stephenrollnick

Having tried hard to avoid stretching the credibility and scope either of MI or myself as a trainer, my jaw sometimes drops at the credibility stretching that goes on in the name of offering this or that service, idea, book or training workshop.

Sometimes I end up writing to people asking them why they are stretching credibility. Its frustrating, and in any case, I have no wish to be seen as the policeman of "incredible" claims.

I decided to list an example here, without stepping into legal difficulty I hope.  I might well list others. Feel free to add to this list - just make sure that you ask questions rather than make accusations that make you or me vulnerable to legal threats....

EXAMPLE NO 1: HAVE A LOOK

http://training.aso-online.com/

Here are two questions:  Firstly, how can an organisation advertise a "certified MINT Trainer" when no such thing exists?  Why would they want to do that?  The answer seems obvious, but it would be nice to hear from them.

Secondly, if you look at the content of this advert, essentially for on-line learning, the account includes "interactive exercises". Most trainers know that interactive exercises involve observation of practice and feedback from a trainer. What do they mean, I wonder? Are they suggesting that they will do this on-line? If not, why use the phrase?

I'd be interested to see the certificate of completion. I just hope it doesnt claim that the trainee has learned MI.

Other examples will follow when I come across them.

Nice to have that off my chest!

Steve

Well, I see that they have taken "Certified MINT Trainer" off their advertisement, which is a relief. I believe that a colleague wrote to them about this. Nice outcome.

They still have "interactive exercises" in the literature, which remains a credibility stretching puzzle.

Steve

Here's a possible EXAMPLE NO 2.

See www.michaelpantalon.com

This book apparently purports to be an adaptation of MI.  And on the front cover it says: "How to get anyone to do anything fast" and "the only motivational approach scientifically proven to succeed in less than 7 minutes".

if this is in any way an adaptation of MI, or derived from it, the fundamental misunderstanding of MI could not be stronger. MI is not something done to or on someone, but with them. Its not about getting someone to do something that they would otherwise not want to do. I could continue.....

Leaving MI to one side, is behaviour change in clients that simple that anyone can aspire to the subtitles quoted above?

Has credibility been stretched here? The science?  I wonder how many trials of this "7-minute method" in the book have been done, of what quality and among what populations?

I might ask Dr Micahael Pantalon to join this discussion to explore with us in an open and respectful way some of the answers to these questions. I dont mean in any way to be personally disrespectful here to him, but I do believe that credibility might have been stretched?  or have I misunderstood something?

Steve

Hi Steve

I attended a weight management course today which I have to say really stretched credibility of MI.  Worryingly the course leaders were "teaching" MI as part of the course without a clear understanding of what it is.  I will stop before I say anything else but it is very frustrating.

Orla 

Dear Orla,

easy as it is to blame others for poor training, a depressingly frequent experience from what I hear, I am struck by the place I might have in this: Bill Miller & I never designed a proper certification procedure from the outset, which I am not sorry about but feel bad about the consequences of, and secondly, is our writing clear and unambiguous?

Ehmmmmm.

Steve