Levantamiento de información de demanda en terreno

Common Content

The following content points would normally be covered when introducing this skill.

Differentiating commitment language from preparatory change talk Eliciting commitment language

Strength of commitment language – recognizing lower-strength commitment

Do You Swear?

Abstract: Trainees learn the difference between DARN and commitment language

Overview: This is generally done as a demonstration, working with five people in front of an audience.

Guidelines: Select five people who are seated close to each other (usually in a row). Tell them that you are going to ask them some questions, and that you want them to give you a particular answer, regardless of the question:

Person 1: “I want to”

Person 2: “I could”

Person 3: “I have good reasons to”

Person 4: “I need to”

Person 5 “I will”

Then you ask a question to which the expected answer is commitment language (I will), and have each person give the prepared answer. If the audience is large, you need a microphone for this.

Example:

Will you take this person to be your lawfully wedded spouse, and be wholly faithful, for richer for poorer, in sickness and health, so long as you both shall live?

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Notes: Discuss with the audience what the difference is in these answers, and what is lacking in the first four (DARN). To say “I want to” is not to say, “I will.” To say that you could is not to say that you are going to. Having really good reasons is not the same as deciding to do it. And saying that you need to is not to say that you will do it.

Thanks to: Terri Moyers

Calling the CATs

Abstract: An exercise to practice evoking commitment to a developed plan

Overview: Content can vary, but the interviewer focuses on trying to evoke mobilizing change talk (CATs). This is easiest, of course, with a change goal that the speaker is well motivated to pursue, and for which a tentative plan is in place.

Guidelines: Trainees work in triads with one interviewer, one speaker, one observer at a time. They rotate roles so that each participant has an opportunity to experience each role.

I often use this exercise at the end of a training workshop, inviting the speaker to talk about “What I have learned in this workshop that I can put into practice?”

The interviewer uses MI skills to evoke mobilizing change talk.

The observer tracks mobilizing change talk using a coding sheet with these rows:

Commitment, Activation, and Taking Steps, counting and recording examples of each.

Variations: This exercise can be used after a planning process has been practiced for a particular change goal, to consolidate commitment to the plan.

Notes: This can be linked to “implementation intention” research that people are more likely to carry through on action when they have a specific plan and have expressed to another person their intent to carry it out. When used as above at the end of a workshop, the exercise is evoking change talk about the use of MI in practice.

Contributed by: Bill Miller

Structured Practice with Coach

Abstract: This is a structured dyadic practice exercise, with the addition that there is a trainer or coach observing and participating in the process.

Overview: Trainees pair up for the exercise and are given structured tasks, often as speaker and listener, or client and counselor. The trainer/coach/director provides clear instructions, and then the dyadic exchange begins. The coach interrupts the action at appropriate points to suggest changes.

Guidelines: Assign trainees to work in threes, with one assigned the role of coach (unless there are enough trainers to work with each dyad). Give clear instructions to the coach to be relayed to the other two participants. Instruct the other two

participants to work as if they had not heard your own instructions, and to do only and exactly what the coach instructs them to do. (Alternatively, take the coaches aside into another room and give them the instructions out of hearing of the other

participants.) Each participant in the dyad should have a clear role assigned by the coach. Participants may also be instructed to make some mistakes, or wander off the task at times. When the action begins, the coach allows the conversation to run as long as seems productive and on-task, and interrupts to provide suggestions,

“rewind” the action to redo a particular interaction, “fast forward” to a later point in the interview, etc. The coach may also jump in and model the responses to be learned.

Example(s): Choose enough coaches so that there will be one per dyad and instruct them in how to give instructions for the exercise. The structured practice,

INTEGRATING REFLECTIVE LISTENING given above under “Structured Practice” is a good example. In this case, the coach would give instructions to the listener and speaker, with the listener’s task to be responding solely with reflective listening. The coach then ensures that the listener is indeed offering reflective listening, and coaches for fine points like voice inflection, question vs. reflection, level of reflection, etc.

Notes: The coach may learn the most from this exercise, because it involved tracking process, providing guidance, and fixing errors.