动机性访谈能真正与以人为本的咨询相结合吗?

R. Crisp
{"title":"动机性访谈能真正与以人为本的咨询相结合吗?","authors":"R. Crisp","doi":"10.1017/JRC.2015.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines whether Motivational Interviewing (MI) can be truly integrated with Carl Rogers' person-centered approach (PCA) to counselling. While the ‘spirit’ of MI has much in common with PCA, it is argued that the theory and practice of MI indicates several fundamental differences with PCA that distinguishes the ways that each perspective may contribute to rehabilitation counselling. These differences are discussed in relation to the unique aspects of their underlying assumptions, how they define clients' problems, and how they articulate the role of counsellor and successful outcome. Recent meta-analyses have indicated the beneficial aspects of both approaches. Empirical evidence for the efficacy of both MI and PCA is strong across a diverse range of client groups and health care settings. However, the highly variable effectiveness of both MI and PCA suggests that further process-outcome research is needed. Implications for rehabilitation counsellors are discussed.","PeriodicalId":43415,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2015-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/JRC.2015.3","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can Motivational Interviewing be Truly Integrated with Person-centered Counselling?\",\"authors\":\"R. Crisp\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/JRC.2015.3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article examines whether Motivational Interviewing (MI) can be truly integrated with Carl Rogers' person-centered approach (PCA) to counselling. While the ‘spirit’ of MI has much in common with PCA, it is argued that the theory and practice of MI indicates several fundamental differences with PCA that distinguishes the ways that each perspective may contribute to rehabilitation counselling. These differences are discussed in relation to the unique aspects of their underlying assumptions, how they define clients' problems, and how they articulate the role of counsellor and successful outcome. Recent meta-analyses have indicated the beneficial aspects of both approaches. Empirical evidence for the efficacy of both MI and PCA is strong across a diverse range of client groups and health care settings. However, the highly variable effectiveness of both MI and PCA suggests that further process-outcome research is needed. Implications for rehabilitation counsellors are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43415,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/JRC.2015.3\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/JRC.2015.3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/JRC.2015.3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

本文探讨了动机性访谈(MI)能否真正地与卡尔·罗杰斯的以人为本的咨询方法(PCA)相结合。虽然MI的“精神”与PCA有很多共同之处,但有人认为,MI的理论和实践表明了与PCA的几个根本差异,这些差异区分了每种观点可能有助于康复咨询的方式。这些差异讨论了他们的潜在假设的独特方面,他们如何定义客户的问题,以及他们如何阐明咨询师的角色和成功的结果。最近的荟萃分析表明了这两种方法的有益方面。在不同的客户群体和卫生保健环境中,MI和PCA的有效性的经验证据是强有力的。然而,MI和PCA的有效性变化很大,这表明需要进一步的过程-结果研究。讨论了对康复咨询师的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Can Motivational Interviewing be Truly Integrated with Person-centered Counselling?
This article examines whether Motivational Interviewing (MI) can be truly integrated with Carl Rogers' person-centered approach (PCA) to counselling. While the ‘spirit’ of MI has much in common with PCA, it is argued that the theory and practice of MI indicates several fundamental differences with PCA that distinguishes the ways that each perspective may contribute to rehabilitation counselling. These differences are discussed in relation to the unique aspects of their underlying assumptions, how they define clients' problems, and how they articulate the role of counsellor and successful outcome. Recent meta-analyses have indicated the beneficial aspects of both approaches. Empirical evidence for the efficacy of both MI and PCA is strong across a diverse range of client groups and health care settings. However, the highly variable effectiveness of both MI and PCA suggests that further process-outcome research is needed. Implications for rehabilitation counsellors are discussed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Racial, ethnic differences in complementary and integrative health use among adults with mental illness: Results from the 2017 National Health Interview Survey A systematic review of systematic reviews of secondary health conditions, health promotion, and employment of people with intellectual disabilities A landscape of disadvantage: The impact of disability on earning and learning in Australia Musculoskeletal system disorders and kinesiophobia in type 2 diabetes: A case–control study Work-Related Communication Barriers for Individuals with Autism: A Pilot Qualitative Study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1