Abstract Overview The Client Language Assessment – Proximal/Distal (CLA-PD) is a language rating system for measuring client decision-making in interventions that target a specified behavior change ...(e.g., alcohol or other drug use). In the CLA-PD, there are five dimensions of change language (Reason, Ability, Commitment, Taking Steps, Other) adapted from the client portion of the Motivational Interviewing Skill Code (MISC). For the CLA-PD, language codes are sub-divided to discriminate statements regarding the primary, or target behavior change ( distal change ) from the intermediate coping activities ( proximal change ) that are prescribed to facilitate that target behavior change. The goal of the CLA-PD is to allow for higher specificity than existing client language measures, when process studies consider interventions that are multi-session and skill-based (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapy). Method Three raters received 40 hours of training on the use of the CLA-PD. The data were a sample of therapy session audio-files from a completed clinical trial ( N = 126), which enabled examination of client language across four sessions (i.e., first three and final attended) of three evidence-based alcohol interventions (cognitive behavioral therapy, twelve-step facilitation therapy, motivational enhancement therapy). Results Inter-rater reliability results for summary scores showed “excellent” reliability for the measure. Specifically, two-way mixed intraclass coefficients ranged from .83 to .95. Internal consistency reliability showed alphas across sessions that ranged from “fair” to “good” (α = .74–.84). In convergent and discriminant validity analyses using data independently measured with MISC-based ratings, the pattern of results was as would be expected. Specifically, convergent correlations, by valence (i.e., change and sustain talk), between CLA-PD Distal and MISC-based language scores were moderate ( r = .46–.55, p < .001) while discriminant correlations by valence for CLA-PD Proximal and MISC-based language scores were small ( r = .22–.24, p < .05). Finally, proportion Change Talk Proximal predicted subsequent session coping behaviors (i.e., processes of change) as well as 3-month Alcoholics Anonymous involvement and attendance ( p s < .05–.005), but not 3-month alcohol abstinence self-efficacy. Further, analyses of criterion predictive validity showed that proportion Change Talk Distal predicted 3- and 12-month drinking frequency and quantity measures ( p s < .05–.005). Conclusions When behavior change treatments are multi-session and/or skill-based, the present analyses suggest the CLA-PD is a promising, psychometrically sound observational rating measure of client verbalized decision-making.
PDF