Teaching Motivational Interviewing Skills Using Deliberate Practice with Artificial Intelligence Scoring and Feedback

Background/Objectives: We analyzed 6555 written motivational interviewing (MI) skill attempts from 437 second-year dental students to (a) construct an inductive taxonomy of skill-enactment errors, (b) test whether error prevalence decreased after instruction, and (c) determine whether formative-error profiles predicted summative performance. Methods: We used a mixed-methods design. Students responded to patient prompts using specific MI skills (open-ended questions, affirmations, and reflections; 4 per skill) after brief instruction (T1) and during a midterm examination (T2; 3 items). Claude Artificial Intelligence (AI) performed initial coding using a qualitative constant-comparison protocol; the code registry reached saturation at n = 200. Five independent human coders validated the AI-generated codes. Results: Claude AI coded MI skill attempts with high agreement with the gold standard (linearly weighted kappa = 0.93). The two most prevalent (of seven derived) errors at T1 were the fixing reflex (advising or correcting the patient; 79%) and responding to or eliciting sustain talk (75%). All error types decreased significantly by T2 (ps < 0.001). Structural errors (e.g., wrong form) fell below 8%, whereas the fixing reflex (16%) and sustain-talk responding (52%) proved more durable. Latent profile analysis identified three groups: Attuned (64%; hallmark: successful enactment), Misaligned (17%; hallmark: fixing reflex), and Unanchored (18%; hallmark: generic responding). Misaligned students scored significantly lower at T2; Unanchored students matched the Attuned group. Conclusions: Structural errors yield to standard teaching, whereas the fixing reflex and sustain-talk responding require deliberate practice focused on subcomponents of affirming and reflecting. AI made it possible to provide individualized, criterion-referenced feedback to 437 students and to systematically code nearly 7000 responses.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Oral
Published
2026-08-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/oral6040097
Primary Topic
Dental Research and COVID-19
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Teaching Motivational Interviewing Skills Using Deliberate Practice with Artificial Intelligence Scoring and Feedback

Amy M. Smith Slep, Kelly A. Daly, Jennifer Piscitello, Ana Ivic et al.
Oral
Dental Research and COVID-19
article

Teaching Motivational Interviewing Skills Using Deliberate Practice with Artificial Intelligence Scoring and Feedback

Amy M. Smith Slep, Kelly A. Daly, Jennifer Piscitello, Ana Ivic, Richard E. Heyman, Kimberly A. Rhoades, Jasara N. Hogan, Danielle M. Mitnick, Anna Segura, Alexandra K. Wojda-Burlij
article en

Abstract

Background/Objectives: We analyzed 6555 written motivational interviewing (MI) skill attempts from 437 second-year dental students to (a) construct an inductive taxonomy of skill-enactment errors, (b) test whether error prevalence decreased after instruction, and (c) determine whether formative-error profiles predicted summative performance. Methods: We used a mixed-methods design. Students responded to patient prompts using specific MI skills (open-ended questions, affirmations, and reflections; 4 per skill) after brief instruction (T1) and during a midterm examination (T2; 3 items). Claude Artificial Intelligence (AI) performed initial coding using a qualitative constant-comparison protocol; the code registry reached saturation at n = 200. Five independent human coders validated the AI-generated codes. Results: Claude AI coded MI skill attempts with high agreement with the gold standard (linearly weighted kappa = 0.93). The two most prevalent (of seven derived) errors at T1 were the fixing reflex (advising or correcting the patient; 79%) and responding to or eliciting sustain talk (75%). All error types decreased significantly by T2 (ps < 0.001). Structural errors (e.g., wrong form) fell below 8%, whereas the fixing reflex (16%) and sustain-talk responding (52%) proved more durable. Latent profile analysis identified three groups: Attuned (64%; hallmark: successful enactment), Misaligned (17%; hallmark: fixing reflex), and Unanchored (18%; hallmark: generic responding). Misaligned students scored significantly lower at T2; Unanchored students matched the Attuned group. Conclusions: Structural errors yield to standard teaching, whereas the fixing reflex and sustain-talk responding require deliberate practice focused on subcomponents of affirming and reflecting. AI made it possible to provide individualized, criterion-referenced feedback to 437 students and to systematically code nearly 7000 responses.

OralVol. 6(4)
Universitat de Vic - Universitat Central de Catalunya (ES), New York University (US)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Dental Research and COVID-19
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.