and freedom of choice. Reminders of this theme should
be included during the commitment-strengthening process:
■ It’s up to you what you do about this.
■ No one can decide this for you.
■ No one can change your drinking for you. Only you can do it.
■ You can decide to go on drinking just as you were or to change.
Consequences A useful strategy is to ask the client (and SO) to anticipate the result
of Action and if the client continues drinking as before. What would be likely conse-
quences? It may be useful to make a written list of the possible negative
Inaction consequences of not changing. Similarly, the anticipated benefits of
change can be generated by the client (and SO).
For a more complete picture, you could also discuss what the client
fears about changing. What might be the negative consequences of
29
stopping drinking, for example? What are the advantages of continuing

to drink as before? Reflection, summarizing, and reframing are appro-
priate therapist responses.
One possibility here is to construct a formal “decisional balance” sheet,

by having the client generate (and write down) the pros and cons of
change options. What are the positive and negative aspects of continu-
ing with drinking as before? What are the possible benefits and costs
of making a change in drinking?
Information Often clients (and SOs) will ask for key information as important input
and Advice for their decisional process. Such questions might include:
■ Do alcohol problems run in families?
■ Does the fact that I can hold my liquor mean I’m addicted?
■ How does drinking damage the brain?
■ What’s a safe level of drinking?
■ If I quit drinking, will these problems improve?
■ Could my sleep problems be due to my drinking?
The number of possible questions is too large to plan specific answers

here. In general, however, you should provide accurate, specific infor-
mation that is requested by clients and SOs. It is often helpful afterward
to ask for the client’s response to this information: Does it make sense
to you? Does that surprise you? What do you think about it?
Clients and SOs may also ask you for advice. “What do you think I
should do?” It is quite appropriate to provide your own views in this
circumstance, with a few caveats. It is often helpful to provide quali-
fiers and permission to disagree. For example:
■ If you want my opinion, I can certainly give it to you, but you’re the
one who has to make up your mind in the end.
■ I can tell you what I think I would want to do in your situation, and
I’ll be glad to do that, but remember that it’s your choice. Do you
want my opinion?
Being just a little resistive or “hard to get” in this situation can also be
useful:
■ I’m not sure I should tell you. Certainly I have an opinion, but you
have to decide for yourself how you want to handle your life.
30
I guess I’m concerned that if I give you my advice, then it looks like
I’m the one deciding instead of you. Are you sure you want to know?
Within this general set, feel free to give the client your best advice as to
what change should be made, specifically with regard to—
■■ What change should be made in the client’s drinking (e.g., “I think

you need to quit drinking altogether”).
■■ The need for the client and SO to work together.
■■ General kinds of changes that the client might need to make in

order to support sobriety (e.g., find new ways to spend time that
don’t involve drinking).
With regard to specific “how to’s,” however, you should not prescribe
specific strategies or attempt to train specific skills. This challenge is
turned back to the client (and SO):
■■ How do you think you might be able to do that?
■■ What might stand in your way?
■■ You’d have to be pretty creative (strong, clever, resourceful) to find

a way around that. I wonder how you could do it.
Again, you may be asked for specific information as part of this process
(e.g., “I’ve heard about a drug that you can take once a day and it keeps
you from drinking. How does it work?”). Accurate and specific informa-
tion can be provided in such cases.
Emphasizing A client may well ask for information that you do not have. Do not feel
Abstinence obliged to know all the answers. It is fine to say that you do not know,
but will find out. You can offer to research a question and get back to
the client at the next session or by telephone.
Every client should be given, at some point during MET, a rationale for
abstinence from alcohol. Avoid communications that seem to coerce or
impose a goal, since this is inconsistent with the style of MET. Within
this style, it is not up to you to “permit” or “let” or “allow” clients to
make choices. The choice is theirs. You should, however, commend
(not prescribe) abstinence and offer the following points in all cases:
■ Successful abstinence is a safe choice. If you don’t drink, you can

be sure that you won’t have problems because of your drinking.
31
■■ There are good reasons to at least try a period of abstinence (e.g.,

to find out what it’s like to live without alcohol and how you feel,
to learn how you have become dependent on alcohol, to break your
old habits, to experience a change and build some confidence, to
please your spouse).
■■ No one can guarantee a safe level of drinking that will cause you
no harm.
In certain cases, you have an additional responsibility to advise

against a goal of moderation if the client appears to be deciding in that
direction. Again, this must be done in a persuasive but not coercive
manner, consistent with the overall tone of MET. (“It is your choice, of
course. I want to tell you, however, that I’m worried about the choice
you’re considering, and if you’re willing to listen, I’d like to tell you why
I’m concerned. . .”). Among the reasons for advising against a goal of
moderation are (Miller and Caddy 1977)—
■■ Medical conditions (e.g., liver disease) that contraindicate any

drinking.
■■ Psychological problems likely to be exacerbated by any drinking.
■■ A diagnosis of idiosyncratic intoxication (DSM–III–R 291.40).
■■ Strong external demands on the client to abstain.
■■ Pregnancy.
■■ Use/abuse of medications that are hazardous in combination with

alcohol.
■■ A history of severe alcohol problems and dependence.
The data in table 2 may be useful in determining cases in which modera-

tion should be more strongly opposed. They are derived from long-term
followups (3 to 8 years) of problem drinkers attempting to moderate
their drinking (Miller et al. 1992). “Abstainers” are those who had been
continuously abstinent for at least 12 months at followup; “asymptom-
atic drinkers” had been drinking moderately without problems for this
same period. The “improved but impaired” group showed reduction in
drinking and related problems but continued to show some symptoms
of alcohol abuse or dependence. The AB:AS column shows the ratio,
within each of four client ranges, of successful abstainers to successful
asymptomatic drinkers.
In addition to the commendation of abstinence given in all cases, cli-

ents falling into ranges 3 or 4 should receive further counsel if they are
entertaining a moderation goal. They can be advised that in a study
32
Table 2. Relationship of severity measures to types of treatment outcome

Severity Treatment Outcome
Asymptomatic Improved but im- Ratio
Range Scores Total abstainers Not improved
drinkers paired AB:AS
n % n % n % n %
Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST)
1 0–10 3 14% 5 23% 8 36% 6 27% 3:5
2 11–18 7 21 7 21 6 18 14 41 1:1
3 19–28 10 40 2 8 4 16 9 36 5:1
4 29+ 4 29 0 0 4 29 6 43 4:0
Median 19.5 12.0 15.0 18.0
Mean 19.0 13.2 18.0 18.6
SD 7.6 6.2 12.5 9.1
Alcohol Dependence Scale (ADS)
Lifetime Accumulation of Symptoms
1 0–14 2 8% 6 24% 9 36% 8 32% 1:3
2 15–20 4 14 4 14 4 14 16 57 1:1
3 21–27 11 35 6 19 5 16 9 29 11:6
4 28+ 6 75 0 0 2 25 0 0 6:0
Median 22.5 19.0 15.0 16.5
Mean 27.2 16.6 17.1 18.0
SD 14.5 7.8 7.7 5.4
Source: Data from Miller et al. 1992.

NOTE: Asymptomatic = Drinking moderately with no evidence of problems
Improved = Drinking less, but still showing alcohol-related problems
AB/AS Ratio = Ratio of successful abstainers to asymptomatic drinkers
of problem drinkers attempting to moderate their drinking, people with

severity scores resembling theirs were much more likely to succeed
with abstinence. Those falling in range 4 can further be advised that in
this same study, no one with scores like theirs managed to maintain
problem-free drinking. Clients who are unwilling to discuss immediate
and long-term abstinence as a goal might be more responsive to inter-
mediate options, such as a short-term (e.g., 3-month) trial abstinence
period, or tapering off of drinking toward an ultimate goal of abstention
(Miller and Page 1991).
33
Dealing With The same principles used for defusing resistance in the first phase of
Resistance MET also apply here. Reluctance and ambivalence are not challenged
directly but rather can be met with reflection or reframing. Gently
paradoxical statements may also be useful during the commitment
phase of MET. One form of such statements is permission to continue
unchanged:
■■ Maybe you’ll decide that it’s worth it to you to keep on drinking

the way you have been, even though it’s costing you.
Another form is designed to pose a kind of crisis for the person by

juxtaposing two important and inconsistent values:
■■ I wonder if it’s really possible for you to keep drinking and still
have your marriage, too.
The Change The Change Plan Worksheet (CPW) is to be used during Phase 2 to
Plan Worksheet help in specifying the client’s action plan. You can use it as a format
for taking notes as the client’s plan emerges. Do not start Phase 2
by filling out the CPW. Rather, the information needed for the CPW
should emerge through the motivational dialog described above. This
information can then be used as a basis for your recapitulation (see
below). Use the CPW as a guide to ensure that you have covered these
aspects of the client’s plan:
■ The changes I want to make are . . . In what ways or areas does

the client want to make a change? Be specific. It is also wise
to include goals that are positive (wanting to begin, increase,
improve, do more of something) and not only goals that could
be accomplished through general anesthesia (to stop, avoid, or
decrease behaviors).
■ The most important reasons why I want to make these changes

are . . . What are the likely consequences of action and inaction?
Which motivations for change seem most impelling to the client?
■ The steps I plan to take in changing are . . . How does the cli-
ent plan to achieve the goals? How could the desired change be
accomplished? Within the general plan and strategies described,
what are some specific, concrete first steps that the client can
take? When, where, and how will these steps be taken?
■ The ways other people can help me are . . . In what ways could
other people (including the significant other, if present) help the
client in taking these steps toward change? How will the client
arrange for such support?
34
■■ I will know that my plan is working if . . . What does the client hope
will happen as a result of this change plan? What benefits could be
expected from this change?
■■ Some things that could interfere with my plan are . . . Help the client
to anticipate situations or changes that could undermine the plan.
What could go wrong? How could the client stick with the plan
despite these problems or setbacks?
Preprinted Change Plan Worksheet forms are convenient for MET ther-
apists. Carbonless copy forms are recommended so you can write or
print on the original and automatically have a copy to keep in the cli-
ent’s file. Give the original to the client and retain the copy for the file.
35
The Change Plan Worksheet
The changes I want to make are:
The most important reasons why I want to make these changes are:
The steps I plan to take in changing are:
The ways other people can help me are:

Person Possible ways to help
I will know that my plan is working if:
Some things that could interfere with my plan are:

Recapitulating Toward the end of the commitment process, as you sense that the cli-
ent is moving toward a firm decision for change, it is useful to offer
a broad summary of what has transpired (Miller and Rollnick 1991).
This may include a repetition of the reasons for concern uncovered in
Phase 1 (see “Summarizing”) as well as new information developed dur-
ing Phase 2. Emphasis should be given to the client’s self-motivational
statements, the SO’s role, the client’s plans for change, and the per-
ceived consequences of changing and not changing. Use your notes on
the Change Plan Worksheet as a guide. Here is an example of how a
recapitulation might be worded:
Let me see if I understand where you are. Last time, we reviewed

the reasons why you and your husband have been concerned
about your drinking There were a number of these. You were both
concerned that your drinking has contributed to problems in the
family, both between you and with the children. You were wor-
ried, too, about the test results you received indicating that alcohol
has been damaging your health. Your drinking seems to have been
increasing slowly over the years, and with it, your dependence on
alcohol. The accident that you had helped you realize that it was
time to do something about your drinking, but I think you were still
surprised when I gave you your feedback, just how much in danger
you were.
We’ve talked about what you might do about this, and you and
your husband had different ideas at first. He thought you should
go to AA, and you thought you’d just cut down on your drinking
and try to avoid drinking when you are alone. We talked about
what the results might be if you tried different approaches. Your
husband was concerned that if you didn’t make a sharp break with
this drinking pattern you’ve had for so many years, you’d probably
slip back into drinking too much and forget what we’ve discussed
here. You agreed that that would be a risk and could imagine talk-
ing yourself into drinking alone or drinking to feel high. You didn’t
like the idea of AA, because you were concerned that people would
see you there, even though, as we discussed, there is a strong prin-
ciple of anonymity.
Where you seem to be headed now is toward trying out a period of

not drinking at all, for 3 months at least, to see how it goes and how
you feel. Your husband likes this idea, too, and has agreed to spend
more time with you so you can do things together in the evening
or on weekends. You also thought you would get involved again in
some of the community activities you used to enjoy during the day
or maybe look for a job to keep you busy. Do I have it right? What
have I missed?
37
If the client offers additions or changes, reflect these and integrate

them into your recapitulation. Also note them on the Change Plan
Worksheet.
Asking for After you have recapitulated the client’s situation and responded to
Commitment additional points and concerns raised by the client (and SO), move
toward getting a formal commitment to change. In essence, the client
is to commit verbally to take concrete, planned steps to bring about the
needed change. The key question (not necessarily in these words) is:
■ Are you ready to commit yourself to doing this?
As you discuss this commitment, also cover the following points:
■ Clarify what, exactly, the client plans to do. Give the client the com-
pleted Change Plan Worksheet and discuss it.
■ Reinforce what the client (and SO) perceive to be likely benefits of

making a change, as well as the consequences of inaction.
■ Ask what concerns, fears, or doubts the client (and SO) may have
that might interfere with carrying out the plan.
■ Ask what other obstacles might be encountered that could divert

the client from the plan. Ask the client (and SO) to suggest how
they could deal with these.
■ Clarify the SO’s role in helping the client to make the desired
change.
■ Remind the client (and SO) that you will be seeing the client for
followthrough visits (scheduled at weeks 6 and 12) to see how he/
she is doing.
If the client is willing to make a commitment, ask him/her to sign the

Change Plan Worksheet and give the client the signed original, retain-
ing a copy for your file.
Some clients are unwilling to commit themselves to a change goal or

program. When clients remain ambivalent or hesitant about making
a written or verbal commitment to deal with the alcohol problem, you
may ask them to defer the decision until later. A specific time should
be agreed upon to reevaluate and resolve the decision. The hope in
allowing clients the opportunity to postpone such decisionmaking is
that the motivational processes will act more favorably on them over
time (Goldstein et al. 1966). Such flexibility provides clients with the
opportunity to explore more fully the potential consequences of change
38
and prepare themselves to deal with the consequences. Otherwise, cli-

ents may feel coerced into making a commitment before they are ready
to take action.
In this case, clients may withdraw prematurely from treatment, rather

than “lose face” over the failure to follow through on a commitment. It
can be better, then, to say something like this:
It sounds like you’re really not quite ready to make this decision
yet. That’s perfectly understandable. This is a very tough choice for
you. It might be better not to rush things here, not to try to make a
decision right now. Why don’t you think about it between now and
our next visit, consider the benefits of making a change and of stay-
ing the same. We can explore this further next time, and sooner or
later I’m sure it will become clear to you what you want to do. OK?
It can be helpful in this way to express explicit understanding and

acceptance of clients’ ambivalence as well as confidence in their ability
to resolve the dilemma.
Involving a When skillfully handled by the therapist, the involvement of a signifi-

Significant cant other (spouse, family member, friend) can enhance motivational
discrepancy and commitment to change. Whenever possible, clients
Other in MET will be strongly urged to bring an SO to the first two MET ses-
sions. At these meetings, the SO is actively engaged in the treatment
process. Emphasis is placed on the need for the client and SO to work
collaboratively on the drinking problem.
The MET approach recognizes the importance of the significant other

in affecting the client’s decision to change drinking behavior. This
emphasis is based upon recent findings from a variety of alcohol treat-
ment studies. For example, alcoholics seen in an outpatient setting
were found more likely to remain in a spouse-involved treatment than
in an individual approach (Zweben et al. 1983). Similarly, clients main-
taining positive ties with family members fared better in a relationship
enhancement therapy than in an intervention focused primarily on the
psychological functioning of the client (Longabaugh et al. in press).
Involvement of an SO in the treatment process offers several advan-

tages. It provides the SO an opportunity for firsthand understanding
of the problem. It permits the SO to provide input and feedback in the
development and implementation of treatment goals. The client and
SO can also work collaboratively on issues and problems that might
interfere with the attainment of treatment goals.
39
Goals for The following are general goals for the two SO-involved sessions:
Significant
Other ■■ Establish rapport between the SO and the counselor.
Involvement
■■ Raise the awareness of the SO about the extent and severity of the
alcohol problem.
■■ Strengthen the SO’s commitment to help the client overcome the

drinking problem.
■■ Strengthen the SO’s belief in the importance of his or her own con-
tribution in changing the client’s drinking patterns.
■■ Elicit feedback from the SO that might help motivate the problem
drinker to change the drinking behavior. For example, a spouse
might be asked to share concerns about the client’s past, present,
and future drinking. Having the spouse “deliver the message” can
be valuable in negotiating suitable treatment goals.
■■ Promote higher levels of marital/family cohesiveness and

satisfaction.
MET does not include intensive marital/family therapy. The main

principle here is to elicit from client and SO those aspects of their rela-
tionship which are seen as most positive and to explore how they can
work together in overcoming the drinking problem. Both client and SO
can be asked to describe the other’s strengths and positive attributes.
Issues raised during SO-involved sessions can be moved toward the
adoption of specific change goals. The counselor should not allow the
client and SO to spend significant portions of a session complaining,
denigrating, or criticizing. Such communications tend to be destructive
and do not favor an atmosphere that motivates change.
Explaining the Ideally, a client will be accompanied by an SO at the first session. The
invitation to the SO should be made for the first session only, allowing
Significant you the flexibility to include or not include the SO in a second ses-
Other’s Role sion. In the beginning of the session, the counselor should comment
favorably on the SO’s willingness to attend sessions with the problem
drinker The rationale is then presented for having the SO attend:
■■ The SO cares about the client, and changes will have direct impact
on both their lives.
■■ The SO’s input will be valuable in setting treatment goals and devel-
oping strategies.
40
■■ The SO may be directly helpful by working with the client to resolve

the drinking problem.
Emphasize that ultimate responsibility for change remains with the

client but that the SO can be very helpful. It is useful here to explore
tentatively, with both the SO and the client, how the SO might be
supportive in resolving the drinking problem. You might ask the
following:
—— To SO: In what ways do you think you could be helpful to

_______________?
—— To SO: What has been helpful to_______________in the past?
—— To client: How do you think_______________ might be supportive

to you now, as you’re taking a look at your drinking?
Be careful not to “jump the gun” at this point. Asking such questions
may elicit defensiveness and resistance if the client is not ready to con-
sider change.
It is also important to remember that your role does not include pre-
scribing specific tasks, offering spouse training, or conducting marital
therapy. The MET approach provides the SO an opportunity to demon-
strate support, verbally and behaviorally, and encourages the SO and
client to generate their own solutions.
The Significant In the first conjoint session, an important goal is to establish rapport—
Other in Phase 1 to create an environment in which the SO can feel comfortable about
openly sharing concerns and disclosing information that may help
promote change. The SO could also be expected to identify potential
problems or issues that might arise which could interfere with attain-
ing these objectives. To begin with, the counselor should attempt to
“join” with the SO by asking about her or his own (past and present)
experiences with the alcohol problem.
■■ What has it been like for you?
■■ What have you noticed about [client’s] drinking?
■■ What has discouraged you from trying to help in the past?
■■ What do you see that is encouraging?
41
Emphasis should be placed on positive attempts to deal with the

problem. At the same time, negative experiences—stress, family disor-
ganization, job and employment difficulties—should be discussed and
reframed as normative, that is, events that are common in families with
an alcohol problem. Such a perspective should be communicated to
the family member in the interview. The counselor might compare the
SO’s experiences to the personal stress experienced by families con-
fronted with other chronic mental health or physical disorders such
as heart disease, diabetes, and depression (without going into depth
about such experiences).
Any concerns that the SO may have about the amount or type of treat-
ment should be explored. Again, concerns expressed by family members
or SOs should be responded to in an accepting, reflective, reassuring
manner. SOs who express concern about the brevity of MET can be
told about the findings of previous research (see table 1), namely, that
people can and do overcome their drinking problems given even briefer
treatment than this, and that making a firm commitment is the key.
The SO can often play an important role in helping the client resolve
uncertainties or ambivalence about drinking and change during Phase
1. The SO can be asked to elaborate on the risks and costs of continued
heavy drinking. For example, one spouse revealed during counseling
that she was becoming increasingly alienated from her partner as a
result of the negative impact that the drinking was having on their chil-
dren. These questions, asked of the SO in the presence of the client,
can be helpful in eliciting such concerns:
■■ How has the drinking affected you?
■■ What is different now that makes you more concerned about the
drinking?
■■ What do you think will happen if the drinking continues as it has

been?
Feedback provided by the SO can often be more meaningful to a cli-

ent than information presented by the counselor. It can help the client
mobilize commitment to change (Pearlman et al. 1989). In sharing
information about the potential consequences of the drinking problem
for family members, an SO may cause the client to experience emo-
tional conflict (discrepancy) about drinking. Thus, the client may be
confronted with a dilemma in which it is not possible both to continue
drinking and to have a happy family. In this way, the decisional bal-
ance can be further tipped in favor of changing the drinking. One client
became more conflicted about his drinking after his wife described
the negative impact it was having on their children. He subsequently
decided to give up drinking rather than to experience himself as a
harmful parent.
42
At the same time, there is a danger of overwhelming the client if the

feedback given by the SO is new, extremely negative, or presented in a
hostile manner. Negative information presented by both the SO and the
counselor may result in the client’s feeling “ganged up on” in the ses-
sion and could result in treatment dropout. The MET approach relies
primarily upon instilling intrinsic motivation for change in the client
rather than using external motivators such as pressure from SOs.
Therefore, when involving an SO in a session, it may be useful to go

slowly in presenting material to the client. You may gauge the mood or
state of clients by allowing them the opportunity to respond to specific
items before soliciting further comments from the SO. You may ask
whether the client is ready to examine the consequences (i.e., both
personal and family concerns) that have followed from drinking. If
feedback provided seems to be particularly aversive to the client, then
it is important to intersperse affirmations of the client. The SO can be
asked questions to elicit supportive and affirming comments:
■■ What are the things you like most about [client] when he/she is not
drinking?
■■ What positive signs of change have you noticed that indicate [client]
really wants to make a change?
■■ What are the things that give you hope that things can change for
the better?
Supportive and affirming statements from the counselor and SO can

further enhance commitment to change.
The client-centered nature of MET can be further emphasized by focus-

ing on the client’s responses to what the SO has offered. You might
ask, for example:
■■ Of these things your husband has mentioned, which concern you

most?
■■ How important do you think it is for you to deal with these con-
cerns that your wife has raised?
Feedback provided from the assessment battery is also presented and

discussed during SO-involved sessions. SOs can be asked for their own
comments and reactions to the material being presented.
■■ What do you think about this? Is this consistent with what you
have been thinking about [client’s] drinking? Does any of this sur-
prise you?
43
Such questions may help to confirm the SO’s own perceptions about
the severity of the alcohol problem as well as to clarify any misunder-
standings about the problems being dealt with in treatment sessions.
The same strategies used to evoke client self-motivational statements

can be applied with the SO as well. Once an agreement is reached
about the seriousness of the problem, the counselor should explore
how the SO might be helpful and supportive in dealing with the prob-
lem. Remember that MET is not a skill-training approach; the primary
mechanism here is to elicit ideas from the SO and client about what
could be done. In raising the awareness of the spouse about the client’s
drinking and related issues, the counselor mainly seeks to motivate the
SO to play an active role in dealing with the problem.
The Significant A spouse or other significant person who is attending sessions may be
Other in Phase 2 engaged in a helpful way in the commitment process of Phase 2. An SO
can play a positive role in instigating and sustaining change, particu-
larly in situations where interpersonal commitment is high. The SO
can be involved in a number of ways.
Eliciting Feedback From the SO
The SO might provide further examples of the negative effects of drink-

ing on the family, such as not showing up for meals, missing family
celebrations such as birthday parties, embarrassing the family by being
intoxicated, or alienating children and relatives. This is an extension of
the SO’s role in Phase 1.
Eliciting Support
The SO can comment favorably on the positive steps undertaken by the

client to make a change in drinking, and you should encourage such
expression of support. The SO may also agree to join with the client in
change efforts (e.g., spending time in nondrinking settings).
Eliciting Self-Motivational Statements From the SO
This strategy should be employed in the second SO-involved session,

after the client and SO have had a chance to reflect upon the informa-
tion presented earlier. Clients may become less resistant after they
have had more time to think about drinking and related issues (see
“Asking for Commitment”). If, in the second interview, the client still
appears to be hesitant or reluctant about dealing with the drinking and
related matters, then an attempt should be made to acknowledge the
feelings of frustration and helplessness experienced by the SO and to
examine alternative ways to handle these frustrations:
I know that you both want to do what’s best for the family. However,
there are times when there are differences in what the two of you
44
want. It can be frustrating when you can’t seem to agree about what
to do. (Turning to the spouse). In this case, you have a number
of options. You can try to change your [husband’s/wife’s] attitude
about drinking—I think you’ve tried that in the past without much
success, right? Or you could do nothing and just wait. But that
still leaves you feeling frustrated or helpless, maybe even hope-
less, and that’s no good. Or you can concentrate your energies on
yourself and other members of your family and focus on developing
a lifestyle for yourself that will take you away from drinking. What
do you think about this third option? What things could you do
to keep from being involved in drinking situations yourself and to
develop a more rewarding life away from drinking?
In response to this question, one spouse determined that she would

no longer accompany her spouse to the neighborhood tavern. Another
went a step further and indicated that he would not be involved in any
drinking-related activities with his wife. By eliciting such self-motiva-
tional statements and plans from SOs, it is possible to tip the client’s
balance further in favor of change (cf. Sisson and Azrin 1986).
Addressing the SO’s Expectations
When goals and strategies for change are being discussed, SOs are
invited to express their own views and to contribute to generating
options. Any discrepancy between the client and SO with respect to
future alcohol use should be addressed. Information from the pretreat-
ment assessment may be used here to reach a consensus between
client and SO (e.g., severity of alcohol problems, consumption pat-
tern). If agreement cannot be reached, a decision may be delayed,
allowing further opportunity to consider the issues (see “Asking for
Commitment”). The objective is to establish goals that are mutually
satisfactory. This can further reinforce commitment to the relationship
as well as the resolution of alcohol problems.
Handling SO In some cases, SO involvement could become an obstacle in motivating

Disruptiveness the client to change and could even lead to a worsening of the drinking
problem. It is important to identify these potentially problematic situ-
ations and to deal with them. The following scenarios are provided to
illustrate circumstances where SO involvement might have a negative
impact on MET:
■■ Comments are made by the SO that appear to exacerbate an already

strained relationship and to evoke further resistance from the cli-
ent. Your efforts at eliciting verbal support from the SO are met
with resistance. Your own efforts to elicit self-motivational state-
ments from the client are hindered by SO remarks that foster client
defensiveness.
45
■■ Comments made by the SO suggest an indifferent or hostile atti-

tude toward the client. The SO demonstrates a lack of concern
about whether the client makes a commitment or is attempting to
resolve the drinking problem. The involvement of the SO appears
to have little or no beneficial impact on eliciting self-motivational
statements from the client. When the client does make self-motiva-
tional statements, the SO offers no support.
■■ The SO seems unwilling or unable to make changes requested by

the client that might facilitate an improvement in the drinking pat-
tern or their relationship. For example, despite strong requests
from the client (and perhaps from you) to place a moratorium on
negative communication patterns, the SO continues to harass the
client about past drinking habits.
In these or other ways, involvement of the SO may prove more disrup-

tive than helpful to treatment. The first approach in this case is to use
MET procedures (reflection, reframing) to acknowledge and highlight
the problematic interactions. If usual MET strategies do not result in
a decrease in SO disruptiveness, intervene directly to stop the pattern.
The following are potentially useful strategies for minimizing SO inter-
ference with the attainment of treatment goals and are consistent with
the general MET approach. Note that these are departures from the
usual procedures for MET spouse involvement and are implemented
for “damage control.”
■■ Limit the amount of involvement of the SO in sessions. You might

explicitly limit SO involvement to (1) providing collateral information
about the extent and pattern of drinking and (2) acquiring knowl-
edge and understanding about the severity of the alcohol problem
and the type of treatment being offered. Your interactions with the
SO can be limited to clarifying factual information and ensuring
that the SO has a good understanding of the client’s alcohol prob-
lem and the plan for change. Typical structuring questions of this
kind would be, “Do you understand what has been presented thus
far?” “Do you have any questions about the material we have dis-
cussed so far?”
■■ Focus the session(s) on the client. You can announce that the focus
of discussion should be on the client in terms of helping to resolve
the concerns that brought him or her to treatment. Indicate that
the drinking needs priority and that other concerns are best dealt
with after the client has competed the MET program. Then direct
the discussion to the client’s concerns.
■■ Limit the SO’s involvement in decisionmaking activities. If SO par-

ticipation is problematic, allow the SO to be a witness to change,
without requesting his or her direct involvement inside or outside
of sessions. Avoid requesting input from the SO in formulating
change goals and developing the plan of action. Do not request or
46
expect SO affirmation of decisions made by the client with regard

to drinking and change.
Remember that it is not necessary to invite the SO back for a second

session. This is easiest if your initial invitation did not mention two
sessions. Also, remember that the maximum number of sessions that
may be attended by any SO is two (not including emergency sessions).
Phase 3: Once you have established a strong base of motivation for change
Followthrough (Phase 1) and have obtained the client’s commitment to change (Phase
2), MET focuses on followthrough. This may occur as early as the sec-
Strategies ond session, depending on the client’s progress. Three processes are
involved in followthrough: (1) reviewing progress, (2) renewing motiva-
tion, and (3) redoing commitment.
Reviewing Begin a followthrough session with a review of what has happened

Progress since your last session. Discuss with the client what commitment
and plans were made, and explore what progress the client has made
toward these. Respond with reflection, questioning, affirmation, and
reframing, as before. Determine the extent to which previously estab-
lished goals and plans have been implemented.
Renewing The Phase 1 processes can be used again to renew motivation for
Motivation change. The extent of this renewal depends on your judgment of the
client’s current commitment to change. This may be assessed by ask-
ing clients what they remember as the most important reasons for
changing their drinking.
Redoing The Phase 2 processes can also be continued during followthrough.

Committment This may simply be a reaffirmation of the commitment made earlier.
If the client has encountered significant problems or doubts about the
initial plan, however, this is a time for reevaluation, moving toward
a new plan and commitment. Seek to reinforce the client’s sense of
autonomy and self-efficacy—an ability to carry out self-chosen goals
and plans.
47
The Structure of MET Sessions
The preceding sections outline the basic flow of MET from Phase 1
through Phase 3. This section addresses issues involved in planning
and conducting the four specific sessions.
The Initial Session
Preparation for Before treatment begins, clients are given an extensive battery of
the First Session assessment instruments; the results are used as the basis for personal
feedback in the first session. Appendix A discusses the instruments
used in Project MATCH and various alternatives.
When you contact clients to make your first appointment, stress the
importance of bringing along to this session their spouse or, if unmar-
ried, someone else to whom they are close and who could be supportive.
Typically, this would be a family member or a close friend. The critical
criteria are that the SO is considered to be an “important person” to the
client and that the SO ordinarily spends a significant amount of time
with the client. Those designated as significant others are asked to par-
ticipate in assessment and also to attend two (and only two) treatment
sessions. If no such person is initially identified, explore further dur-
ing the first session whether an SO can be designated. The intended
support person is contacted either by the client or by the therapist
(whichever is desired by the client) and invited to participate in the cli-
ent’s treatment. Again, the initial invitation should be for one visit only,
to allow flexibility regarding a second session.
Also explain that the client must come to this session sober, that a
breath test will be administered, and that any significant alcohol in the
breath will require rescheduling. All MET sessions are preceded by a
breath alcohol test to ensure sobriety. The client’s blood alcohol con-
centration must be no higher than .05 (50 mg%) in order to proceed.
Otherwise, the session must be rescheduled.
49
Presenting The MET approach may be surprising for some clients, who come with
the Rationale an expectation of being led step by step through an intensive process of
therapist-directed change (Edwards and Orford 1977). For this reason,
and Limits of you must be prepared to give a clear and persuasive explanation of the
Treatment rationale for this approach. The timing of this rationale is a matter for
your own judgment. It may not be necessary at the outset of MET. At
least some structuring of what to expect, however, should be given to
the client at the beginning of the first session. Here is an example of
what you might say:
Before we begin, let me just explain a little about how we will be

working together. You have already spent time completing the tests
that we need, and we appreciate the effort you put into that pro-
cess. We’ll make good use of the information from those tests today.
This is the first of four sessions that we will be spending together,
during which we’ll take a close look together at your situation. I
hope that you’ll find these four sessions interesting and helpful.
I should also explain right up front that I’m not going to be changing
you. I hope that I can help you think about your present situation
and consider what, if anything, you might want to do, but if there
is any changing, you will be the one who does it. Nobody can tell
you what to do; nobody can make you change. I’ll be giving you a
lot of information about yourself and maybe some advice, but what
you do with all of that after our four sessions together is completely
up to you. I couldn’t change you if I wanted to. The only person
who can decide whether and how you change is you. How does that
sound to you?
Many clients will find this a very comfortable and compatible approach.
Some, in fact, will express relief, having feared being castigated or
coerced. Other clients or their significant others, however, may be
uneasy with this approach and may need additional explanation and
assurance. Here are several lines of followup discussion in such cases:
■■ Even with very extensive kinds of treatment, it is still the person

who, in the end, decides what happens. You will determine what
happens with your drinking.
■■ Longer and shorter treatment programs don’t seem to produce dif-

ferent results. People in longer or more intensive programs don’t do
any better, overall, than those getting good consultation like this.
Again, no one can “do it to you.” In fact, many people change their
drinking or quit smoking without any formal treatment at all.
■■ You are not alone. We will be keeping in touch with you to see how
you are doing. If at followup visits, you still need more help, this
can be arranged.
50
■■ You can call if you need to. I’m available here by telephone.
■■ I understand your worries, and it’s perfectly understandable that

you would be unsure at this point. Let’s just get started, and we’ll
see where we are after we’ve had a chance to work together.
After this introduction, start with a brief structuring of the first session
and, if applicable, the SO’s role in this process (refer to the section on
“Involving a Significant Other”). Tell the client (and SO) that you will
be giving them feedback from the assessment instruments they com-
pleted, but first you want to understand better how they see the client’s
situation. Then proceed with strategies for “Eliciting Self-Motivational
Statements.” Use reflection (“Listening With Empathy”) as your pri-
mary response during this early phase. Other strategies described
under “Affirming the Client,” “Handling Resistance,” and “Reframing”
are also quite appropriate here. (The “Motivational Interviewing” video-
tape by Dr. Miller demonstrates this early phase of MET.)
When you sense that you have elicited the major themes of concern from
the client (and SO), offer a summary statement (see “Summarizing”).
If this seems acceptable to the client (and SO), indicate that the next
step is for you to provide feedback from the client’s initial assessment.
Give the client a copy of the Personal Feedback Report and review it
step by step (see “Presenting Personal Feedback”). Again, you should
use reflection, affirmation, reframing, and procedures for handling
resistance, as described earlier. You might not complete this feedback
process in the first session. If not, explain that you will continue the
feedback in your next session, and take back the client’s copy of the
PFR for use in your second session, indicating that you will give it back
to keep after you have completed reviewing the feedback next week.
If you do complete the feedback process, ask for the client’s (and SO’s)
overall response. One possible query would be:
■■ I’ve given you quite a bit of information here, and at this point, I
wonder what you make of all this and what you’re thinking
Both the feedback and this query will often elicit self-motivational
statements that can be reflected and used as a bridge to the next phase
of MET.
After obtaining the client’s (and SO’s) responses to the feedback, offer
one more summary, including both the concerns raised in the first
“eliciting” process and the information provided during the feedback
(see “Summarizing”). This is the transition point to the second phase
of MET: consolidating commitment to change. (Again, you will not usu-
ally get this far in the first session, and this process is continued in
subsequent sessions.)
51
Using cues from the client and SO (see “Recognizing Change Readi-
ness”), begin eliciting thoughts, ideas, and plans for what might be
done to address the problem (see “Discussing a Plan”). During this
phase, also use procedures outlined under “Communicating Free
Choice” and “Information and Advice.” Specifically elicit from the cli-
ent (and SO) what are perceived to be the possible benefits of action
and the likely negative consequences of inaction (see “Consequences
of Action”). These can be written down in the form of a balance sheet
(reasons to continue as before versus reasons to change) and given to
the client. The standard commendation of abstinence is to be included
during this phase at an appropriate time. If a high-severity client (range
3 or 4 in table 2) appears to be headed toward a moderation goal, this
is also the time to employ the abstinence advice procedure outlined in
“Emphasizing Abstinence.” The basic client-centered stance of reflec-
tion, questioning, affirming, reframing, and dealing with resistance
indirectly is to be maintained throughout this and all MET sessions.
This phase proceeds toward the confirmation of a plan for change,

and you should seek to obtain whatever commitment you can in this
regard (see “Asking for Commitment”). It can be helpful to write down
the client’s goals and planned steps for change on the Change Plan
Worksheet. If appropriate, this plan can be signed by the client (and
SO). Be careful, however, not to press prematurely for a commitment.
If a plan is signed before commitment is firm, a client may drop out of
treatment rather than renege on the agreement.
Ending the Always end the first session by summarizing what has transpired. The
First Session content of this summary will depend upon how far you have proceeded.
In some cases, progress will be slow, and you may spend most of the
first session presenting feedback and dealing with concerns or resis-
tance. In other cases, the client will be well along toward determination,
and you may be into Phase 2 (strengthening commitment) strategies by
the end of the first session. The speed with which this session proceeds
will depend upon the client’s current stage of change. Where possible,
it is desirable to elicit some client self-motivational statements about
change within the first session and to take some steps toward discuss-
ing a plan for change (even if tentative and incomplete). Also discuss
what the client will do and what changes will be made (if any) between
the first and second sessions. Do not hesitate to move toward commit-
ment to change in the first session if this seems appropriate. On the
other hand, do not feel pressed to do so. Premature commitment is
ephemeral, and pressuring clients toward change before they are ready
will evoke resistance and undermine the MET process.
At the end of the first session, always provide the client with a copy of
Alcohol and You (Miller 1991) or other suitable reading material. If feed-
back has been completed, also give the client the Personal Feedback
Report and a copy of “Understanding Your Personal Feedback Report.”
52
The Followup After the first session, prepare a handwritten note to be mailed to the
Note client. This is not to be a form letter, but rather a personalized message
in your own handwriting. (If your handwriting is illegible, make other
arrangements, but the note should be handwritten, not typed.)
Several personalized elements can be included in this note:
■■ A “joining message” (“I was glad to see you” or “I felt happy for you
and your wife after we spoke today”)
■■ Affirmations of the client (and SO)
■■ A reflection of the seriousness of the problem
■■ A brief summary of highlights of the first session, especially self-

motivational statements that emerged
■■ A statement of optimism and hope
■■ A reminder of the next session
Here is an example of what such a note might say:
Dear Mr. Robertson:
This is just a note to say that I’m glad you came in today. I agree
with you that there are some serious concerns for you to deal
with, and I appreciate how openly you are exploring them. You
are already seeing some ways in which you might make a healthy
change, and your wife seems very caring and willing to help. I think
that together you will be able to find a way through these problems.
I look forward to seeing you again on Tuesday the 24th at 2:00.
Keep a copy of the note for your records.
53
Followthrough Sessions
The Second The second session is scheduled 1 to 2 weeks after session 1 and
Session should begin with a brief summary of what transpired during the first
session. Then proceed with the MET process, picking up where you
left off. Continue with the client’s personal feedback from assessment
if this was not completed during the first session, and give the client
the PFR and a copy of “Understanding Your Personal Feedback Report”
(see appendix A) to take home. Proceed toward Phase 2 strategies and
commitment to change if this was not completed in the first session. If
a firm commitment was obtained in the first session, then proceed with
followthrough procedures.
At the end of the second session, in all cases, offer a closing summary
of the client’s reasons for concern, the main themes of the feedback,
and the plan that has been negotiated (see “Recapitulation”). This is
the closing of the second session. If no commitment to change has
been made, indicate that you will see how the client is doing at the fol-
lowup in 4 weeks and will continue the discussion at that point. In any
event, remind the client of the third session at week 6. When a spouse
or SO has been involved in the first two sessions, thank the SO for
participating in those sessions and explain that the next two sessions
will be with the client alone. If the SO was not involved in both of the
initial sessions, he or she may return for the third session. (The SO’s
involvement is not to exceed two sessions.)
Sessions 3 Sessions 3 and 4 are to be scheduled for weeks 6 and 12, respectively.
and 4 They are important as “booster” sessions to reinforce the motivational
processes begun in the initial sessions. As before, the therapist does
not offer skill training or prescribe a specific course of action. Rather,
the same motivational principles are applied throughout MET. Specific
use is made in each session of the followthrough strategies outlined
earlier: (1) reviewing progress, (2) renewing motivation, and (3) redoing
commitment. Sessions 3 and 4 do not include the SO, unless the SO
has not already attended two sessions.
Because several weeks normally lapse between sessions 2 and 3 and

between sessions 3 and 4, you should send the client a handwritten
note or telephone the client a few days before the scheduled appoint-
ment. This serves as a reminder and also expresses continued active
interest in your client.
Begin each session with a discussion of what has transpired since the
last session and a review of what has been accomplished in previous
sessions. Complete each session with a summary of where the client
is at present, eliciting the client’s perceptions of what steps should
betaken next. The prior plan for change can be reviewed, revised, and
(if previously written down) rewritten.
54
During these sessions, be careful not to assume that ambivalence has

been resolved and that commitment is firm. It is safer to assume that
the client is still ambivalent and to continue using the motivation-
building strategies of Phase 1 as well as the commitment-strengthening
strategies of Phase 2.
There should be a clear sense of continuity of care. The four sessions

of MET should be presented as progressive consultations and as con-
tinuous with the research protocol’s schedule of followup sessions.
The initial sessions build motivation and strengthen commitment, and
subsequent sessions serve as periodic checkups of progress toward
change.
It can be helpful during sessions 3 and 4 to discuss specific situations

that have occurred since the last session. Two kinds of situations can
be explored:
■■ Situations in which the client drank
■■ Situations in which the client did not drink
Drinking Situations
If the client drank since the last session, discuss how it occurred.
Remember to remain empathic and to avoid a judgmental tone or
stance. Consistent with the MET style, do not prescribe coping strate-
gies for the client. Rather, use this discussion to renew motivation,
eliciting from the client further self-motivational statements by ask-
ing for the clients thoughts, feelings, reactions, and realizations. Key
questions can be used to renew commitment (e.g., “So what does this
mean for the future?” “I wonder what you will need to do differently
next time?”)
Nondrinking Situations
Clients may also find it helpful and rewarding to review situations in

which they might have drunk previously or in which they were tempted
to drink but did not do so. Reinforce self-efficacy by asking clients to
clarify what they did to cope successfully in these situations. Praise
clients for small steps, little successes, even minor progress.
Termination Formal termination should be acknowledged and discussed at the

end of the fourth session. This is generally accomplished by a final
reca-pitulation of the client’s situation and progress through the MET
sessions. Your final summary should include these elements:
■ Review the most important factors motivating the client for change,
and reconfirm these self-motivational themes.
55
■■ Summarize the commitments and changes that have been made

thus far.
■■ Affirm and reinforce the client for commitments and changes that
have been made.
■■ Explore additional areas for change that the client wants to accom-
plish in the future.
■■ Elicit self-motivational statements for the maintenance of change

and for further changes.
■■ Support client self-efficacy, emphasizing the client’s ability to

change.
■■ Deal with any special problems that are evident (see below).
■■ Remind the client of continuing followup sessions, emphasizing

that these are an important part of the overall program and can be
helpful in maintaining change.
Review, in session 4, the major points that have come up in the prior
three sessions. It may be useful to ask clients about the worst things
that could happen if they went back to drinking as before. Help clients
look to the immediate future, to anticipate upcoming events or poten-
tial obstacles to continued sobriety.
56
Dealing With Special Problems
Special problems can arise during any treatment. The following are
general troubleshooting procedures for handling some of the situa-
tions that may arise in delivering therapy in general as well as within
a research context.
Treatment Clients may report thinking that the assigned treatment is not going
Dissatisfaction to help or wanting a different treatment. Under these circumstances,
you should first reinforce clients for being honest about their feelings
(e.g., “I’m glad you expressed your concerns to me right away.”). You
should also confirm that clients have the right to quit treatment at
any time, seek help elsewhere, or decide to work on the problem on
their own. In any event, you should explore the client’s feelings further
(e.g., “Whatever you decide is up to you, but it might be helpful for us
to talk about why you’re concerned”). Concerns of this kind that arise
during the first session are probably reservations about an approach
they have not yet tried. Typically, in randomized studies of multiple
treatments, it is appropriate to assure the client that all of the treat-
ments in the study are expected to succeed equally and that you will be
offering all the help you can. No one can guarantee that any particular
treatment will work, but you can encourage the client to give it a good
try for the planned period and see what happens. You can add that
should the problem continue or worsen, you will discuss other possible
approaches.
If a client expresses reservations after two or three sessions, con-

sider whether there have been new developments. Have new problems
arisen? Did the plan for change that was previously developed with the
client fail to work, and if so, why? Was it properly implemented? Was it
tried long enough? Is there input or pressure from someone else for a
change in approaches or for discontinuation of treatment? Is the client
discouraged?
If the client’s drinking problem has shown improvement but new prob-
lems, not previously identified, have appeared, these new problems
can be discussed, following (and not departing from) the treatment
procedures outlined above. The discussion of new problems and con-
cerns, or a review of how prior implementation failed, can set the stage
57
for continuation in treatment. You can suggest that it may be too early
to judge how well this approach will work and that the client should
continue for the 12-week duration. After that, if the client still feels a
need for additional treatment, he or she could certainly obtain it.
If other parties are concerned about this treatment and are pressur-
ing the client, you can explore this problem by following the treatment
guidelines outlined above. It is also permissible for you to telephone
the concerned party (with written consent from the client) to discuss
the concerns and provide assurances, along the same lines as those
outlined above for similar client concerns.
In Project MATCH, a limit of no more than two additional “emergency”

sessions may be provided at the therapist’s discretion. These must
remain consistent with the MET guidelines provided in this manual
and can be viewed as an extension or intensification of MET. The SO
may be included in these sessions if appropriate, but the SO may never
be seen alone. All sessions, including any emergency sessions, must be
completed within 12 weeks of the first session. After that date, thera-
pists are no longer permitted to see the client for any session, even if
MET has not been completed.
A plan to provide a specific referral and help the client make contact
was devised in Project MATCH in case all attempts to keep the client in
treatment fail. Additional treatment may not be provided by any proj-
ect therapist. Referral is made to an outside agency or to a therapist
within the same agency who has no involvement in Project MATCH.
A good procedure for accomplishing the referral is to telephone the
agency or professional while the client is still in your office and make
a specific appointment. For Project MATCH, this is discussed with the
project coordinator or project director, because it has implications for
the client’s continuation in the study. In any event, the client is urged
to participate in follow-up interviews as originally planned.
Missed When a client misses a scheduled appointment, respond immediately.

Appointments First try to reach the client by telephone, and when you do, cover these
basic points:
■ Clarify the reasons for the missed appointment.
■ Affirm the client—reinforce for having come.
■ Express your eagerness to see the client again.
■ Briefly mention serious concerns that emerged and your apprecia-

tion (as appropriate) that the client is exploring these.
■ Express your optimism about the prospects for change.
58
Dealing With Special Problems
■■ Reschedule the appointment.
If no reasonable explanation is offered for the missed appointment (e.g.,

illness, transportation breakdown), explore with the client whether the
missed appointment might reflect any of the following:
■■ Uncertainty about whether or not treatment is needed (e.g., “I don’t

really have that much of a problem”)
■■ Ambivalence about making a change
■■ Frustration or anger about having to participate in treatment (par-

ticularly with clients coerced by others into entering the program)
Handle such concerns in a manner consistent with MET (e.g., with

reflective listening, reframing). Indicate that it is not surprising, in the
beginning phase of consultation, for people to express their reluctance
(frustration, anger, etc.) by not showing up for appointments, being
late, and so on. Encouraging the client to voice these concerns directly
may help to reduce their expression in future missed appointments.
Use Phase 1 strategies to handle any resistance that is encountered.
Affirm the client for being willing to discuss concerns. Then summarize
what you have discussed, add your own optimism about the prospects
for positive change, and obtain a recommitment to treatment. It may
be useful to elicit some self-motivational statements from the client in
this regard. Reschedule the appointment.
In all cases, unless you regard it as a duplication of the telephone

contact that might offend the client, also send a personal, individual-
ized handwritten note with these essential points. This should be done
within 2 days of the missed appointment. Research indicates that a
prompt note and telephone call of this kind significantly increase the
likelihood that the client will return (Nirenberg et al. 1980; Panepinto
and Higgins 1969). Place a copy of this note in the clinical file.
This procedure should be used when any of the four appointments

is missed. Three attempts (new appointments) should be made to
reschedule a missed session.
Telephone Some clients and their SOs will contact you by telephone between
Consultation sessions for additional consultation. This is acceptable, and all such
contacts should be carefully documented in the client’s file. An attempt
should be made to keep such contacts brief, rather than providing
additional sessions by telephone. All telephone contacts must also
comply with the basic procedures of MET. Specific change strategies
should not be prescribed. Rather, your approach emphasizes elicita-
tion and reflection.
59
Early in a telephone contact, you should comment positively on the cli-

ent’s openness and willingness to contact you. Reflect and explore any
expressions of uncertainty and ambivalence that are expressed with
regard to goals or strategies discussed in a previous session. It can be
helpful to “normalize” ambivalence and concerns; for example: “What
you’re feeling is not at all unusual. It’s really quite common, especially
in these early stages. Of course you’re feeling confused. You’re still
quite attached to drinking, and you’re thinking about changing a pat-
tern that has developed over many years. Give yourself some time.”
Also, reinforce any self-motivational statements and indications of will-
ingness to change. Reassurance can also be in order during these brief
contacts, e.g., that people really do change their drinking, often with a
few consultations.
Crisis The Project MATCH protocol provides guidelines on actions to be taken

Intervention if the therapist is contacted by the client or SO in a condition of crisis.
Others using this manual can adopt these guidelines as needed for
their own protocols. These guidelines permit offering up to two special
emergency sessions with the client (and SO) within the 12-week treat-
ment period.
If at any time, in the therapist’s opinion, the immediate welfare and

safety of the client or another person is in jeopardy (e.g., impending
relapse, client is acutely suicidal or violent), the protocol instructs the
therapist to intervene immediately and appropriately for the protec-
tion of those involved, with appropriate consultation from the therapy
program supervisor. This may include your own immediate crisis
intervention as well as appropriate referral. In Project MATCH, the
therapist’s involvement in crisis interventions cannot exceed two ses-
sions above and beyond those prescribed by the treatment condition.
If a client’s urgent needs require more additional treatment than this,
referral is arranged.
Cases where there appears to be a worsening of the drinking problems

or evidence of other new and serious difficulties (e.g., suicidal thoughts,
psychotic behavior, violence) are referred to the onsite Project MATCH
study coordinator for further evaluation and consultation. Based on
his/her own evaluation and the defined procedures of the study, the
coordinator determines what action is warranted and whether the cli-
ent should be continued in the study. If alternative treatments are
warranted, the coordinator is involved in making this determination.
60
Recommended Reading and
Additional Resources
Clinical Edwards, G., and Orford, J. A plain treatment for alcoholism.

Descriptions Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 70:344–348, 1977.
Egan, G. The Skilled Helper: A Model for Systematic Helping and
Interpersonal Relating. 2nd ed. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1982.
Ivey, A. Intentional Interviewing and Counseling. Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole, 1982.
Miller, W.R. Motivational interviewing with problem drinkers.
Behavioural Psychotherapy 11:147–172, 1983.
Miller, W.R. Increasing motivation for change. In: Hester, R.K., and
Miller, W.R., eds. Handbook of Alcoholism Treatment Approaches:
Effective Alternatives. New York: Pergamon Press, 1989. pp.
67–80.
Miller, W.R., and Jackson, K.A. “Not listening” and “Listening.” In:
Practical Psychology for Pastors. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall, 1985. pp. 31–59.
Miller, W.R., and Rollnick, S. Motivational Interviewing. New York:
Guilford Press, 1991.
Miller, W.R., and Sanchez, V.C. Motivating young adults for treatment
and lifestyle change. In: Howard, G., ed. Issues in Alcohol Use
and Misuse by Young Adults. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre
Dame Press, in press.
Miller, W.R., and Sovereign, R.G. The check-up: A model for early
intervention in addictive behaviors. In: Løberg, T., Miller, W.R.,
Nathan, P.E., and Marlatt, G.A., eds. Addictive Behaviors: Pre-
vention and Early Intervention. Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlin-ger,
1989. pp. 219–231.
Miller, W.R.; Sovereign, R.G.; and Krege, B. Motivational interviewing
with problem drinkers: II. The drinker’s check-up as a preventive
intervention. Behavioural Psychotherapy 16:251–268, 1988.
Sanchez-Craig, M. Brief didactic treatment for alcohol and drug-related
problems: An approach based on client choice. British Journal of
Addiction 85:169-177, 1990.
van Bilsen, H.P.J.G., and van Ernst, A.J. Heroin addiction: Motiva-
tional milieu therapy. International Journal of the Addictions
21:707–713, 1986.
61
Demonstration Miller, W.R. Motivational Interviewing. Albuquerque, NM: University

Videotapes of New Mexico, 1989. Available from William R. Miller, Ph.D.,
Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque,
NM, USA 87131-1161. European format videotape available from
the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, P.O. Box 1,
University of New South Wales, Kensington, NSW 2033, Australia.
Motivation and Change. Set of two training videotapes available from
the Addiction Research Foundation, 33 Russell Street, Toronto
M5S 2S1, Ontario, Canada.
Rollnick, S. I Want It But I Don’t Want It: An Introduction to Motivational
Interviewing. Mind’s Eye Video, 1989. European format only.
Available from the Department of Psychology, Whitchurch
Hospital, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom, CF4 7XB.
van Bilsen, H.P.J.G., and Bennet, G. Motivational Interviewing in the
Addictive Behaviours. East Dorset Health Authority and Matakena
Video Productions, 1987. Contact Gerald A. Bennett, Ph.D., 20
Newstead Road, Bournemouth, Dorset, United King-dom BH6
3HJ.
van Ernst, A. J., van Bilsen, H. P. J. G., and Schippers, G. M. Motivation:
A Demonstration Videotape on Motivational Interviewing. Part I:
Problem Drinking; Part 2: Heroin Addiction. Audi-Visuele dienst
A-faculteiten, Catholic University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands,
1986.
Zweben, A. Motivating the Problem Drinker for Treatment. Toronto:
Addiction Research Foundation, 1986.
References Alcoholics Anonymous. Alcoholics Anonymous: The Story of How Many

Thousands of Men and Women Have Recovered From Alcoholism.
3rd ed. New York: AA World Services, 1976.
Anderson, P., and Scott, E. The effect of general practitioners’ advice
to heavy drinking men. British Journal of Addiction 87:891–900,
1992.
Annis, H.M. Is inpatient rehabilitation of the alcoholic cost effective?
Con position. Advances in Alcohol and Substance Abuse 5:175190,
1985.
Appel, C-P., and Miller, W.R. “The Self-Evaluation of Drinking.”
Unpublished instrument, University of New Mexico, 1984.
Bandura, A. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American
Psychologist 37:122–147, 1982.
Bern, D.J. An experimental analysis of self-persuasion. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology 1:199–218, 1965.
Bern, D. J. Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive
dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review 74:183–200, 1967.
Bern, D. J. Self-perception theory. In: Berkowitz, L., ed. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 6. New York: Academic Press,
1972. pp. 1–62.
62
Recommended Reading and Additional Resources
Bergaman, J.R. Fishing for Barracuda: Pragmatics for Brief Systemic

Therapy. New York: W.W. Norton, 1985.
Chafetz, M.E. A procedure for establishing therapeutic contact with
the alcoholic. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol 22:325–328,
1961.
Chafetz, M.E.; Blane, H.T.; Abram, H.S.; Clark, E.; Golner, J.H.;
Hastie, E.L.; and McCourt, W.F. Establishing treatment relations
with alcoholics: A supplementary report. Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disease 138:390–393, 1964.
Chapman, P.L.H., and Huygens, I. An evaluation of three treatment
programmes for alcoholism: An experimental study with 6– and
18-month follow-ups. British Journal of Addiction 83:67–81, 1988.
Chick, J.; Lloyd, G.; and Crombie, E. Counseling problem drinkers
in medical wards: A controlled study. British Medical Journal
290:965–967, 1985.
Chick, J.; Ritson, B.; Connaughton, J.; Stewart, A.; and Chick, J.
Advice versus extended treatment for alcoholism: A controlled
study. British Journal of Addiction 83:159–170, 1988.
Elvy, G.A.; Wells, J.E.; and Baird, K.A. Attempted referral as interven-
tion for problem drinking in the general hospital. British Journal
of Addiction 83:83–89, 1988.
Festinger, L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston: Row,
Peterson, 1957.
Fisch, R; Weakland, J.H.; and Segal, L. Doing Therapy Briefly. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1982.
Goldstein, A.P.; Heller, K.; and Sechrest, L. Psychotherapy and the
Psychology of Behavior Change. New York: Wiley, 1966.
Gordon, T. Parent Effectiveness Training. New York: Wyden, 1970.
Harris, K.B., and Miller, W.R. Behavioral self-control training for prob-
lem drinkers: Components of efficacy. Psychology of Addictive
Behaviors 4:82–90, 1990.
Heather, N.; Campion, P.D.; Neville, R.G.; and Maccabe, D. Evaluation
of a controlled drinking minimal intervention for problem drink-
ers in general practice (the DRAMS scheme). Journal of the Royal
College of General Practitioners 37:358–363, 1987.
Heather, N.; Whitton, B.; and Robertson, I. Evaluation of a self-help
manual for media-recruited problem drinkers: Six month follow-
up results. British Journal of Clinical Psychology 25:19–34, 1986.
Holder, H.D.; Longabaugh, R.; Miller, W.R.; and Rubonis, A.V. The cost
effectiveness of treatment for alcohol problems: A first approxima-
tion. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 52:517–540, 1991.
Janis, I.L., and Mann, L. Decision Making. New York: Free Press, 1977.
Kristenson, H.; Ohlin, H.; Hulten-Nosslin, M.B.; Trell, E.; and Hood, B.
Identification and intervention of heavy drinking in middle-aged
men: Results and follow-up of 24–60 months of long-term study
with randomized controls. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental
Research 7:203–209, 1983.
Longabaugh, R.; Beattie, M.; Noel, N.; Stout, R.; and Malloy, P. The
effect of social investment on treatment outcome. Journal of
Studies on Alcohol, in press.
63
Miller, W.R. Motivation for treatment: A review with special emphasis

on alcoholism. Psychological Bulletin 98:84–107, 1985.
Miller, W.R. Motivation and treatment goals. Drugs and Society 1:133–
151, 1987.
Miller, W.R.; Benefield, R.G.; and Tonigan, J.S. Enhancing motivation
for change in problem drinking: A controlled comparison of two
therapist styles. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, in
press.
Miller, W.R., and Brown, J.M. Self-regulation as a conceptual basis for
the prevention and treatment of addictive behaviors. In: Heather,
N.; Miller, W.R.; and Greeley, J., eds. Self-Control and the Addictive
Behaviours. Sydney: Pergamon Press Australia, 1991. pp. 3–79.
Miller, W.R., and Caddy, G.R. Abstinence and controlled drinking in
the treatment of problem drinkers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol
38:986–1003, 1977.
Miller, W.R.; Gribskov, C.J.; and Mortell, R.L. Effectiveness of
a self-control manual for problem drinkers with and with-
out therapist contact. International Journal of the Addictions
16:1247–1254,1981.
Miller, W.R., and Hester, R.K. Inpatient alcoholism treatment: Who
benefits? American Psychologist 41:794–805,1986.
Miller, W.R.; Leckman, A.L.; Delaney, H.D.; and Tinkcom, M. Long-term
follow-up of behavioral self-control training. Journal of Studies on
Alcohol 53:249–261, 1992.
Miller, W.R., and Page, A. Warm turkey: Alternative routes to absti-
nence. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 8:227–232, 1991.
Miller, W.R., and Sanchez, V.C. Motivating young adults for treatment
and lifestyle change. In: Howard, G., ed. Issues in Alcohol Use
and Misuse by Young Adults. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre
Dame Press, in press.
Miller, W.R., and Sovereign, R.G. The check-up: A model for early
intervention in addictive behaviors. In: Løberg, T.; Miller, W.R.;
Nathan, P.E.; and Marlatt, G.A., eds. Addictive Behaviors: Pre-
vention and Early Intervention. Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger,
1989. pp. 219–231.
Miller, W.R., and Taylor, C.A. Relative effectiveness of bibliotherapy,
individual and group self-control training in the treatment of
problem drinkers. Addictive Behaviors 5:13–24, 1980.
Miller, W.R.; Taylor, C.A.; and West, J.C. Focused versus broad spec-
trum behavior therapy for problem drinkers. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology 48:590–601, 1980.
Nirenberg, T.D.; Sobell, L.C.; and Sobell, M.B. Effective and inexpen-
sive procedures for decreasing client attrition in an outpatient
alcohol treatment program. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol
Abuse 7:73–82, 1980.
Orford, J. Critical conditions for change in the addictive behaviors. In:
Miller, W.R., and Heather, N., eds. Treating Addictive Behaviors:
Processes of Change. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press, 1986. pp.
91–108.
64
Recommended Reading and Additional Resources
Orford, J., and Edwards, G. Alcoholism: A Comparison of Treatment

and Advice, With a Study of the Influence of Marriage. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1977.
Panepinto, W.C., and Higgins, M.J. Keeping alcoholics in treatment:
Effective follow-through procedures. Quarterly Journal of Studies
on Alcohol 30:414–419, 1969.
Patterson, G.A., and Forgatch, M.S. Therapist behavior as a determi-
nant for client noncompliance: A paradox for the behavior modifier.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 53:846–851, 1985.
Pearlman, S.; Zweben, A.; and Li, S. The comparability of solicited ver-
sus clinic subjects in alcohol treatment research. British Journal
of Addiction, 84,523–532,1989.
Persson, J., and Magnusson, P.—H. Early intervention in patients with
excessive consumption of alcohol: A controlled study. Alcohol
6:403–408, 1989.
Prochaska, J.O., and DiClemente, C.C. Transtheoretical therapy
toward a more integrative model of change. Psychotherapy: The-
ory, Research and Practice 19:276–288, 1982.
Prochaska, J.O., and DiClemente, C.C. The Transtheoretical Approach:
Crossing Traditional Boundaries of Therapy. Homewood, IL: Dow
Jones/Irwin, 1984.
Prochaska, J.O., and DiClemente, C.C. Processes and stages of change
in smoking, weight control, and psychological distress. In: Schiff-
man, S., and Wills, T., eds. Coping and Substance Abuse. New
York: Academic Press, 1985. pp. 319–345.
Prochaska, J.O., and DiClemente, C.C. Toward a comprehensive model
of change. In: Miller, W.R., and Heather, N., eds. Treating Addictive
Behaviors: Processes of Change. New York: Plenum Press, 1986.
pp. 3–27.
Robertson, I.; Heather, N.; Dzialdowski, A.; Crawford, J.; and Winton,
M. A comparison of minimal versus intensive controlled drinking
treatment interventions for problem drinkers. British Journal of
Clinical Psychology 22:185–194, 1986.
Rogers, C.R. The necessary and sufficient conditions for therapeutic
personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology 21:95–103,
1957.
Rogers, C.R. A theory of therapy, personality, and interpersonal rela-
tionships as developed in the client-centered framework. In: Koch,
S., ed. Psychology: The Study of a Science. Vol. 3. Formulations of
the Person and the Social Context. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.
pp. 184–256.
Romelsjö, A.; Andersson, L.; Barrner, H.; Borg, S.; Granstrand, C.;
Hultman, O.; Hassler, A.; Kallqvist, A.; Magnusson, P.; Morgell,
R.; Nyman, K.; Olofsson, A.; Olsson, E.; Rhedin, A.; and Wikblad,
0. A randomized study of secondary prevention of early stage prob-
lem drinkers in primary health care. British Journal of Addiction.
84:1319–1327, 1989.
Sannibale, C. The differential effect of a set of brief interventions on
the functioning of a group of “early-stage” problem drinkers.
Australian Drug and Alcohol Review 7:147–155, 1988.
65
Scott, E., and Anderson, P. Randomized controlled trial of general

practitioner intervention in women with excessive alcohol con-
sumption. Drug & Alcohol Review 10:313–321, 1990.
Sisson, R.W., and Azrin, N.H. Family-member involvement to initiate
and promote treatment of problem drinkers. Journal of Behavior
Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry 17:15–21, 1986.
Skutle, A., and Berg, G. Training in controlled drinking for early-stage
problem drinkers. British Journal of Addiction 82:493–501, 1987.
Syme, S.L. “Changing Difficult Behaviors: How to Succeed Without
Really Trying.” Paper presented at a Symposium on Advancing
Health Education, Mills College, Oakland, CA, Sept. 1988.
Truax, C.B., and Carkhuff, R.R. Toward Effective Counseling and
Psychotherapy. Chicago: Aldine, 1967.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. The Effectiveness and
Costs of Alcoholism Treatment. Washington, DC: the Office, 1983.
Valle, S.K. Interpersonal functioning of alcoholism counselors and
treatment outcome. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 42:783–790,
1981.
Wallace, P.; Cutler, S.; and Haines, A. Randomised controlled trial of
general practitioner intervention in patients with excessive alco-
hol consumption. British Medical Journal 297:663–668, 1988.
Zweben, A.; Pearlman, S.; and Li, S. Reducing attrition from conjoint
therapy with alcoholic couples. Drug and Alcohol Dependence
11:321–331, 1983.
Zweben, A.; Pearlman, S.; and Li, S. A comparison of brief advice and
conjoint therapy in the treatment of alcohol abuse: The results of
the marital systems study. British Journal of Addiction 83:899–
916, 1988.
66
Appendix A:
Assessment Feedback Procedures
by William R. Miller, Ph.D.
Preface The instructions contained in appendix A refer to the assessment feed-

back components of Motivational Enhancement Therapy, as practiced
in Project MATCH. It is not necessary, however, to use exactly the same
assessment instruments as were employed in Project MATCH. The
basic idea is to assess a range of dimensions, with particular emphasis
on those likely to reflect early problems or risk. If you wish to replicate
the exact procedures used in MATCH, information is provided at the
end of this appendix for obtaining the needed instruments. You may,
however, construct your own assessment battery and design a corre-
sponding Personal Feedback Report (PFR) based on normative data for
the instruments you have chosen. The PFR used in Project MATCH is
reproduced following page 89.
In general, your assessment battery should sample a variety of poten-

tial problem and risk domains. Here is a brief list of pertinent domains,
with examples of appropriate assessment approaches for each.
Alcohol The volume of alcohol consumption is a primary dimension for assess-

ment, because all other risk and problem domains are related to the
Consumption quantity and frequency of use. There are four basic approaches for
quantifying alcohol consumption.
Quantity/ The simplest approach is to ask a few structured questions regarding

Frequency the frequency (e.g., how many days per month does the person drink)
Questionnaire and quantity of consumption (e.g., on a drinking day, how many drinks
does the person have on average). Such questions can be aided by
describing a standard drink unit (see Miller et al. 1991 for alternatives)
or asking separately about different kinds of beverages (beer, wine,
spirits, etc.). An advantage of this approach is that, unlike the others,
it can be administered by paper and pencil questionnaire. This method
appears to underestimate actual consumption, however, and reliability
and validity parameters have not been established.
67
Grid Averaging A second approach is to reconstruct, by structured interview, a typical-

drinking week and then account for episodes of drinking that deviate
from this pattern. This approach was introduced by Miller and Marlatt
(1984) and has been employed in a variety of studies.
Timeline A third and still more detailed approach is to reconstruct drinking by

Followback filling in an actual calendar for the past few weeks or months. Day
by day drinking data are obtained, taking advantage of the mem-
ory-prompting value of a calendar (Sobell et al. 1980). The Form 90
approach used in Project MATCH (see below) represents a hybrid of the
timeline and grid averaging methods.
Drinking Diary Finally, individuals can be asked to keep a daily diary of alcohol con-
sumption. These records can than be converted into quantitative data.
A freeware computer program for this purpose has been developed by
Markham, Miller, and Arciniega (see resource list at the end of this
appendix).
Alcohol-Related As heavy drinking continues, life problems tend to accumulate. Some

Problems counting of such accumulation is a common measure of problem
severity. Measures such as the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test
(MAST; Selzer 1971) combine life problems with other factors such as
alcohol dependence symptoms and help seeking. Miller and Marlatt
(1984) attempted to differentiate between common problematic conse-
quences of heavy drinking and other life problems, which may or may
not be alcohol related. The DRINC questionnaire (see below), developed
for Project MATCH, is intended as a purer measure of negative conse-
quences of drinking, apart from alcohol dependence signs.
Alcohol The alcohol dependence syndrome is currently a central diagnostic con-

Dependence cept. Severity of dependence represents a third dimension to be tapped
in comprehensive assessment. A variety of alcohol dependence scales
have been published. Skinner’s Alcohol Dependence Scale (Skiller and
Horn 1984) has been a popular instrument in North America, with
strong pyschometric characteristics.
Physical Health Heavy drinking also has predictable effects on physical health. The
most common evaluation approach in this domain has been a serum
chemistry profile, screening for elevations on variables commonly
affected by excessive drinking. These include liver enzymes (SGOT,
SGPT, GGT), mean corpuscular volume (MCV), and high-density lipo-
protein (HDL). Blood pressure can also be screened, because heavy
drinking contributes to hypertension.
Neuro- Knowledge of all of the above domains provides relatively little informa-
psychological tion about a person’s cognitive functioning Problem drinkers have been
found to be impaired on a variety of neuropsychological tests (Miller
Functioning and Saucedo 1983). Both Project MATCH and other checkup and
68
Appendix A: Assessment Feedback Procedures
feedback interventions have included neuropsychological test results

(see Miller and Sovereign 1989; Miller et al. 1988), although interven-
tions can also be effective without the inclusion of neu-ropsychological
testing (Bien and Miller submitted; Brown and Miller submitted). Tests
that commonly show impairment include the Block Design and Digit/
Symbol subtests of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, the Wisconsin
Card Sorting Task, and Halstead-Reitan subtests including the Tactual
Performance Test, the Trail-Making Test, and the Categories Test.
Risk Factors Markers of high risk for alcohol problems can also be measured, apart
from the individual’s current level of use and its consequences Family
history of alcohol/drug problems can be obtained by a variety of meth-
ods (e.g., Cacciola et al. 1987; Miller and Marlatt 1984). Of personality
scales designed to detect correlates of risk for substance abuse, the
MacAndrew scale has fared best in research, though others are avail-
able (Jacobson 1989; Miller 1976). Beliefs about alcohol, as assessed
by Brown’s Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire, have also been found to
be predictive of risk (Brown 1985).
Motivation for Various approaches are available for measuring the extent of an indi-
vidual’s motivation for changing drinking. Some consist of simple Likert
Change scales assessing commitment to abstinence or other change goals (e.g.,
Hall et al. 1990). Self-efficacy scales can be constructed to ask about
confidence in one’s ability to change. Respondents can be asked to rate
the extent to which alcohol is helping or harming them on a range of
life dimensions (Appel and Miller 1984). Stages of change derived from
the Prochaska and DiClemente (1984) theoretical perspective were
used as the basis for construction of the University of Rhode Island
Change Assessment (Prochaska and DiClemente 1992; DiClemente
and Hughes 1990) and the alcohol-specific Stages of Change Readiness
and Treatment Eagerness Scale (SOCRATES; Miller).
Comprehensive Several questionnaires and structured interview protocols provide a

range of quantitative scores that can be compared with normative or
Assessment diagnostic standards. None of these taps all of the above dimensions,
Approaches but each provides a basis for judging status on several domains. The
Alcohol Use Inventory (AUI; Horn et al. 1987) is a widely used and well-
developed self-administered questionnaire that permits comparison of
individual with normatived scores. The materials necessary to adminis-
ter, score, and interpret the AUI are available from National Computer
Systems, P.O. Box 1416, Minneapolis, MN 55440. The kit includes the
AUI manual, forms, client test book, hand-scored answer key tem-
plates, and the AUI profile sheet, which summarizes the scores and
can be given to the client. Structured interviews include the Addiction
Severity Index (ASI; Cacciola et al. 1987), the Comprehensive Drinker
Profile (CDP; Miller and Marlatt 1984, 1987), and the Form 90 inter-
view developed for Project MATCH (see below).
69
The crucial point is that the battery of assessment procedures to

be used as a basis for feedback can be tailored to the needs, time
demands, and client characteristics of a program. What follows is but
one example—from Project MATCH—of how assessment feedback can
be done within the context of Motivational Enhancement Therapy.
The Project MATCH Assessment Feedback

Protocol and Procedures for Completing
The PFR
Prior to the first session with an MET client, the Personal Feedback
Report is prepared by obtaining the pertinent data from the client’s file.
The following information from the Project MATCH assessment battery
is used:
■■ AUDIT score from the Quickscreen
■■ Form 90–I (Initial Intake)
■■ ASI family history section
■■ MacAndrew scale score
■■ DRINC questionnaire
■■ Serum chemistry profile
■■ Neuropsychological test results
■■ Alcohol Use Inventory
BACCuS, an IBM–PC software program, is used for converting alco-

hol consumption data into standardized measures (Markham et al.
submitted).
Alcohol The first datum to be presented to the client is the number of standard
Consumption drinks consumed during a week of drinking This calculation is available
from Form 90–I, the Project MATCH interview protocol for quantify-
ing alcohol consumption. Some degree of judgment is needed here,
but remember that the goal is to provide clients with a fair picture of
their alcohol consumption during a typical drinking week. If the Steady
Pattern Chart has been completed (page 6), use line 38 as the number
of standard drinks per week. If no Steady Pattern Chart has been com-
pleted, the client’s drinking was too variable to provide a consistent
weekly pattern. In this case, consult the Summary Statistics sheet. If
the client abstained on fewer than 10 percent of days during the 90-day
window, multiply the “Average SECs per drinking day” by 7 to obtain
the number of standard drinks per week. Be sure you are examining
the 90-day window and not the whole current period. If abstinent days
exceed 10 percent, examine the calendar to determine whether these
70
abstinent days mostly occurred within drinking weeks (e.g., no drinking

on Monday through Wednesday) or whether they occurred in blocks in
between periods of drinking (i.e., periodic drinker). In the former case,
determine the typical number of drinking days in an average week and
multiply this number of days by the Average SECs per drinking day
(from the Summary Sheet) to obtain the number of standard drinks
per week. In the latter case—a purely periodic drinker—determine from
the calendar whether drinking episodes are normally at least 7 days in
length. If so, use the same procedure as for the Steady Pattern Chart:
multiply the Average SECs per drinking day by 7 to describe the num-
ber of standard drinks consumed during a typical week of drinking. If
drinking episodes are typically shorter than 1 week (e.g., 3 days), mul-
tiply the average number of days in an episode by the Average SECs
per drinking day (from the Summary Statistics). Again, remember that
the guiding principle is to describe the number of standard drinks that
the client consumed, on average, in a drinking week.
When you have obtained the client’s average number of drinks per
drinking week, use table 3 to obtain the client’s percentile among
American adults. Note the separate norms for men and women.
Estimated Blood The second set of data presented to Project MATCH clients consists of
Alcohol computer-projected blood alcohol concentration (BAC) peaks, based
on alcohol consumption patterns reported on Form 90–I. These projec-
Concentration tions are computed by BACCuS and will normally have been completed
Peaks by the research assistant who conducted the Form 90–I interview.
Nevertheless, you should check these calculations using BACCuS.
Any projected peak over 600 mg% should be reported as 600 mg%.
The reasoning here is that projections above this level are likely to be
overestimates, because actual BAC peaks above 600 mg%, though pos-
sible, are relatively rare.
The BAC peak for a typical drinking week is obtained from line 39
of Form 90–I. This is the highest intoxication peak from the typical
drinking week grid. Note that it may be necessary to use the BACCuS
program (Menu #3, BAC Peak for an Episode) to estimate BAC peaks
for several different days in order to determine which yielded the high-
est BAC. It is not always obvious, from visual inspection, which period
will produce the highest BAC peak. Where a day contains at least two
periods of drinking separated by several hours (e.g., 6 drinks from
noon until 2:00 pm and then 8 drinks from 7:00-11:00 pm), it is wise
to try the BAC level for each period within the day, as well as for the
whole day. (In the above example, you would run 6 drinks in 2 hours,
8 drinks in 4 hours, and 14 drinks in 11 hours. The resulting BAC
projections for a 160-pound male would be 109, 124, and 152, respec-
tively. In this case, the BAC of 152, from 14 drinks in 11 hours, would
be used.) If the Steady Pattern Chart was not completed on 90–I, leave
this line blank.
71
Table 3. Alcohol consumption norms for U.S. adults, in percents

Drinks per week Total Men Women
0 35 29 41
1 58 46 68
2 66 54 77
3 68 57 78
4 71 61 82
5 77 67 86
6 78 68 87
7 80 70 89
8 81 71 89
9 82 73 90
10 83 75 91
11 84 75 91
12 85 77 92
13 86 77 93
14 87 79 94
15 87 80 94
16 88 81 94
17 89 82 95
18 90 84 96
19 91 85 96
20 91 86 96
21 92 88 96
22 92 88 97
23–24 93 88 97
25 93 89 98
26–27 94 89 98
28 94 90 98
29 95 91 98
30–33 95 92 98
34–35 95 93 98
36 96 93 98
37–39 96 94 98
40 96 94 99
41–46 97 95 99
47–48 97 96 99
49–50 98 97 99
51–62 98 97 99
63–64 99 97 >99.5
65–84 99 98 >99.6
85–101 99 99 >99.9
102–159 >99.5 99 >99.9

160+ >99.8 >99.5 >99.9
Source: 1990 National Alcohol Survey, Alcohol Research Group, Berkeley. Courtesy of Dr. Robin Room
72
The BAC peak for a heavier day of drinking is obtained from the Highest
Peak BAC line of the Summary Statistics sheet. This represents the
highest BAC peak reached during the 90-day period. This will never
be lower than line 39 but may be the same as line 39. In this case, the
number on both lines of section 2 would be the same.
Risk Factors The third feedback panel on the PFR reflects five risk factors. Higher
scores on these scales are associated with greater risk and severity of
alcohol-related problems.
Tolerance Level Tolerance level is inferred from the BAC peaks reached during the
90-day window. The rationale is that the higher the projected BAC
peak, the higher the individual’s tolerance. Use the higher of the two
numbers in Section 2 to arrive at the classification:
0–60 mg% Low tolerance

61–120 mg% Medium tolerance
121–180 mg% High tolerance
181 mg% + Very high tolerance
Other Drug Risk Other drug risk is judged from the lifetime use of other drugs, as
reported on page 10 of Form 90–I. The rationale is that more fre-
quent use of other drugs, or any use of drugs with higher dependence
potential, is associated with greater risk for serious consequences and
complications. Use the following classification system:
HIGH RISK Any use of cocaine or crack

or Any use of heroin, methadone, or other opiates
or Frequent use (more than 3 months of at least once per week)
of any other drug class except tobacco:
Marijuana, Hash, THC
Amphetamines, Stimulants, Diet Pills
Tranquilizers
Barbiturates
MEDIUM RISK Any lifetime nonprescription use, but not frequent use (i.e.,
3 months or less of weekly use) of any drug class except
tobacco, opiates or cocaine:
Marijuana, Hash, THC
Amphetamines, Stimulants, Diet Pills
Tranquilizers
Barbiturates
LOW RISK No use of other drugs (Code = 0 for all 10 drug classes except
tobacco)
73
Family Risk Family risk is judged from the family history of alcohol and other drug
problems obtained in the ASI interview. The following weighting system
is used to arrive at a total Family Risk score. Assign the designated
number of points for each blood relative indicated to be positive for
alcohol/drug problems:
If father positive add 2 points

If mother positive add 2 points
For each brother positive add 2 points
For each sister positive add 2 points
For each grandparent positive add 1 point
For each uncle or aunt positive add 1 point
Risk levels are judged according to the following classification system:
Family Risk Classifications

0–1 Low risk
2–3 Medium risk
4–6 High risk
7+ Very high risk
MacAndrew Scale The MacAndrew Scale score can be obtained directly from this scale.
The following classification system is used for risk:
MacAndrew Scale Risk Levels
0–23 Normal range; lower risk
24–29 Medium risk
30+ High risk
Age at Onset Age at onset is the fifth risk factor in this panel. The rationale is that
younger onset of problems is associated with a more severe course
and symptomatology. Age at onset is calculated by the following proce-
dure, using three items obtained from the DRINC (Drinker Inventory of
Consequences) scale.
Calculating Age at Onset
1. Record these three numbers, if applicable, and sum them (from
page 7 of Drinker Inventory of Consequences)
Age of first regular intoxication (item 17): _________________
Age of first loss-of-control (item 18): + _________________
Age of first alcohol problems (item 19): + _________________
TOTAL __________________
2. Divide by the number of ages used in step 1:
Age at onset = _________________
NOTE: If an age item was not recorded for the client (e.g., the client had never expe-
rienced loss of control), the average is based on the other two age items (divide by
2). If only one age item was completed, this constitutes the age at onset.
74
Risk level is judged according to this classification system:

Under 25.0 Higher risk
25.0–39.9 Medium risk
40.0 + Lower risk
Problem Severity The AUDIT score is recorded directly from this scale within the
Quickscreen. The DRINC alcohol severity score is recorded directly from
this questionnaire and is the sum of scores for the 55 lifetime conse-
quences. Print the client’s raw score for each of these two scales under
the corresponding severity range (e.g., a 19 on the AUDIT would be
printed under the HIGH descriptor, below the 16-25 range designation.)
The other information reviewed in the fourth panel is the profile of

results from the AUI. Use the AUI Profile form, published by National
Computer Systems, for this purpose. Circle the client’s raw scores for
all scales and connect the circles with straight lines. Do not cross the
solid lines that divide categories.
Serum Chemistry Obtain the client’s serum chemistry scores on SGOT, GGTP, SGPT,
uric acid, and bilirubin (total) from the lab report. Record these lab
scores on the corresponding lines of the PFR. Interpretive ranges are
shown on the PFR.
Neuro- A 5-point performance scale is used to interpret neuropsychological

psychological test results:
Test Results 1 Well above average
2 Above average
3 Average
4 Below average
5 Well below average
The scoring systems below attempt to correct for effects of age and/
or education level, based on available norms. The Shipley-Hartford
Vocabulary test is used as a “hold” test that is less likely to be affected
by alcohol, thus providing an estimate of the level of performance that
would ordinarily be expected from an individual.
Shipley-Hartford Use the age-adjusted score to obtain a normalized T-score, as specified

Vocabulary Test in the revised Shipley-Hartford manual. Then use the following table to
(SV) convert the T-score into our 1-5 scale:
≥63 1 Well above average
57–62 2 Above average
44–56 3 Average
38–43 4 Below average
≤37 5 Well below average
75
Shipley-Hartford Use the age-adjusted score to obtain a normalized T-score, as specified

Abstraction Test in the revised Shipley-Hartford manual. Then use the following table to
(SHVA) convert the T-score into our 1–5 scale:
≥63 1 Well above average
57–62 2 Above average
44–56 3 Average
38–43 4 Below average
≤37 5 Well below average
Trail-Making The score is the number of seconds to complete Form A.

Test, Form A
Age
(TMTA)
20–39 40–49 50–59 60–69
1 ≤ 21 ≤ 22 ≤ 25 ≤ 29
2 22–26 23–28 26–29 30–35
3 27–41 29–44 30–48 36–66
4 42–49 45–58 49–66 67–103
5 ≥ 50 ≥59 ≥ 67 ≥ 104
Based on Lezak 1976, Table 17–6, page 558. Cutting points represent
the 10th, 25th, 75th, and 90th percentiles.
Trail-Making The score is the number of seconds to complete Form B.

Test, Form B
Age
(TMTB)
20–39 40–49 50–59 60–69
1 ≤ 45 ≤ 49 ≤ 55 ≤ 64
2 46–55 50–57 56–75 65–89
3 56–93 58–99 76–134 90–171
4 94–128 100–150 135–176 172–281
5 ≥ 129 ≥ 151 ≥ 177 ≥ 282
Based on Lez, 1976, Table 17–6, page 558. Cutting points represent
the 10th, 25th, 75th, and 90th percentiles.
Symbol Digit The score for the Symbol Digit Modalities Test is the number of correct
Modalities Test digits associated with their respective symbols within the 90-second
(SYDM) written testing period.
Use this table if client has 12 years or less of education.

Age 1 2 3 4 5
18–24 ≥ 67 63–66 47–62 42–46 ≤ 41
25–34 ≥ 65 61–64 46–60 41–45 ≤ 40
35–44 ≥ 64 60–63 44–59 39–43 ≤ 38
45–54 ≥ 62 57–61 39–56 33–38 ≤ 32
55–64 ≥ 55 51–54 36–53 31–35 ≤ 30
65+ ≥ 47 42–46 25–41 20–24 ≤ 19
76
Use this table if client has 13 years or more of education.

Age 1 2 3 4 5
18–24 ≥ 72 67–71 53–66 47–52 ≤ 46
25–34 ≥ 67 62–66 50–61 44–49 ≤ 43
35–44 ≥ 65 60–64 44–59 37–43 ≤ 36
45–54 ≥ 61 57–60 45–56 40–44 ≤ 39
55–64 ≥ 56 52–55 40–51 35–39 ≤ 34
65+ ≥ 55 49–54 33–48 27–32 ≤ 26
Interpreting Project MATCH therapists follow a systematic approach in discussing

the PFR to the Personal Feedback Report with clients. The general therapeutic
style in giving MET feedback is illustrated in Dr. Miller’s “Motivational
Clients Interviewing” videotape.
The original copy of the PFR is given to the client and a copy is retained
for the therapist’s file. The PFR consists of two pages of data from
interviews and questionnaires plus the client’s Alcohol Use Inventory
Profile sheet. When the therapist has finished presenting the feedback,
the client may take home the PFR plus a copy of “Understanding Your
Personal Feedback Report.” If a session ends partway through the feed-
back process, however, the therapist retains the original PFR, sending
it home with the client only after the review of feedback is completed.
Clients are given a copy of Alcohol and You at the end of the first ses-
sion (a copy is included at the end of appendix A).
Therapists need to be thoroughly familiar with each of the scales

included on the PFR. “Understanding Your Personal Feedback Report”
provides basic information for the client. Here are some additional
points helpful in reviewing the PFR with clients.
Alcohol The idea of a standard drink is an important concept. Explain that

Consumption all alcohol beverages—beer, wine, spirits—contain the same kind of
alcohol, ethyl alcohol. They just contain different amounts of this
drug. Use the “Standard Drink” graphic depicted in the client hand-
out “Understanding Your Personal Feedback Report” to explain this.
We are using, as a standard drink, any beverage that contains half an
ounce of ethyl alcohol. Thus, the following beverages are each equal to
one standard drink:
Beverage Usual % x Ounces = Alcohol content
Beer .05 x 10 oz = 0.5 oz
Table wine .12 x 4 oz = 0.5 oz
Fortified wine .20 x 2.5 oz = 0.5 oz
Spirits
80 proof .40 x 1.25 oz = 0.5 oz
100 proof .50 x 1 oz = 0.5 oz
77
Explain that the number of standard drinks per week is calculated

from the client’s own report of regular and periodic drinking patterns,
converted into standard units as shown in the graphic.
The normative table provides an estimate of the client’s standing

among American adults of the same sex with regard to alcohol con-
sumption. The conversion table provides percentile levels for various
numbers of standard drinks per week, based on data from the 1990
National Alcohol Survey, provided by Dr. Robin Room of the Alcohol
Research Group at Berkeley. A good explanation of this percentile fig-
ure is that, “This means you drink more than ____ percent of American
[men/women] do, or that (100–X) percent of American (men/women)
drink as much or more than you do.”
Estimated BAC The number of drinks consumed is only part of the picture. A certain
number of drinks will have different effects on people, depending on
Peaks
factors like their weight and sex. The pattern of drinking also makes a
difference: having 21 drinks within 4 hours on a Saturday is different
from having 21 drinks over the course of a week (3 a day).
Another way to look at a person’s drinking, then, is to estimate how

intoxicated he or she becomes during periods of drinking Be clear here
that we are discussing “intoxicated” in terms of the level of alcohol (a
toxin) in the body and not the person’s subjective sense of being drunk.
It is common for alcoholics to be quite intoxicated (high BAC) but not
to look or feel impaired.
The unit used here is milligrams of alcohol per 100 ml of blood, abbre-
viated “mg%.” This is the unit commonly used by pharmacologists and
has the additional convenience of being a whole number rather than a
decimal (less confusing for some clients). If you or your client wish to
compare this with the usual decimal expressions of BAC, simply move
the decimal point three places to the left. Thus:
80 mg% = .08
100 mg% = .10
256 mg% = .256 and so on
Note that the “normal social drinking” range is defined as from 20–60
mg% in peak intoxication. In fact, the vast majority of American drink-
ers do not exceed 60 mg% when drinking.
Risk Factors Introduce this section by explaining “risk.” Elevated scores on risk fac-
tors are not predestination. A person with a family history of heart
disease is not doomed to die of heart disease—but such a person needs
to be extra careful about diet and exercise, for example, and to keep a
careful eye for warning signs. The five scores in this section are mark-
ers of higher risk for serious problems with alcohol. They indicate a
greater susceptibility to alcohol problems.
78
Tolerance The behavioral effects as shown in “Understanding Your Personal

Feedback Form” can be understood as the ordinary effects of various
BAC levels. Because of tolerance, people may reach these BAC levels
without feeling or showing the specific effects listed.
The presence of a high BAC level, especially if accompanied by a

reported absence of apparent or subjective intoxication signs, is an
indication of alcohol tolerance. This should be discussed with the cli-
ent as a risk factor. That is, people with a high tolerance for alcohol
have a greater risk of developing serious problems because of drinking!
A few points to cover are—
■■ Tolerance is partly inherited, partly learned.
■■ For the most part, tolerance does not mean being able to get rid
of alcohol at a faster rate (although this occurs to a small extent).
Rather it means reaching high levels of alcohol in the body without
feeling or showing the usual effects.
■■ Normal drinkers are sensitive to low doses of alcohol. They feel the
effects of 1-2 drinks, and this tells them they have had enough.
Other people seem to lack this warning system.
■■ A result of tolerance is that the person tends to take in large quan-

tities of alcohol—enough to damage the brain and other organs of
the body over time—without realizing it. Thus you damage yourself
without feeling it. An analogy would be a person who loses all sen-
sations of pain. While at first this might seem a blessing, in fact,
it is a curse, because such a person can be severely injured with-
out feeling it. The first sign that your hand is on a hot stove is the
smell of the smoke. Similarly, for tolerant drinkers, the first signs
of intoxication are felt at rather high BAC levels.
Other Drug Risk A second risk factor to consider is other drug use. In essence, the more
drugs the client is using, the greater the risk for problems, cross-tol-
erance, dependence, drug substitution (decreasing one but increasing
another), and so forth. Discuss these risks with your client.
Family Risk Evidence is now strong that alcohol problems run in families and are
genetically influenced. Of course, many people develop alcohol prob-
lems without having a family history, but your risk is higher if you
have blood relatives with alcohol problems. Any family history should
be discussed with the client.
MacAndrew Score Higher scores on the MacAndrew scale, a subscale of the MMPI, have
been found for alcoholics than for normals or people with other psycho-
logical problems. Elevations on this scale have also been found to be
predictive, in young people, of later development of alcohol problems.
79
This personality scale taps a variety of personal characteristics that are

associated with higher risk of serious alcohol problems.
Age at Onset Alcohol problems tend to be more severe when they begin at a younger
age. Three items from the Drinker Inventory of Consequences are aver-
aged to obtain an “age of onset” for alcohol difficulties. The younger
this age, the greater the risk for developing severe problems if drink-
ing continues. Young emergence of “loss of control” (difficulty stopping
once started or in keeping one’s drinking within planned limits), for
example, may be an indicator of high risk for severe alcohol problems.
Problem Severity Two measures from Project MATCH screening are used here to reflect
overall alcohol problem severity. One is the AUDIT scale, developed
by the World Health Organization and used in the Quickscreen. The
other is the Drinker Inventory of Consequences. Explain that these
scores are very broad, general measures of negative effects of drinking
in an individual’s life. Notice that the AUDIT focuses on recent pat-
terns, whereas the DRINC measures lifetime effects.
Your larger task here is to review with the client his or her scores
from the Alcohol Use Inventory. To do this, you should be thoroughly
familiar with the manual (Horn et al. 1987), particularly chapter 6. It
is helpful, in understanding and interpreting scales, to be familiar with
the items that constitute each scale (see page 71 of the manual). Refer
to (and provide the client with a copy of) the AUI Profile Sheet, avail-
able from National Computer Systems, Minneapolis, MN. Remember
when interpreting elevations on the AUI that the reference population
is people already seeking treatment for alcohol problems. Thus, a “low”
score in the white (decile 1–3) range is low relative to people enter-
ing treatment for alcohol problems. Scores in the middle deciles (4–7;
light grey) are by no means average for the general population. General
population norms on most scales would be expected to fall in deciles
1–2. A possible exception is GREGARIOUS, where high scores reflect
drinking in social settings—a common style for young American men.
Serum Chemistry These five serum assays can be elevated by excessive drinking and
thereby reflect the physical impact of alcohol on the body. It is note-
worthy that many heavy and problematic drinkers have normal scores
on serum assays. The physical damage reflected by elevations on
these scales may emerge much later than other types of problems.
Also, normal scores on these tests cannot be interpreted as the absence
of physical damage from drinking. The destruction of liver cells near
the portal vein where blood enters, for example, can occur before liver
enzymes reflect a warning. When these scales are elevated, then, it is
information to be taken seriously.
80
Therapists should clarify that, as a nonmedical professional, you are

not qualified to interpret these findings in detail. Clients who are con-
cerned and want more information should be advised to discuss their
results with a physician. If possible, referral should be made to a physi-
cian who is knowledgeable about alcohol abuse. A physician in general
practice who is not familiar with alcohol abuse may advise a patient
that their elevations are “nothing to worry about,” undermining the
feedback process.
The following information will help explain to clients the basic pro-
cesses underlying these assays and what they may mean.
SGOT/SGPT Serum glutamic oxalcetic transaminase (SGOT; newer name:

AST-aspartate animotransferase) and serum glutamic pyruvate trans-
aminase (SGPT; newer name: ALT—alanine transferase) are enzymes
that reflect the health of the liver. The liver is important in metabo-
lism of food and energy and also filters and neutralizes poisons and
impurities in the blood. When the liver is damaged, as happens from
heavy drinking, it becomes less efficient in these tasks and begins to
leak enzymes into the bloodstream. These two are general indicators,
reflecting overall health of the liver.
GGTP Serum gamma glutamyl transpeptidase is an enzyme found in liver,

blood, and brain, which is more specifically sensitive to alcohol’s
effects. Elevations of this enzyme have been shown to be predictive of
later serious medical problems related to drinking, including injuries,
illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths. This enzyme is often elevated
first, with SGOT and SGPT rising into the abnormal range as heavy
drinking continues.
Bilirubin (Total) The liver is also importantly involved in the recycling of hemoglobin,
the molecule which makes the blood red. Bilirubin is one breakdown
product of hemoglobin. When the liver is not working properly, it can-
not recycle hemoglobin efficiently, and the byproducts back up into the
bloodstream and eventually into the brain. High bilirubin levels over
time result in jaundice—yellowing of the skin. Elevations of bilirubin
are not common, even among heavy drinkers, and are indicative of
severe physical impact from alcohol.
Uric Acid Uric acid is a waste product that results from the breakdown of RNA.
Alcohol’s damage to the liver reduces the kidney’s ability to excrete uric
acid, which then builds up in the bloodstream. High levels of uric acid
result in gout, the painful inflammation of joints, particularly fingers
and toes. Uric acid is also an important component of a certain type of
kidney stones.
If your site is including other relevant assays in your serum chemistry

package (e.g., HDL, MCV), these could be included on your feedback
form.
81
Enzyme elevations can occur for reasons other than heavy drinking.
GGTP, for example, can be elevated by cancer or hormonal changes. In
this population, however, the most likely cause of an elevation is heavy
drinking. In this case, these assays tend to return toward normal if the
person ceases heavy drinking. Reductions in GGTP (by changed drink-
ing) have been shown to be associated with dramatically reduced risk
of serious medical problems.
Neuro- The last panel of assessment results in the Project MATCH MET feed-
psychological back is from the brief neuropsychological testing. Scores on these tests
range from 1 (well above average) to 5 (well below average). Scores of
Test Results 4 are often interpreted as “suggestive” of cognitive impairment, and
scores of 5 as “indicative” of cognitive impairment.
The first (SV) result is from the Shipley-Hartford Vocabulary test. It

is included as a “hold” test to indicate the approximate level of cog-
nitive functioning that would be expected for a particular individual.
Performance on this test is not commonly affected by alcohol use. This
score, then, gives you an approximate reference point with which to
compare other performances.
The other four tests appear to be sensitive to the effects of alcohol on

the brain. They tend to be impaired in heavy drinkers and often show
substantial improvement over the first weeks and months of sobriety.
No judgment can be made about a client’s general neuropsychological
functioning or “brain damage” from this brief set of tests. Rather, they
are indicators of the types of cognitive impairment commonly related to
heavy drinking.
The Trail-Making Test has two forms. Trails A is a follow-the-dot format

that mainly tests psychomotor speed. Alcoholics tend to be impaired
(slow) on this test, though normal scores are more common than on
Trails B. Trails B requires not only test psychomotor speed but also a
mental switching back and forth between two cognitive sets—numbers
and letters. As a group, alcoholics are rather consistently impaired
(slow) on this test.
The Symbol Digit Modalities test is a reversal of the more familiar Digit/
Symbol subtest of the WAIS. It is a timed test requiring the copying of
numbers that correspond to symbols. It is influenced not only by psy-
chomotor speed but also by memory. Alcoholics tend to perform more
poorly (complete fewer correct digits) than others on this scale.
Finally, the Abstraction scale of the Shipley-Hartford taps a cogni-

tive capacity—verbal abstraction ability—that is commonly impaired
in heavy drinkers. Lower scores are associated with more concrete
thinking styles. The common observation in alcoholics is a poorer per-
formance on Abstraction than on the Vocabulary scale of the Shipley.
82
Be aware of other factors that may have influenced performance. Speed

on Trails and Symbol/Digit, for example, will be slowed by an injury
to the writing hand or arm. Visual impairments will also slow perfor-
mance on these tests.
The PFR form and the handout explaining the data on the PFR form as
used in Project MATCH are provided as examples. These can be modi-
fied to suit the needs of other research studies.
Assessment Both published and newly developed assessment instruments were

Instruments employed in Project MATCH as a basis for providing client feedback
in Motivational Enhancement Therapy. The sources from which these
Used in Project instruments can be obtained are provided below.
MATCH
Feedback
Form 90 Form 90 is a family of assessment interview instruments designed
to provide primary dependent measures of alcohol consumption and
related variables. It is a structured interview procedure that yields
quantitative indices of alcohol consumption, other drug use, and
related variables during a specified period of time. These instruments
were developed for use in Project MATCH, with the collaboration of all
principal investigators in that project. A Form-90 manual and forms
will be published when final protocols and initial psychometric data
are available. While the instrument remains under development, a
research citation should be in this form:
Miller, W.R. “Form 90: Structured Assessment Interview for

Drinking and Related Behavior.” Unpublished manual for Project
MATCH, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
Until publication, requests for use should be addressed to William R.

Miller, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico,
Albuquerque, NM 87131.
DRINC The alcohol research field has lacked a consensus instrument for
assessing negative consequences of drinking. The DRINC was designed
as a survey schedule for evaluating the occurrence of negative conse-
quences related to drinking during a particular period of time. Items
that are typically recognized as components of alcohol dependence
syndrome (e.g., craving, blackouts) are intentionally omitted from this
scale in an attempt to disaggregate dependence symptoms and negative
life consequences. The DRINC also avoids the confounding, apparent
in prior questionnaires (e.g., MAST), of recent consequences with life-
time (“ever”) consequences or treatment experiences. The DRINC is
therefore meant to be useful for parallel assessment of pretreatment
and posttreatment consequences of drinking. It yields problem scores
for “ever” (lifetime) and for a specific timeframe (past 3 months), which
can be adjusted.
83
The DRINC should be regarded as an experimental instrument, cur-

rently in development. An initial psychometric study with 299 drinkers
found good internal consistency (Cronbach alpha = .92 for “ever” and
.90 for past 3 months). Initial analyses further indicate the negative
consequences as a construct is related to but not identical with alco-
hol dependence and alcohol consumption. Correlations with Skinner’s
Alcohol Dependence Scale were .58 for Ever and .56 for Past 3 Months.
DRINC scores were correlated with recent quantity/ frequency of drink-
ing at .37 for Ever and .47 for Past 3 Months. Based on initial studies
using this instrument (including NIAAA’s Project MATCH), it will be
modified to improve its reliability, validity, and utility.
A proper current citation, pending formal publication of the instru-

ment, is:
Miller, W.R. “The Drinker Inventory of Consequences.” Unpub-

lished manuscript, University of New Mexico.
The DRINC is available for use and can be obtained from William R.
Miller, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico,
Albuquerque, NM 87131.
MacAndrew The MacAndrew Scale is a subscale of the original Minnesota Multi-

phasic Personality Inventory. It is described in the following article:
Scale
MacAndrew, C. The differentiation of male alcoholic outpatients
from nonalcoholic psychiatric outpatients by means of the MMPI.
Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol 26:238–246, 1965.
Addiction The Addiction Severity Index is a research instrument under ongoing

Severity Index development. For information regarding the current version, contact
Dr. A. Thomas McLellan, VA Medical Center (116), Philadelphia, PA
19104.
AUDIT The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test was developed for a large
collaborative study of brief intervention conducted by the World Health
Organization (Babor and Grant 1989; Saunders et al. in press).
References Appel, C.-P., and Miller, W.R. “The Self-Evaluation of Drinking.”

Unpublished assessment instrument, University of New Mexico,
1984.
Babor, T.F., and Grant, M. From clinical research to secondary pre-
vention: International collaboration in the development of the
Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Alcohol Health
& Research World 13:371–374, 1989.
Bien, T.H., and Miller, W.R. Brief interventions for alcohol problems: A
review. Submitted.
84
Brown, S.A. Reinforcement expectancies and alcoholism treatment

outcome after a one-year follow-up. Journal of Studies on Alcohol
46:304–308, 1985.
Brown, J.M., and Miller, W.R. Impact of motivational interviewing on
participation and outcome in residential alcoholism treatment.
Submitted.
Cacciola, J.; Griffith, J.; and McLellan, A.T. Addiction Severity Index
Instruction Manual. 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Veterans Admin-
istration Medical Center, 1987.
DiClemente, C.C., and Hughes, S.O. Stages of change profiles in alco-
holism treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse 2(2):217–235,
1990.
Hall, S.M.; Havassy, B.E.; and Wasserman, D.A. Commitment to absti-
nence and acute stress in relapse to alcohol opiates and nicotine.
Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology 58:175–181, 1990.
Horn, J.R.; Wanberg, K.W.; and Foster, F.M. Guide to the Alcohol Use
Inventory. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems, 1987.
Jacobson, G.R. A comprehensive approach to pretreatment evaluation:
I. Detection, assessment, and diagnosis of alcoholism. In: Hester,
R.K., and Miller, W.R., eds. Handbook of Alcoholism Treatment
Approaches. New York: Pergamon Press, 1989. pp. 17–53.
Lezak, M.D. Neuropsychological Assessment. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1983.
Markham, M.R.; Miller, W.R.; and Arciniega, L. BACCuS 2.01: Computer
software for quantifying alcohol consumption. Submitted.
Software available from William R. Miller, Ph.D., Department of
Psychology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131–
1161, USA.
Miller, W.R. Alcoholism scales and objective assessment methods: A
review. Psychological Bulletin 83:649–674, 1976.
Miller, W.R. “The Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eager-
ness Scale (version 5).” Unpublished assessment instrument,
University of New Mexico. Available from William R. Miller, Ph.D.,
Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque,
NM 87131–1161, USA.
Miller, W.R.; Heather, N.; and Hall, W. Calculating standard drink
units: International comparisons. British Journal of Addictions
86:43–47, 1991.
Miller, W.R., and Marlatt, G.A. Manual for the Comprehensive Drinker
Profile. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, 1984.
Miller, W.R., and Marlatt, G.A. Manual Supplement for the Brief Drinker
Profile, Follow-Up Drinker Profile, and Collateral Interview Form.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, 1987.
Miller, W.R., and Saucedo, C.F. Assessment of neuropsychological
impairment and brain damage in problem drinkers. In: Golden,
C.J.: Moses, J.A., Jr.; Coffman, J.A.; Miller, W.R.; and Strider,
F.D., eds. Clinical Neuropsychology: Interface With Neurologic and
Psychiatric Disorders. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1983.
85
Miller, W.R., and Sovereign, R.G. The check-up: A model for early inter-
vention in addictive behaviors. In: Løberg, T.; Miller, W.R.; Nathan,
P.E.; and Marlatt, G.A., eds. Addictive Behaviors: Prevention and
Early Intervention. Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger, 1989. pp.
219-231.
Miller, W.R.; Sovereign, R.G.; and Krege, B. Motivational interviewing
with problem drinkers: II. The Drinker’s Check-up as a preventive
intervention. Behavioural Psychotherapy 16:251–268,1988.
Prochaska, J.O., and DiClemente, C.C. The Transtheoretical Approach:
Crossing Traditional Boundaries of Therapy. Homewood, IL: Dow
Jones, Irwin, 1984.
Prochaska, J.O., and DiClemente, C.C. Stages of change in the modifi-
cation of problem behavior. In: Hersen, M.; Eisler, R.; and Miller,
P.M. Progress in Behavior Modification. Vol. 28. Sycamore, IL:
Sycamore Publishing, 1992.
Saunders, J.B.; Aasland, 0.G.; Babor, T.F.; de la Fuente, J.R.; and
Grant, M. WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons
with harmful alcohol consumption. II. Development of the screen-
ing instrument “AUDIT.” British Journal of Addiction, in press.
Selzer, M.L. The Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test: The quest for
a new diagnostic instrument. American Journal of Psychiatry
127:89–94, 1971.
Skinner, H.A., and Horn, J.L. Alcohol Dependence Scale (ADS) User’s
Guide. Toronto, Ontario: Addiction Research Foundation, 1984.
Sobell, M.B.; Maisto, S.A.; Sobell, L.C.; Cooper, A.M.; Cooper, T.; and
Sanders, B. Developing a prototype for evaluating alcohol treat-
ment effectiveness. In Sobell, L.C.; Sobell, M.B.; and Ward, E.,
eds. Evaluating Alcohol and Drug Treatment Effectiveness: Recent
Advances. New York: Pergamon Press, 1980. pp. 129–150.
86
Handouts for Clients
Personal This form is used in Project MATCH to summarize information obtained

Feedback from the pretreatment assessment battery and is discussed with and
given to the client in the early sessions of MET. It is an example of
Report Form the type of form that may be adapted for use in other reseach studies
involving MET.
Understanding Project MATCH clients receive a copy of this material to take home with
Your Personal them to read in conjunction with their PFR. It summarizes important
information that helps the client understand the implications of their
Feedback scores on the assessment instruments. Again, it is an example of the
Report Project MATCH material that may be adapted for use in other research
studies involving MET.
“Alcohol and This pamplet was developed by Dr. William R. Miller and is suitable for
You” duplication and distribution to clients.
87
PERSONAL FEEDBACK REPORT
Location ________________________.
Name: ________________________________________________ ID__________________.
1. YOUR DRINKING_________________________________
Number of standard “drinks” per week: ______ drinks
Your drinking relative to American adults (same sex):_______ percentile
2. LEVEL OF INTOXICATION__________________________
Estimated Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) peaks:
in a typical week: ______ mg %
on a heavier day of drinking: ______ mg (Y0
3. RISK FACTORS__________________________________
Tolerance Level:
_____Low (0-60) _____Medium (61-120) _____High (121-180) _____Very High (181+)
Other Drug Risk:
_____Low _____Medium _____High
Family Risk:____________
Low: 0-1 Medium: 2-3 High: 4-6 Very High: 7 +
MacAndrew Score:____________
Normal Range: 0-23 Medium Risk: 24-29 High Risk: 30 +
Age at onset:____________years
Under 25 - Higher Risk 25 - 39 Medium Risk 40 + Lower Risk

4. NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES_______________________
Severity of Problems
Low Medium High Very High
AUDIT 0-7 8-15 16-25 26-40
Your Score:____________
DRINC: Ever happened Low Medium High Very High
55-60 61-75 76-90 91 +
Your Score:____________
(Additional information on attached sheet.)
5. BLOOD TESTS___________________________________
SGOT (AST):________________________ Normal range: 5-35
GGTP (GGT):_______________________ Normal range: 0-30 Low Normal
31-50 High Normal
51 + Elevated / Abnormal
SGPT (ALT):________________________ Normal range: 7-56
Uric Acid:___________________________ Normal range: 2.6-5.6
Bilirubin:____________________________ Normal range: .2-1.2
6. NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS___________________
Well Above Above Below Well Below

Average
Average Average Average Average
SV 1 2 3 4 5
TMTA 1 2 3 4 5
TMTB 1 2 3 4 5
SYDM 1 2 3 4 5
SHVA 1 2 3 4 5
Therapist:___________________________________
Understanding Your Personal
Feedback Report
The Personal Feedback Report summarizes results from your pre-

treatment evaluation. Your therapist has explained these to you. This
information is to help you understand the written report you have
received and to remember what your therapist told you.
Your report consists of two sheets. The first sheet provides informa-
tion from your pretreatment interviews. Attached to this is a second
sheet summarizing your answers to a questionnaire, the Alcohol Use
Inventory. The following information is presented section by section to
help you understand what your results mean.
1. Your The first line in this section shows the number of drinks that you
reported having in a typical drinking week. Because different alcohol
Drinking beverages vary in their strength, we have converted your regular drink-
ing pattern into standard “one drink” units. In this system, one drink
is equal to:
10 ounces of beer (5 percent alcohol) or

4 ounces of table wine (12 percent alcohol) or
2.5 ounces of fortified wine
(sherry, port, etc.) (20 percent alcohol) or
1.25 ounces of 80 proof liquor (40 percent alcohol) or
1 ounce of 100 proof liquor (50 percent alcohol)
All of these drinks contain the same amount of the same kind
of alcohol: one-half ounce of pure ethyl alcohol.
This first piece of information, then, tells you how many of these
standard drinks you have been consuming per week of drink-
ing, according to what you reported in your interview. (If you
have not been drinking for a period of time recently, this refers
to your pattern of drinking before you stopped.)
To give you an idea of how this compares with the drinking of

American adults in general, the second number in section 1 is
91
1
a percentile figure. This tells you what percentage of U.S. men (if you
are a man) or women (if you are a woman) drink less than you reported
drinking in a typical week of drinking. If this number were 60, for
example, it would mean that your drinking is higher than 60 percent
of Americans of your sex (or that 40 percent drink as much as you
reported, or more).
How much is too much? It depends on many factors. Current research

indicates that people who average three or more standard drinks per
day have much higher risk of health and social problems. For some
people, however, even 1–2 drinks per day would be too many. Pregnant
women, for example, are best advised to abstain from alcohol alto-
gether, because even small amounts of regular drinking have been
found to increase risk for the unborn child. Certain health problems
(such as liver disease) make even moderate drinking unsafe. Some peo-
ple find that they are unable to drink moderately, and having even one
or two drinks leads to intoxication.
Your total number of drinks per week tells only part of the story. It is
not healthy, for example, to have 12 drinks per week by saving them
all up for Saturdays. Neither is it safe to have even a few drinks and
then drive. This raises the important question of level of intoxication.
2. Level of A second way of looking at your past drinking is to ask what level
Intoxication of intoxication you have been reaching. It is possible to estimate the
amount of alcohol that would be circulating in your bloodstream, based
on the pattern of drinking your reported. Blood alcohol concentration
(BAC) is an important indication of the extent to which alcohol would
be affecting your body and behavior. It is used by police and the courts,
for example, to determine whether a driver is too impaired to operate
a motor vehicle.
To understand better what BAC means, consider the list of common

effects of different levels of intoxication.
Common Effects of Different Levels of Intoxication
20–60 mg% This is the “normal” social drinking range. NOTE:

Driving, even at these levels, is unsafe.
80 mg% Memory, judgment, and perception are impaired.

Legally intoxicated in some States.
100 mg% Reaction time and coordination of movement are

affected. Legally intoxicated in all States.
150 mg% Vomiting may occur in normal drinkers; balance is

often impaired.
200 mg% Memory “blackout” may occur, causing loss of

recall for events occurring while intoxicated.
92
2
300 mg% Unconsciousness in a normal person, though some

remain conscious at levels in excess of 600 mg% if
tolerance is very high.
400–500 mg% Fatal dose for a normal person, though some

survive higher levels if tolerance is very high.
The two figures shown in section 2 are computer-calculated estimates

of your highest (peak) BAC level during a typical week of drinking and
during one of your heaviest days of drinking.
It is important to realize that there is no known “safe” level of intoxica-

tion when driving or engaging in other potentially hazardous activities
(such as swimming, boating, hunting, and operating tools or machin-
ery). Blood alcohol levels as low as 40–60 mg% can decrease crucial
abilities. Adding to the danger, drinkers typically do not realize that
they are impaired. The only safe BAC when driving is zero. If you must
drive after drinking, plan to allow enough time for all of the alcohol to
be eliminated from your body before driving. The tables below can be
helpful in determining how long it takes to eliminate alcohol completely:

Approximate hours from first drink to zero alcohol
concentration levels for men
Your weight in pounds
120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
1 2 2 2 1.5 1 1 1 1
Number 2 4 3.5 3 3 2.5 2 2 2
of 3 6 5 4.5 4 3.5 3.5 3 3
Drinks 4 8 7 6 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5
5 10 8.5 7.5 6.5 6 5.5 5 4.5
One drink = 10 oz of beer or 4 oz of wine or 1 oz of liquor (100 proof)
Approximate hours from first drink to zero alcohol

concentration levels for women
Your weight in pounds
120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
1 3 2.5 2 2 2 1.5 1.5 1
Number 2 6 5 4 4 3.5 3 3 2.5
of 3 9 7.5 6.5 5.5 5 4.5 4 4
Drinks 4 12 9.5 8.5 7.5 6.5 6 5.5 5
5 15 12 10.5 9.5 8 7.5 7 6
93
3
3. Risk Factors It is clear that some people have a much higher risk of alcohol and
other drug problems. This section provides you with some information
about your own level of risk, based on your personal characteristics.
“High risk” does not mean that one will definitely have serious prob-
lems with alcohol or other drugs. Neither does “low risk” mean that one
will be free of such problems. High-risk people, however, have greater
chances of developing serious problems.
Tolerance Your peak BAC levels, given in section 2, are one reasonably good reflec-
tion of your level of tolerance for alcohol. If you are reaching BAC levels
beyond the normal social drinking range (especially if you are not feel-
ing some of the normal effects of lower BACs), it means that you have
a higher tolerance for alcohol. This is partly hereditary and partly the
result of changes in the body that occur with heavier drinking Some
people are proud of this tolerance—the ability “to hold your liquor”—
and think it means they are not being harmed by alcohol. Actually, the
opposite is true. Tolerance for alcohol may be a serious risk factor for
alcohol problems. The person with a high tolerance for alcohol reaches
high BAC levels, which can damage the brain and other organs of the
body but has no built-in warning that it is happening. Tolerance is not a
protection against being harmed by drinking; to the contrary, it makes
damage more likely because of the false confidence that it encourages.
It is a bit like a person who has no sense of pain. Pain is an important
warning signal. People who feel no pain can seriously injure them-
selves without realizing it. It is the same with people who have a high
tolerance for alcohol.
Many people believe that tolerance (“holding your liquor”) means that a
person gets rid of alcohol at a faster rate than others. Although people
do differ in how quickly their bodies can clear alcohol, tolerance has
more to do with actually being at a high blood alcohol level and not
feeling it.
Other Drug Use A person who uses other drugs besides alcohol runs several additional
risks. Decreased use of one drug may simply result in the increased
use of another. The effects of different drugs can multiply when they
are taken together, with dangerous results. A tolerance to one drug can
increase tolerance to another, and it is common for multiple drug users
to become addicted to several drugs. The use of other drugs, then,
increases your risk for serious problems. Based on the lifetime drug
use that you reported during your interview, your risk in this regard
was judged to be low, medium, or high.
Family Risk People who have a family history of alcohol or other drug problems
among their blood relatives clearly are at higher risk themselves. The
exact reason for this higher risk is unknown, but it appears that the
risk is inherited to an important extent. People may inherit a higher
tolerance for alcohol or a body that is particularly sensitive to alco-
hol in certain ways. In any event, a family history of alcohol problems
increases personal risk.
94
4
Personality Although there is no single personality style associated with alcohol

Pattern and drug problems, certain patterns are linked to higher risk. One
questionnaire you completed—the MacAndrew Scale—measures this
particular kind of risk. People who score higher on this scale as teen-
agers, for example, have been found to have higher risk for developing
serious problems with alcohol in adulthood.
Age at Onset Recent research indicates that the younger a person is when drink-
ing problems start, the greater the person’s risk for developing serious
consequences and dependence. Although serious problems can occur
at any time of life, a younger beginning does represent a significant
risk factor.
4. Negative From your pretreatment interview, two scores were calculated to

Consequences reflect the current overall severity of your negative consequences from
drinking.
AUDIT The AUDIT is a scale devised by the World Health Organization to eval-
uate a person’s problematic involvement with alcohol. Higher scores
reflect recent problems related to drinking.
DRINC Another way to look at risks and effects of drinking is to add up alco-
hol’s negative effects throughout one’s lifetime. Your score on this scale
reflects the extent to which your drinking has had negative effects over
the course of your life thus far. The higher your score, the more harm
has resulted from your drinking.
5. Blood Tests Your pretreatment evaluation also included a blood sample. These
particular blood tests were chosen because they have been shown
in previous research to be negatively affected by heavy drinking. You
should realize that normal results on these tests do not guarantee
that you are in good health (for example, that your liver is functioning
completely normally). An abnormal score on one or more of these test
however, probably reflects unhealthy changes in your body resulting
from excessive use of alcohol and/or other drugs.
Research indicates that modestly abnormal scores on the blood tests

reported here will often show improvement and a return to normal
range when harmful drinking and other drug use patterns are changed.
The longer one continues drinking, however, the more difficult it is to
reverse the physical damage.
These tests are directly related to how the liver is working. Your liver
is extremely important to your health. It is involved in producing
energy, and it filters and neutralizes impurities and poisons in your
95
5
bloodstream. Alcohol damages the liver, and after a long period of

heavy drinking, parts of the liver begin to die. This is the process of
cirrhosis, but physical changes in the liver can be caused by drink-
ing long before cirrhosis appears. As the liver becomes damaged, it
begins to leak enzymes into the blood and is less efficient in doing its
work. This can be reflected in abnormally elevated values on the tests
reported in this section.
Elevated values on any of these tests should be taken seriously. They

do not happen by chance and are very likely related to physical changes
in the body caused by excessive drinking. Consult a physician who is
knowledgeable about the effects of alcohol on the body.
6. Neuro- Some of the earliest damaging effects of drinking may be seen in cer-
psychological tain types of abilities that are affected by alcohol. Certain patterns of
brain impairment have been shown to be especially related to heavy
Tests drinking. The brain is very vulnerable to alcohol, and over a long span
of time, a substantial amount of damage can occur in a heavy drinker.
(Brain impairment from the use of certain other drugs has also been
shown.)
Such damage occurs gradually. In later stages, it can be seen in x-rays

of the brain, which show actual shrinkage and other changes in shape
and density. Long before this occurs, however, harmful changes in
brain functioning can be measured by psychological tests, several of
which you completed. Research indicates that such negative effects
can often be reversed, sometimes completely, if the individual stops or
reduces drinking.
The four tests included in section 6 have been found to be related to

heavy drinking. For comparison purposes, we include one test (SV)
that is not usually affected by drinking to give you an idea of where
your scores might normally be expected to fall. People who are heavy
drinkers tend to score more poorly (higher) on the four alcohol-sensi-
tive tests (TMTA, TMTB, SYDM, and SHVA) than on SV.
A high score on any one scale is not necessarily reason for concern.
There are many reasons why a single score might be elevated. A pat-
tern of elevated scores, however, resembles the kinds of problems that
emerge among excessive drinkers. Studies of individuals currently in
treatment for alcohol problems consistently show impairment on these
measures.
Alcohol’s effects on the brain have sometimes been described as “pre-

mature aging.” The abnormal changes in the brain of a heavy drinker
do resemble normal changes that occur with advanced age. For this
reason, your scores reflected above take into account your present age.
Scores of 4 or 5 represent below-average performance relative to others
in your age group.
96
6
The Alcohol You completed a longer questionnaire that asked in detail about your
Use Inventory drinking. This questionnaire has been given to thousands of people
seeking treatment for alcohol problems. Based on your answers, 24
scores were obtained, and these are shown on the Alcohol Use Inventory
Profile section of your Personal Feedback Report.
Notice that each score falls into one of three ranges. The white range
indicates a low score, the light grey range is for medium scores, and the
dark grey range reflects high scores—compared to other people in treat-
ment for alcohol problems. If, for example, your score for the “Quantity”
scale (#13) was in the medium (light grey) range, it would mean that
you drink about an average amount for people already receiving treat-
ment for alcohol problems. This would be far above the average amount
of drinking for Americans in general.
Here are brief reminders of what each scale means. If you want to dis-
cuss your results in more detail, contact your therapist.
Benefits The first four scales reflect possible reasons for excessive drinking. A
high score on one of these scales may indicate a way in which you have
come to depend on alcohol. In order to be free of alcohol problems, it
would be important to find other ways of dealing with these areas of
your life.
Social Improvement Drinking
People who score in the medium or high range on this scale tend to be
social drinkers. They may use alcohol to relax and feel more comfort-
able around others, to be friendly, or to enjoy social events more. They
might have difficulty knowing how to handle their social lives without
alcohol.
Mental Improvement Drinking
Those who score medium or high on this scale tend to like the way
alcohol changes their thinking or mental state. They indicate that when
they drink they feel more creative or alert, work better, or see the world
in more enjoyable ways.
Managing Mood With Drinking
On this scale, medium or high scores indicate people who use alcohol
to change how they feel. They drink to forget, to feel less anxious or
depressed, or to escape from unpleasant moods. Without alcohol, they
might experience difficulty coping with their own emotions.
Marital Coping by Drinking
(If you are not married, you will have no score here.) People who score in
the medium or high range on this scale report that they drink because
of problems in their marriage.
7
Styles of The next three scales reflect different styles of using alcohol. Low scores
Drinking on these scales describe a different style of drinking but do not mean
that there are no problems.
Gregarious Drinking
A medium or high score indicates a preference for drinking around

other people. Those who prefer to drink alone score low on this scale.
Compulsive Drinking
Medium and high scores on scale 6 indicate a close attachment to

alcohol. Such people tend to think about alcohol a lot, keep a supply
handy, and drink in a “compulsive,” predictable style.
Sustained Drinking
People who score in the medium and high range on this scale tend to
be regular, steady drinkers, drinking every day or most days. Those
who score lower on this scale are not such steady drinkers but have
periods of drinking and nondrinking.
Consequences Scales 8–12 reflect possible negative consequences of drinking. Higher

scores on these scales reflect more problems, compared with people
already in treatment for alcohol problems. Thus, a person with a lower
score may still have some problems but fewer than most people now in
treatment for alcohol problems.
Loss of Control
One kind of difficulty that people can have is that they lose control of
themselves when drinking. They get into trouble, arguments, or fights.
They may do embarrassing things or hurt themselves or other people.
They may not remember things that happened while drinking (black-
outs) or may drink until they become unconscious. Medium and high
scores indicate these kinds of problems.
Role Problems
Drinking can also cause social difficulties, ‘such as problems at work

or school, and conflicts with the law. Medium and high scores indicate
that alcohol is seriously interfering with social functioning.
Delirium
If people continue to drink heavily over a period of time, they may

develop a pattern of physical dependence on alcohol. A number of
changes occur, usually gradually, that make it more difficult for a per-
son to live without alcohol. This can include actual addiction to alcohol,
so that the person becomes uncomfortable or even ill when stopping
98
8
or cutting down drinking. Medium to high scores on this scale reflect

some of the more serious signs of addiction to alcohol. For example,
stopping drinking can result in hallucinations (seeing, hearing, or feel-
ing things that are not really there) or fuzzy thinking.
Hangover
Hangovers are actually a form of alcohol withdrawal, the body’s

“rebound” reaction to alcohol. Medium or high scores on scale 11
reflect some of these signs of addiction to alcohol: feeling shaky or sick
to the stomach, feeling your heart racing, having a seizure, or feeling
hot or cold flashes when sobering up.
Marital Problems
People who score in the medium or high range of scale 12 report that
they are having problems in their marriage because of their drinking (If
you are not married, this scale will be blank.)
Personal How much do you recognize and acknowledge problems with drinking?
Concern This is what scales 13–17 describe.
Quantity of Drinking
Scale 13 is a rough indicator of the amount you said you have been
drinking. (Section 1 of your Personal Feedback Report is a more accu-
rate indication.) Remember that this is in comparison to other people
seeking treatment for alcohol problems.
Guilt/Worry
To what extent have you felt guilty about your drinking or worried
about what it is doing to you and those around you? Medium and high
scores reflect more of this kind of concern.
Help Before
To what extent have you sought help for your drinking before coming
to this program? The more things you have tried before, the higher this
score will be.
Receptiveness
To what extent do you feel ready and willing to receive help for your
drinking? Medium and high scores reflect greater willingness to accept
help.
99
9
Awareness
To what extent are you aware of problems being caused by your drink-
ing? Medium and high scores indicate recognition of more serious
problems.
Second Order Scores A through F are summaries. They do not contain new informa-
Scales tion but rather combine information from scales 1–17. Nevertheless,
they are useful as overall problem indicators.
Enhancement Drinking
Medium and high scores on this scale reflect drinking to cope, to

enhance your life, or to get what you perceive to be the benefits of
drinking. To the extent that this score is high, there would be some
challenges to face in changing your drinking, because you have relied
on alcohol for these purposes. Scales 1–5 show you where you may
have relied most on alcohol to enhance your life.
Obsessive Drinking
Medium and high scores on this scale indicate what are often thought
of as classic “alcoholic” drinking patterns. The drinking of high scorers
on this scale tends to be steady and “driven,” occupying much of the
person’s time and energy. High scorers think about drinking quite a bit
and will go to considerable lengths to make sure they can drink. It has
become a central part of their lives.
Disruption
Both of these two scales report the extent to which life has been dis-
rupted by drinking. Medium and high scores indicate serious symptoms
and problems resulting from drinking.
Anxious Concern
Medium and high scores on this scale indicate worry, anxiety, or con-
cern about drinking, as well as alcohol’s negative effects on the person’s
emotional life.
Recognition and Awareness
Medium and high scores here indicate a recognition of a need for

change in drinking and/or willingness to get help with drinking.
General Finally, the Alcohol Involvement Scale is one general indicator of the
overall severity of alcohol problems. The higher this score, the more
serious and severe the alcohol problems. Remember that scores are
low, medium, or high in relation to people already in treatment for
alcohol problems.
100
10
Summary Your Personal Feedback Report summarizes a large amount of informa-

tion that you provided during your pretreatment interviews. Sometimes
this information can seem surprising or even discouraging. The best
use of feedback like this is to consider it as you decide what, if anything,
you will do about your drinking. Many of the kinds of problems covered
in your Personal Feedback Report do improve when heavy drinking is
stopped. What you do with this information is up to you. Your report is
designed to give you a clear picture of where you are at present so that
you can make good decisions about where you want to go from here.
101
11
n
Drinking
Drinking alcohol is certainly common in our society. About two-thirds of
American adults have a drink at least occasionally, while the other one-third
don’t drink at all. Of those who do drink, the vast majority use alcohol very
moderately, and will never have serious problems with it. For them, alcohol
beverages are simply that: beverages to be enjoyed now and then as part of a
meal or a social occasion.
Yet it is important to remember that alcohol is also a drug, and a potentially

dangerous one. People who use it beyond moderate levels have a much
Alcohol greater risk for a wide variety of illnesses and problems. Overdrinking results
in up to 200,000 deaths each year in the United States alone — about 550
every day —and many more people than that are ill or injured because of their
And drinking.
Drinking is such a serious health problem in our country, in part, because
many people who drink too much don’t think of themselves as problem drink-
You ers, or even heavy drinkers. They see themselves as normal, moderate drink-
ers. Although they may realize that their drinking has negative consequences
now and then, they also enjoy drinking, and aren’t sure they need to make a
change. Heavy drinking can seem quite normal if one has friends who drink
just as much, or even more.
This booklet explains some of the risks associated with heavy drinking,
William R. Miller, Ph.D. based on current scientific knowledge. Of course no one person will experi-
ence all, or even most of the risks and problems discussed here. Some are
relatively rare, while others happen to many people who drink too much.
The point is that it is important to know about alcohol, just as a doctor or
pharmacist informs you about the effects of drugs that are prescribed. When
you know the facts, you can make better choices. What you decide to do with
this information, of course, is up to you.
Have you ever wondered: Heavy Drinking

Whether you drink too much? How much is too much? It is difficult to say exactly. Studies suggest that
Whether alcohol is harming you or putting you at risk? people who have no more than 1 or 2 drinks per day have no higher risk in
How heavy drinking affects your health? general than non-drinkers. (“One drink” here means a 10-ounce glass of beer,
or a 4-ounce glass of wine, or one ounce of 100 proof spirits.) Only 8% of
How much is too much?
American adults (and only 4% of women) average 3 drinks or more per day,
and those who do so suffer many more diseases, injuries, and problems than
do light drinkers or nondrinkers.
Surprisingly few Americans are aware of the risks of heavier drinking. Most
know that drunk driving is dangerous, and that alcoholics may get liver
n
n
n n
disease. Yet few really understand how many areas of life and health can be Nerve cells outside the brain are also damaged by heavy drinking. Usually
harmed by alcohol, and how quickly and easily this can happen. Over time, the first effects are experienced in the legs and feet, or arms and hands. The
heavy drinking can damage one’s relationships, job, intelligence, and emo- signs include muscle weakness, pain, tingling, or numbness. These result from
tional and physical health. Often the damage is gradual, occurring slowly over “peripheral neuropathy,” the dying off of nerve channels that serve the legs
a period of years, so that one may not even notice that it is happening. Other and arms.
kinds of alcohol-related damage and problems happen suddenly.
The good news is that the nervous system, including the brain, can repair
What kinds of problems can happen because of overdrinking? Health risks itself to some extent if a heavy drinker stops drinking. Although once dead,
will be considered first; then social and psychological risks will be discussed. brain cells are not replaced, the brain has a remarkable ability to make new
connections, and former drinkers often show significant improvement in their
mental abilities during their first year or so without alcohol.
Health Risks
The Digestive System
Heart and Fitness
Alcohol can irritate and damage the sensitive tissue of the digestive system.
Is alcohol good for the heart? Although light drinkers (no more than 1-2 Perhaps the most direct experience of this is to take a drink of straight liquor.
drinks per day) seem to be at least as healthy as abstainers, heavier drink- It burns — all the way down. It irritates the lining of the lips, mouth, throat and
ers can do serious damage to their health and fitness. Alcohol weakens heart stomach. Alcohol also releases digestive acid in the stomach, which adds to
muscle, decreasing cardiovascular fitness, and heavy drinkers have much the irritating effect of the alcohol itself. Heavy drinkers experience higher rates
higher risk of heart disease. Heavy drinking also increases blood pressure, of gastritis, ulcers, and bleeding of the digestive system. Pancreatitis, an ex-
and can contribute to hypertension. The electrical control patterns of the heart tremely painful and sometimes fatal inflammation of the pancreas, also occurs
can be disrupted by an episode of heavy drinking, which can cause the heart at higher rates in heavy drinkers.
to race or skip beats, even in young people with no previous history of heart
disease. Cancers of the digestive system are much more common in heavy drink-
ers — some occurring at more than 40 times the normal rate. Heavy drinkers
The Brain and Nervous System account for a majority of head and neck cancers: those in the mouth, tongue,
The human brain is sometimes the first organ to be damaged by heavy throat, and esophagus.
drinking. Alcohol kills nerve cells, and many heavy drinkers show evidence of Because alcohol contains a high level of empty calories —those with no
brain damage. If this process continues for a period of years, the brain literally nutritional value — heavy drinkers also tend not to eat properly. They may
shrinks in size, due to the destruction of so many brain cells. Such shrinkage drink up to half of their daily calories. This can result in both weight gain and
can be observed (by special X-rays known as a “CAT scan”) in about half of nutritional deficits. To make matters worse, alcohol prevents the body from
people in treatment for alcohol problems. fully absorbing and using even those vitamins and other nutrients that are
It is not surprising, then, that heavy drinkers also show significant decreases available.
in their mental abilities. Alcohol damages the ability to learn and remember The Liver
new material, to think abstractly, and to adjust flexibly to changes. One recent
study found a strong relationship between amount of drinking and grades in The liver is the body’s main defense against poisons and impurities in the
college students: the more they drank, the lower their grade point average. Af- blood. It is also important in manufacturing energy for the whole body, includ-
ter years of heavy drinking, a disease known as Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome ing the brain, muscles, and heart. Because alcohol is a toxic chemical, it is the
can occur, permanently damaging the person’s ability to remember things liver’s job to remove it from the bloodstream. When alcohol is present, the liver
from one day to the next. The damaging effects of alcohol have been likened gives priority to getting rid of it, and in the process does not perform some of
to a premature aging of the brain. The mental abilities of a 30-year-old heavy its normal work, such as getting rid of fats and body waste products.
drinker may resemble those of an 80-year-old nondrinker.
As a result, heavy drinkers tend to pile up fat in the liver and bloodstream.
The liver itself becomes fatty and enlarges, contributing to the “beer belly” ap-
pearance.
n n
n n
This condition is reversible, but if the heavy drinking continues a different
kind of damage occurs. Liver cells begin to die off, and are replaced by scar Social and Psychological Problems
tissue. The beginnings of this irreversible process can be seen long before it
reaches the disease stage known as cirrhosis. As living liver tissue is replaced The damaging physical effects of heavy drinking are only part of the picture.
by scars, the liver is less and less able to produce energy and filter impurities Heavy drinkers are also at risk for many other kinds of problems.
(including alcohol) from the bloodstream. Risk-Taking and Accidents
The Immune System Alcohol-related accidents and violence are the leading cause of death
Alcohol decreases the body’s ability to fight off diseases and infections. The among Americans under the age of 35. How can this be?
immune system — the body’s defense — works less efficiently whenever a There are several reasons. First, as many people know, drinking makes a
person drinks, and over a period of heavy drinking the body’s defenses can person less in control. Alcohol, even at levels well under the “legal limit” can
be greatly weakened. As a result, the person becomes more vulnerable to cause dangerous changes in a person’s ability to react, to control muscles,
infections, cancers, and other illnesses. The risk of cancers in general among and to perceive the world accurately.
heavy drinkers is twice that of other people. Sores and injuries tend to heal
more slowly, and it becomes harder to shake off sickness. These changes are made all the more dangerous by something else that
happens when a person drinks. Among the first things to be changed by al-
The Reproductive System cohol is a person’s judgment. Experienced race drivers, for example, become
Alcohol has clear negative effects on the reproductive system. In men, drink- much poorer drivers after even a few drinks, but may actually perceive them-
ing decreases the body level of testosterone, the primary male hormone, If a selves to be better drivers under the influence of alcohol. In short, a person
man drinks heavily for a period of time, this loss of testosterone can result in a cannot tell how much he or she is being affected. You can’t judge when your
“feminization” of his body — the loss of body hair, enlargement of fatty tissue judgment is affected!
in the breasts, and a shrinking of the testicles. Heavy drinking can also contrib- These judgment changes, in turn, often make a person overconfident, and
ute to sexual problems such as impotence. more likely to take foolish risks. After a few drinks, people are less able to
In women, heavy drinking has been linked to increased rates of sexual, make good decisions, and are more likely to do things they would never do
menstrual and other gynecological problems. Alcohol also changes sex hor- while sober. Sometimes the result is only embarrassment, but other times it
mone balances in women, and can promote a loss of feminine body character- is much more serious. A majority of people in prison, for example, commit-
istics. Heavy drinking during pregnancy has been clearly linked to increased ted their crimes while under the influence of alcohol. When drinking, people
rates of miscarriage and stillbirth, and to birth defects, behavior problems, and are more likely to misjudge others as threatening or challenging them, and
mental retardation of children exposed to alcohol in the womb. Alcohol con- to react impulsively, aggressively, even violently. Other misjudgments can be
sumed by a pregnant woman directly affects the fetus, and there is no known disastrous as well. Tens of thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands
safe level of drinking during pregnancy. of injuries happen each year because people drink before driving vehicles,
using power tools or firearms, or engaging in fun but hazardous sports such as
Summary swimming, boating, or skiing — activities where even a small misjudgment can
be very dangerous.
In short, once alcohol is consumed, it is rapidly distributed throughout the
body, where it affects virtually every organ system. There are no proven Mood
beneficial health effects of drinking, but there are many proven harmful effects
of heavy drinking. Many of these damaging effects can be reversed, at least Drinking also affects mood. After one or two drinks, some people feel hap-
partly, when a heavy drinker stops drinking. In general, the longer the period of pier, more relaxed, less tense and anxious. Interestingly, these same changes
heavy drinking, the less reversible the damage, but quitting usually results in happen when people believe they are drinking alcohol, even if they are not.
improved health and fitness, even after many years of excess. Alcohol itself is a depressant drug, and its effects, in heavier doses at least,
are to turn good feelings bad, and to make bad feelings worse. After several
drinks, mood tends to take a turn for the worse. It is around this same
n n
n n
point, however, that alcohol also affects memory, so people tend not to
remember the depressing effects of drinking — only the seemingly positive Personal Risk
effects of the first drink or two.
Many people drink alcohol moderately without ever experiencing significant
Among heavy drinkers, depression is common. There are many possible problems. Why is it that some people have trouble with alcohol while others do
reasons for this. Yet when heavy drinkers get treatment and quit, usually their not?
depression goes away after a few weeks. Alcohol is not a stimulant or an up-
per. It is a downer. Part of the answer, of course, lies in how much a person drinks. The more
one drinks, the greater the risk of suffering the negative health, psychologi-
Relationships cal and social consequences. Yet that is not the whole picture. Certain people
have a greater risk than others. Here are a few factors that have been shown
Heavy drinking can damage close relationships. “You always hurt the one
to increase a person’s danger for overdrinking and running into significant
you love” seems to be especially true for people who drink too much. Heavy
problems with alcohol:
drinkers have, on average, more problems in their marriages and other re-
lationships, and higher rates of separation and divorce. One’s ability to be a • Having a family history of relatives with alcohol or other drug problems
good parent can also be harmed by overdrinking, resulting in family problems.
• Drinking to get drunk
Child abuse and neglect are more common among heavy drinking parents.
• Being able to “hold your liquor” — seeming to be less affected by alco-
Problems and Coping hol than most people
One reason why heavy drinkers’ relationships may get into trouble is that the • Having one or more memory “blackouts” due to drinking
person begins to drink alcohol as a solution to problems, as a way of trying to
• Drinking to relieve bad feelings or to escape from problems
cope. Drinking takes the place of talking and working out difficulties in other
ways. It can be a tempting trap. Alcohol dulls memory, and makes the prob- • Having friends who are heavy drinkers
lems seem to go away — at least for the time being. • Thinking of alcohol as a positive life influence, which helps people be
Yet while people are drinking to ease cares and worries, the troubles aren’t more friendly, happy, relaxed, successful, etc.
really going away. In fact, they often get worse, because the drinker makes • Using other drugs which, when combined with alcohol, increase the
little or no attempt to find better ways to handle things. It’s just easier to let effects and dangers of drinking
things go, to take a break, to forget. So things begin to fall apart — sometimes
a little at a time, sometimes in bigger shocks — and it happens in different People with these characteristics seem to have higher risk for the kinds of
ways for different people: problems described earlier. A person doesn’t have to have any of these in
order to be harmed by alcohol, of course. It’s just that these are risk factors,
• Friends pull back or drift away which increase one’s chances for harm from overdrinking.
• Problems start showing up on the job or at school: coming in late,
missing days, not working up to your abilities, making more mistakes, Alcohol and You
missing opportunities, having accidents, putting off responsibilities
Probably most of the things mentioned earlier have not happened to you.
• Tension builds up in the family: more complaints, problems, and argu- Even heavier drinkers can sometimes go for many years without piling up too
ments, less fun and closeness many of these problems. Yet maybe you do see yourself in some of these
descriptions, or perhaps you see what might happen to you if your drinking
• Health and fitness begin to be affected
continues as it is.
• Money problems increase: too much is spent on alcohol, and on pay-
Is it time for you to make a change? That is your choice. In fact, no one else
ing for problems or poor decisions related to drinking
can decide about your drinking, or change your drinking for you, not even if
Because alcohol can make it hard to see what is really happening, heavy they want to. To be sure, other people may be able to help quite a bit if you let
drinkers often feel misunderstood, unfairly treated, harassed, or just unlucky. them, but still in the end it’s your decision.
And as things get worse, the temptation is — to drink.
n n
n n
If you want to change your drinking, there are many ways to do it. Some
people just decide, and go ahead. Others find that it’s easier with some help
from friends, professionals, or other people who have been through it. There’s
no one approach that is best for all. The truth is that there are many different
ways, and you keep trying until you find what works for you. If one approach
isn’t working, try something else. There are books, self-help groups, skilled
counselors and psychologists and physicians, spiritual approaches, medica-
tions, clinics, and hospitals. There’s no one magic answer for everybody, but
there are many helpful people and approaches to try.
And in the long run, the chances for change are very good. If you do try to
change your drinking and you’re like most people, you may not succeed the
very first time. It is common to have some setbacks, and it can be tough to
make an important change in your life. One try may not do it. Or two, or five.
Yet each try brings you closer to getting free, to succeeding in change. Studies
show that most people who have problems with alcohol do get better in the
long run. For those who decide to do something about their drinking, there is
hope.
Prepared for Project MATCH by

The Center on Alcoholism, Substance Abuse, and Addictions (CASAA)
The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131
n n
Appendix B: Motivational
Enhancement Therapy in the
Aftercare Setting
The manual to this point has focused on the application of the MET
model to individuals presenting for treatment at an outpatient facil-
ity. The same principles and techniques can be applied effectively in
the aftercare clinic. In the aftercare situation, the client has already
completed a comprehensive abstinence-oriented inpatient treatment
program, and the general focus of treatment will differ. Aftercare cli-
ents are more likely to be further along in the change cycle than clients
first presenting for treatment. Many of these individuals will have thus
far successfully negotiated the precontemplation, contemplation, and
determination stages. They will have begun to take action at least in
the hospital setting and possibly on several home visits. The real task
for these clients is to return to their home environment and success-
fully sustain their abstinence from alcohol. They will need to transfer
learning to be aware of possible pitfalls and remain committed to absti-
nence in the face of new and challenging situations. Although they can
be assumed to be motivated to change if they have spent 14 to 28 days
in the hospital, often the hospitalized client is unprepared for the post-
hospital environment and the challenge to their motivation that going
home will provide.
While the basic principles and techniques of MET remain the same,
the overall focus of treatment will be somewhat different. This section
briefly outlines variations in the MET sessions when applied to after-
care clients.
Scheduling Prior to discharge and before the first session, the Project MATCH client
will have completed the initial screening, informed consent procedures,
and the comprehensive assessment battery. Following completion of
the assessment battery and before the client’s discharge, project thera-
pists contact the client to introduce themselves and schedule the first
aftercare session. Regardless of the details of the particular research
protocol being followed, it is desirable to schedule the first session as
close as possible to the client’s date of discharge.
109
As noted previously (see “Initial Session”), the therapist stresses the

importance of having the spouse or significant other along to the
first two sessions and also explains the importance of coming to
appointments sober. In the aftercare setting, attempt to have the first
appointment immediately prior to discharge so therapist and client will
connect before leaving the hospital. This schedule may make spouse
attendance problematic without adequate planning
Structuring (see “The Structure of MET Sessions”) the therapy ses-

sions is particularly important for aftercare clients. These clients
already have completed lengthy inpatient treatment and have well-
developed expectations for what therapy sessions should be like. In
most cases, these therapy expectations will differ considerably from
the nondirective style of MET. Here is an example of what you might
say to an aftercare client at the beginning of the first session:
Before we begin, I’d like to talk a little bit about how we will
be working together over the next 3 months. You’ve already
successfully completed the treatment program here, and
these aftercare sessions are aimed at helping you maintain
the changes that you’ve begun during your stay in the hospi-
tal. Also, we’ll be trying to help you deal with new problems
that might come up in these first few months following your
discharge.
My approach may be different from what you were used to

during your stay in the hospital. For one thing, I’m not going
to be telling you what you should or shouldn’t do. I can help
you to think about your present situation or new problems
and consider what, if anything, you might want to do, but
if there are any decisions to be made or any changing to be
done, you will be the one doing it. When it comes right down
to it, nobody can tell you what to do and certainly nobody can
make you change. I’ll be giving you a lot of information about
yourself, and maybe some advice, but what you do with all of
it is completely up to you. I couldn’t change you if I wanted
to. The only person who can decide whether or how to change
is you. How does that sound? (Explore client’s and significant
other’s reactions as previously discussed.)
Now, you spent a lot of time completing tests and question-

naires for us just before you were discharged. I appreciate the
time you spent on those. Today we are going to make good
use of the information you gave to us. We’ll be going over the
results of some of those tests in detail. As you may know,
this is the first of four sessions that we will be having. During
these sessions, we will take a close look at your situation and
help you adjust now that you’re out of the hospital. I think
you’ll find these sessions interesting and helpful.
110
Appendix B: Motivational Enhancement Therapy in the Aftercare Setting
Reviewing Since the client has already completed a treatment program and pre-
Progress sumably made some commitment for change, it is important to monitor
the client’s progress in meeting his/her goals. The client’s judgment
of progress can be assessed with an open-ended question such as,
“Well, before we go any further, tell me how things have been going
since you came to the hospital?” When asking this question, the thera-
pist may want to look at both the client and the client’s SO and allow
either one to respond. Allow the client or SO to volunteer information.
If the client answers only briefly (e.g., “Oh, fine”), ask for elaboration
(e.g., “When you say fine, what do you mean?”). The therapist should
use empathic reflection, affirmation, or reframing as discussed previ-
ously in responding to the client or SO. If the response of the client or
SO does not touch on drinking or urges to drink, it is appropriate to
ask direct questions or make statements to elicit this information. As
with anything in the MET approach, however, these questions/state-
ments should be asked in a nonjudgmental manner. For example, the
statement, “You haven’t mentioned anything about your plans for dis-
charge, return to work...” will often prompt a reason.
During the second through the fourth sessions, in response to either

reports of drinking or reports of abstinence in the time since discharge,
the therapist should attempt to explore the clients’ own attributions
regarding their behavior. For example, in response to a report of no
drinking, the therapist might say, “Well, Joe, it sounds as though
you’ve been doing extremely well. I was wondering what you see your-
self doing differently now that’s helped you to remain sober?” To the
client’s response, the therapist should use empathic reflection, affir-
mation, and reframing as a means of exploring and reinforcing changes
the client has made. As noted previously, the goal here is to enhance
the attitude of self-responsibility, reinforce effort, and support the cli-
ent’s self-esteem.
In response to a report of drinking since discharge, it is important for

the therapist to remain nonjudgmental. At the same time, however, the
therapist should explore more carefully the circumstances surround-
ing the slip or relapse and the client’s feelings about it. For example,
“Can you tell me more about what was happening at the time you
decided to take a drink? How were you feeling?” or “What led up to you
deciding to take a drink?” Again, the therapist should use empathic
reflection and reframing in discussing the relapse episode. Overall, the
therapist should encourage the client to discuss the circumstances
leading up to the relapse, the relapse, and how the client felt afterward.
The therapist should also explore what the client should do differently
in the future to reduce the risk of relapse. For example, “Joe, given
this experience you had, what do you think you would do differently
in the future to prevent this from happening?” As is basic to the self-
motivational approach, the goal here is to allow the client to generate
and decide on self-change strategies.
111
The exploration of relapse situations may lead into several relevant

areas of further discussion and exploration. For example, for indi-
viduals experiencing considerable guilt over a relapse, the therapist
can offer supportive statements and information. “It is not unusual
for people to have a slip when they first get out of the hospital. What
is important is that they try to evaluate what happened and what
changes they need to make to reduce the risk of it happening again.
You deserve a lot of credit for catching that slip before it got too far
out of hand.” Discussion of a relapse episode may also unveil a client’s
uncertainty over abstinence as their intended goal. In such instances,
the therapist should emphasize that while we advise and encourage
abstinence as a goal, it is ultimately up to the client to decide (see
“Emphasizing Abstinence”). A related issue may be slips in which the
client consumes light or moderate levels of alcoholic beverage. In these
cases, it is important to reinforce the client’s restraint but also, where
appropriate, advise the client of the potential risk of even moderate
consumption levels. Finally, exploration of relapse situations may
reveal considerable resistance (see “Handling Resistance”). It is very
important that the therapist not be seen as a judge so the client would
be willing to return to talk about the frustrating and embarrassing
experience of slipping or relapsing.
Generating The discussion of relapses (or abstinence) during the time since dis-
Self- charge provides a gateway into discussing the client’s motivation for
wanting to change (see “Eliciting Self-Motivational Statements”). For
Motivational abstinent clients or clients functioning well with respect to drinking,
Statements the therapist can elicit the perceived differences they have noted in
their life now compared to when they were drinking. This discussion
can lead to the client’s reviewing reasons for wanting to change. Clients
who are doing well sometimes become overconfident, and a review of
negative events which occurred before they quit drinking and positive
events occurring since quitting can make their initial motivations for
change more salient. In most cases, eliciting self-motivational state-
ments from aftercare clients may be easier than eliciting statements
from individuals first presenting for treatment.
For individuals who have relapsed, the generation of self-motivational

statements is particularly important. In fact, some of these individuals
may have reverted to (or never left) the precontemplation or contem-
plation stage in the cycle of change. Self-motivational statements to
bring the client back to the determination and action stages should be
elicited (see “Eliciting Self-Motivational Statements”).
Providing Once the therapist has reviewed the client’s progress and elicited self-
Personal motivational statements, attention should be turned to giving feedback
from the client’s predischarge assessment (see “Presenting Personal
Feedback Feedback”). The personal feedback form and the assessment battery
112
used in Project MATCH is provided in appendix A, with suggestions

on how it may be modified to fit the needs of other research protocols.
Rather than being abrupt, the therapist should try to make a smooth
transition and may want to incorporate feedback with the elicitation of
self-motivational statements. For example, in responding to a client’s
reasons for wanting to quit, the therapist may say, “That’s very consis-
tent with what you were telling us on the tests and questionnaires that
you completed. Maybe this would be a good time for us to discuss the
results of those now.” Another transition statement might be, “I think
it is important to discuss changes which you think you need to make
to prevent a relapse from happening again. In doing that, it might be
helpful for us to review the results of the tests and questionnaires you
completed just before discharge. This might give you some perspective
on where you’re at now and maybe what you want to work on.”
Feedback for aftercare clients will be similar to that described in previ-

ous sections of the manual. Reviewing the level of addiction, quantity/
frequency of drinking, patterns of use, and consequences of drinking
can be quite helpful in motivating continued commitment to change.
Some clients may only now, after several weeks of sobriety, be capable
of understanding their destructive pattern of drinking. This information
can also be important for helping them develop a solid postdischarge
plan. Feedback on family history of drinking and neuropsychological
assessments can provide additional information for discussion with
client and significant other.
The focus of the feedback with the aftercare client is not so much
the need for change as it is the need for continued effort. It would be
important to tie in the work and progress the client has made during
the hospital stay. In fact, reviewing hospital progress can be a valuable
additional topic during the first session of treatment. However, be care-
ful not to get into a discussion that is simply a critique of the hospital
or some staff. Encourage them to bring up complaints to the hospital
staff if necessary. Keep the focus on the discharge and where do we go
from here.
Developing a With few exceptions, most of the aftercare clients will have already made
Plan some commitment for change and have a plan for change. Reviewing
this plan in concert with their progress since discharge is important.
Once the personal feedback has been provided, the therapist should
summarize the main points (see “Summarizing”) for the client and elicit
the client’s perceptions of the information provided (if this has not been
done already). For example,
Just to summarize what we’ve been talking about, Joe, you

indicated that one of your main reasons for seeking treatment
was your concern about your health. Certainly, this appeared
to be a wise decision since, as we saw, your liver tests were
elevated way above normal when you entered the hospital.
Your drinking was negatively affecting your liver and could
113
have led to permanent damage. This is common for individu-

als with moderate to severe alcohol problems and, as we saw,
you seem to fit in this group. We also saw that with abstinence
during your time in the hospital your liver tests basically
returned to normal. This is very encouraging and indicates
that if you remain off alcohol, your health will continue to
improve or, at least, not deteriorate further. You also indi-
cated in the tests that one of your most difficult situations
with respect to drinking is when you find yourself at home
with nothing to do and feeling lonely. This appears to be the
problem you ran into last weekend in which you said you had
a strong urge to have a drink. You also express some difficulty
turning down drinks when you’re around some of your old
buddies. Based on your discussion here, it certainly sounds
like you are committed to staying off alcohol. In fact, since
discharge you have been doing extremely well. At this point
then, it may be helpful for us to talk about what you feel you
need to do or need to continue doing in order to maintain the
important change you’ve already made.
Although it is not necessary to complete the plan for change by the end
of the first session, some plan elements should be completed in order
to give closure to the first session.
In the second and subsequent sessions, the therapist should complete

the plan for change, if it has not been done already. The majority of
these sessions will be spent reviewing progress as discussed above,
reinforcing the client’s change and modifying the plan for change as
needed.
The first two sessions of MET are scheduled to occur within a week of
each other. Feedback and spouse involvement are scheduled during
these sessions. If significant others cannot come in during these ses-
sions, they can be invited to later sessions.
The final two sessions are times when clients can check in and reflect
on their progress and problems. If they have lost momentum or have
encountered serious problems, this is the time to reflect, empathize,
summarize, and offer advice. Followthrough on the plans and modify-
ing plans would be a major focus of these sessions. In Project MATCH,
as with the other therapies, ME therapists have available up to two
emergency sessions to use if there are crises for the client. These would
be used similarly to those in the outpatient condition.
114
Integrating Experiences with Motivational Enhancement Therapy in the aftercare

setting have been quite positive. Many patients view the support for
MET Aftercare taking personal responsibility for their aftercare plan to be quite help-
With Inpatient ful. Although this message may be somewhat at variance with the
Programming information given during the inpatient stay, clarification of the MET
philosophy and perspective can be an important first step to engaging
the patient. The focus on discharge and life after hospitalization is crit-
ical for the aftercare patient. Focus not only on the plans for sobriety,
which may have been heavily influenced by inpatient staff and other
patients, but also on plans for establishing routines and goals postdis-
charge. Several key issues can arise in this context.
The Most aftercare patients will have a postdischarge plan that is devel-
Prepackaged oped during the hospital program. At times, these plans are rather
standardized, depending on the type of inpatient program, and can
Plan include AA, group therapy, or disulfiram. They often include messages
about employment, relationships, leisure, exercise, and a variety of
other activities or life situations. Exploring this plan is a critical first
step in assisting clients in developing their own unique plan to which
they can commit. It is important to explore which elements the clients
really believe will work and will fit with their unique situation. Be care-
ful to have clients be as specific as possible in discussing the plan. Elicit
the details of the plan and how it will work.
In some cases, the discharge plan may not be well formulated or may
change as the client leaves the hospital. It is important to check with
the client about how the plans are developing. From one week to the
next, the client’s plan can undergo substantial revisions. This would be
particularly true during the time between the final two MET sessions.
Should the prepackaged discharge plan serve as the action plan of

Motivational Enhancement Therapy? In each case, the MET therapist
works with the client to answer this question. In the aftercare condi-
tion, the therapists help the clients evaluate prehospital problems, the
feedback, and the hospital discharge plan to develop a unique action
plan. This plan can include all or part of the prepackaged plan if the
motivation elicited during the first sessions focuses on these elements.
However, as clients consider their particular situation and address
personal issues and situations, the MET action plan can be quite dif-
ferent from the prepackaged plan.
Disulfiram Some clients will be discharged from the hospital on disulfiram, which
must be taken regularly. There are several important considerations
about disulfiram and ME therapy. Disulfiram can be a very helpful aid
in promoting sobriety in clients who are impulsive and may need some
built-in delays and deterrents to drinking. However, clients can see
disulfiram as the sole cause of their sobriety. This can undermine self-
motivation and self-efficacy. If clients are planning to use disulfiram
as part of their postdischarge plans, it is important to explore how the
115
disulfiram will help and what role it will play in sobriety. It is also help-
ful to elicit self-motivational statements that make clients the agents
in the use of disulfiram. It is their decision to take disulfiram and
their evaluation of the need for disulfiram that will help them to follow
through with the prescription that makes disulfiram work. Ownership
of the disulfiram plan and daily commitment to the prescription can
certainly be a valuable part of the MET action plan and promote suc-
cessful sobriety. Do not be afraid to include disulfiram in the plan, but
only include it if the client endorses it and has a personal commitment
to it. Often, disulfiram is the decision of the doctor and not the client.
In this case, it is important not to undermine or sabotage the inpa-
tient prescription but not to endorse or push it if the client does not
demonstrate any commitment to the disulfiram. Focus your attention
on other behaviors and ideas that can engage the client’s interest and
commitment.
Alcoholics It will be difficult, if not impossible, for any client to complete an inpa-
Anonymous tient stay without having a prescription to attend AA or to participate
in the 12-Step recovery process. AA involvement is often a major ele-
ment in the discharge plan prepared in the hospital and part of the
hospital regimen. Thus, in the aftercare condition, it would be impos-
sible to simply ignore AA involvement. However, because of the overlap
with other treatment conditions, you need to be careful not to become
an independent promoter of AA involvement. In the MET condition, it
seems best to handle AA involvement the same as other aspects of the
client’s plan. Therapists do not originate or promote any one measure
or method of achieving sobriety. Therapists do help clients to explore
and evaluate both problems and solutions as indicated by the client or
the feedback information.
Specifically, this approach would mean that AA involvement is exam-

ined if it is proposed by the client or has been a part of the client’s
experience. In this examination, the therapist explores the specifics,
uses reflective listening, elicits motivational statements, and summa-
rizes the client’s plans and commitment with regard to AA involvement
and 12-Step work. Some clients may simply be reflecting a party line,
others may be convinced of the value of meetings, and still others may
be committed to working with a sponsor and completing each of the
12 Steps of recovery. Understanding the client’s level of understand-
ing and commitment is the first step. If any level of AA involvement is
included as an integral part of the action plan postdischarge, it needs
to be monitored and examined as the therapist would do with any
other method or measure decided by the client.
Motivational Enhancement Therapy attempts to identify motivations

and maximize the client’s commitment to a personal, individual plan
of action. For clients who identify AA as a viable part of their plan, the-
task of MET is to enhance the personal motivation and commitment
to follow through with that part of the plan. From this perspective,
there is no conflict between AA involvement and MET. In fact, they can
116
be quite compatible, particularly in the aftercare condition where the

social support and philosophy of AA, if freely chosen by the client, can
provide substantial assistance in achieving the goal of sobriety.
Feedback Even after an inpatient stay, clients appear genuinely interested in

the results and can gain information, insight, and motivation from the
specific feedback given to them about their condition. Several cautions
need to be heeded in giving feedback in the aftercare condition that
may differ from the outpatient condition.
At times, the feedback on liver functioning and neuropsychological

functioning will appear to be nonproblematic. This can be interpreted by
a client as a sign that there are no problems or no damage. It is impor-
tant to remember that the tests given provide only gross indicators and
are not designed to assess subtle signs of damage or dysfunction. In
other words, these tests do not give the client a clean bill of health and,
if negative, need to be contrasted with the significance of the problem
that needed hospital treatment. Having few indicators of damage can
also be reframed to convey the message that the client is fortunate
to not yet be showing gross symptoms. This message can be used to
increase motivation for sobriety, since sobriety can ensure protection
from any further alcohol-related damage.
Clients may be quite interested in having additional information and

explanation of their physical condition. Since they are coming from
a hospital setting, they may address the therapist as one who is well
versed in medical conditions and problems. It is important for thera-
pists to clarify specific issues, to acknowledge when they do not know
an answer, and to obtain an answer for the next session or refer clients
to the physician in charge of their case in the hospital. Issues of cred-
ibility and accuracy of information are important considerations in the
feedback process.
Ambivalence ME therapists in aftercare settings should not be surprised to find

and Attribution ambivalence about drinking, and particularly about abstinence,
among their clients. Many individuals who enter hospital treatment
are motivated by external pressures or by current problems or con-
cerns at the time of the hospitalization. The hospital stay can be a
time of respite and even one of eroding motivation as the pressures or
concerns recede. Therefore, it is critical not to assume motivation for
sobriety postdischarge. Often, clients are motivated not to go back to
the hospital, never to get to that prehospital state again, and not to
have as many problems that drove them to drink. If you listen care-
fully, you will hear that these are not motivations about drinking but
about the problems drinking caused.
117
In exploring the drinking problem, it is often helpful to get a clear

understanding of what led to the prehospital pattern of drinking and
the reason for hospitalization. It would be important to continue to
connect psychosocial problems with drinking whenever this can clearly
be done. Understanding how the postdischarge plan will address both
drinking and other lifestyle, relationship, and employment issues can
be a fruitful avenue of discussion. Listen carefully for what abstinence
from drinking will mean for this client and what it will entail. Many of
these clients have been living in alcohol-saturated environments. In
fact, this may be part of the reason for hospitalization. Discharge from
the protected setting of the hospital will severely test plans and ideas
about abstinence. Even a firmly motivated stance during the first ses-
sion in the hospital can be shaken to the foundations at the second
session after the client is discharged. The first few weeks can be quite
volatile with respect to motivations about sobriety and plans for using
certain coping measures to ensure sobriety. Aftercare ME therapists
need to be aware of these issues, probe for the ambivalence, and lis-
ten carefully to the client. Using reflective listening, supportive and
empathic statements, and accurate, sensitive feedback will be particu-
larly needed to handle the ambivalence of the aftercare client.
The hospital setting provides a safe environment for helping clients

initiate an alcohol-free existence. The restricted setting, however, can
have a deleterious effect on client attributions of success. Since access
to alcohol cues is quite limited during detox and hospital stays, cli-
ents have to attribute some of their successful abstinence to external
control. Part of the task of the aftercare ME therapist is to assist the
client in retributing the success to internal causes. After all, the client
chooses to enter and stay in the hospital and must choose the level
of participation in the program as well as the level of commitment to
sobriety. Thus, although it is true that the restricted setting is helpful,
attribution to personal goals, effort, and achievement is important to
increase self-efficacy. Since MET puts the responsibility for sobriety
squarely on the client, it would be helpful to explore and assist in the
attribution of success to the client rather than the hospital. This is an
ongoing process that becomes more salient as the client is discharged
and during the later sessions of MET.
Motivational Enhancement Therapy can be an effective aftercare treat-

ment for clients discharged from various types of inpatient treatment.
This aftercare approach can enhance the work accomplished by the
clients during their inpatient program and can assist them in develop-
ing a solid plan for achieving and maintaining sobriety.
118
Appendix C: Therapist Selection,
Training, and Supervision in
Project MATCH
by Kathleen Carroll, Ph.D.
Specifications of treatment in manuals is intended to define and dif-

ferentiate psychotherapies, to standardize therapist technique, and to
permit replication by other investigators. However, it is essential that
manual-guided therapies be implemented by qualified therapists who
are trained to perform them effectively. Project MATCH uses extensive
procedures to select, train, and monitor therapists in order to promote
delivery of study treatments that are specific, discriminable, and deliv-
ered at a consistently high level of quality. These include (1) selection
of experienced therapists committed to the type of therapy they would
be performing, (2) extensive training to help therapists modify their
repertoire to meet manual guidelines and to standardize performance
across therapists and across sites, and (3) ongoing monitoring and
supervision of each therapist’s delivery of treatment during the main
phase of the study to assure implementation of study treatments at a
high and consistent level.
Therapist All MATCH therapist candidates are required to meet the follow-
Selection ing selection criteria: (1) completion of a master’s degree or above in
counseling, psychology, social work, or a closely related field (some
exceptions to this requirement were made in individual cases), (2) at
least 2 years of clinical experience after completion of degree or cer-
tification, (3) appropriate therapist technique, based on a videotaped
example of a therapy session with an actual client submitted to the
principal investigator at each site and to the Yale Coordinating Center,
and (4) experience in conducting a type of treatment consistent with
the MATCH treatment they would be conducting and experience treat-
ing alcoholics or a closely related clinical population.
These criteria are intended to facilitate (1) selection of appropriate ther-

apists for the training program, as training is not intended to train
novice therapists, but to familiarize experienced therapists with man-
ual-guided therapy, and (2) implementation of MATCH treatments by
119
experienced and credible therapists. For example, therapists selected

for the Cognitive-Behavioral Coping Skills Therapy (CB) are experi-
enced in cognitive and behavioral techniques; thus, the CB therapists
are predominantly doctoral or masters-level psychologists. Therapists
for the Twelve-Step Facilitation Program are predominantly individu-
als who have gone through 12-step recovery themselves, have been
abstinent for several years, and are typically masters-level or certified
alcoholism counselors. Therapists selected for the recently developed
Motivation Enhancement Therapy (MET) have worked extensively with
alcoholics and typically have experience in systems theory, family ther-
apy, and motivational counseling.
Therapist Training, supervision, and certification of therapists was centralized

Training at the Yale Coordinating Center to facilitate consistency of treatment
delivery across sites. Each therapist came to New Haven for a 3-day
intensive training seminar, which included background and rationale
for Project MATCH, extensive review of the treatment manual, review of
taped examples of MATCH sessions, and practice exercises. Each ther-
apist then returned to their clinical site and was assigned a minimum
of two training cases, which were conducted following the MATCH pro-
tocol (e.g., weekly individual sessions, a maximum of two emergency
and two conjoint sessions, truncated sessions for patients who arrived
for a treatment session intoxicated).
All sessions from training cases were videotaped and sent to the
Coordinating Center for review of the therapists’ (1) adherence to
manual guidelines, (2) level of skillfulness in treatment delivery, (3)
appropriate structure and focus, (4) empathy and facilitation of the
therapeutic alliance, and (5) nonverbal behavior. Yale Coordinating
Center supervisors review all training sessions and provide weekly
individual supervision to each therapist via telephone. Supplemental
onsite supervision is delivered weekly by the project coordinator at
each Clinical Research Unit.
Therapists were certified by the Yale Coordinating Center supervisors

following successful completion of training cases. Therapists whose
performance on initial cases was inadequate were assigned additional
training cases until their performance improved. The average number
of training cases was three, and therapists completed an average of 26
supervised sessions before certification.
Ongoing To monitor implementation of Project MATCH treatments, facilitate

Monitoring consistency of treatment quality and delivery across sites, and prevent
therapist “drift” during the main phase of the study, all sessions are vid-
eotaped and sent to the Coordinating Center, where a proportion of each
subject’s sessions (one-third of all sessions for Cognitive-Behavioral
120
Appendix C: Therapist Selection, Training, and Supervision in Project MATCH
and Twelve-Step Facilitation, one half of all MET sessions) are reviewed
by the supervisors. Telephone supervision is provided on a monthly
basis by the Coordinating Center supervisors and supplemented with
weekly onsite group supervision at each Clinical Research Unit.
All sessions viewed are rated for therapist skillfulness, adherence to

manual guidelines, and delivery of manual-specified active ingredi-
ents unique to each approach. These ratings are sent monthly to the
project coordinators at each site to alert local supervisors to therapist
drift. Therapists whose performance deviates in quality or adherence
to the manual are “redlined” by the Coordinating Center, and the fre-
quency of sessions monitored and supervision is increased until the
therapist’s performance returns to acceptable levels.
121

Substance Abuse Therapy Manual 1720935014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Substance Abuse Therapy Manual 1720935014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Substance Abuse Therapy Manual 1720935014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

Project MATCH Monograph Series

Project MATCH Monograph Series Editor:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

All material appearing in this volume is in the public domain

NIH Publication No. 94-3723

Project MATCH Research Group and

Gerard Connors, Ph.D.

Carrie Randall, Ph.D.

Ronald Kadden, Ph.D.

Carlo DiClemente, Ph.D.

Allen Zweben, D.S.W.

Richard Longabaugh, Ed.D.

Dale Walker, M.D.

Coordinating Thomas Babor, Ph.D.

NIAAA Staff John Allen, Ph.D.

Margaret Mattson, Ph.D.

Cooperative Lisa Marshall

Philip Wirtz, Ph.D.

Contractor Jane K. Myers

A major focus of the efforts of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse

Enoch Gordis, M.D.

This manual for therapists is provided to the public to permit repli-

This reasoning has led to a new generation of alcoholism treatment

The objective of Project MATCH is to determine if varying subgroups

The project consists of two independent treatment-matching studies,

Each of the nine study sites is recruiting approximately 150–200 clients.

Motivational Enhancement Therapy. MET is based on principles

Appendix B offers guidelines for how to apply the manual—written from

Twelve-Step Facilitation Approach. This therapy is grounded in the

Cognitive-Behavioral Coping Skills Therapy. This therapy is based on

Therapy is delivered in a structured research situation. All three treat-

This manual is written for therapists with similar intensive training

There is an important difference between a therapy textbook and a

This manual is designed to standardize MET as a four-session treat-

Other design requirements of clinical trials are likewise standardized

The therapist style and many specific concepts embodied in this

briefly described elsewhere (Edwards and Orford 1977; Miller 1983;

The general therapeutic principles underlying MET can be applied in

The staffs of Project MATCH and NIAAA make no claims or guarantees

Margaret E. Mattson, Ph.D.

Overview Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET) is a systematic interven-

Treatment is preceded by an extensive assessment battery (appendix

As offered in Project MATCH, MET consists of four carefully planned

MET is not intended to be a minimal or control treatment condition. MET

The initial presentation of MET in this manual is written from the

applied in aftercare, however, and such adaptation is addressed in

An alternative interpretation of this outcome picture is that many

■ FEEDBACK of personal risk or impairment

■ Emphasis on personal RESPONSIBILITY for change

■ Clear ADVICE to change

■ A MENU of alternative change options

■ Facilitation of client SELF-EFFICACY or optimism

These therapeutic elements are consistent with a larger review of

Therapeutic interventions containing some or all of these motivational

Table 1. Specific FRAMES components of evaluated brief interventions

Source: Bien, Miller, and Tonigan 1992.

intervention yielded comparable outcomes even when compared with

Further evidence supports the efficacy of the therapeutic style that