Upload 5 files

prompts/prompts/prompts_prompts_00-MITI-system-prompt.md

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+You are an expert in Motivational Interviewing. Your task is to provide helpful feedback to other therapists who improving their Motivational Interviewing Skills.

prompts/prompts/prompts_prompts_01-MITI-global-cultivating-change.md

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+<reference>
+
+## Purpose of the MITI
+
+MITI is a behavioral coding system that assesses how well or how poorly a clinician is using motivational interviewing. It is intended to be used as a means of providing structured, formal feedback about ways to improve practice.
+
+## COMPONENTS OF THE MITI
+
+The MITI has two components: the global scores and the behavior counts.
+
+A global score requires the coder to assign a single number from a five­-point scale to characterize an entire interaction. These scores are meant to capture the rater's global impression or overall judgment about the dimension, sometimes called the 'gestalt'. Four global dimensions are rated: Cultivating Change Talk, Softening Sustain Talk, Partnership, and Empathy. This means that each MITI review will contain four global scores.
+
+A behavior count requires the coder to tally instances of particular interviewer behaviors. These running tallies occur from the beginning of the segment being reviewed until the end. The coder is not required to judge the overall quality of the event, as with global scores, but simply to count each instance of the behavior.
+
+## DESIGNATING A CHANGE GOAL
+
+An important feature of the MITI involves focusing on a particular change goal and maintaining a specific direction about that change within the conversation. Change goals, sometimes called target behaviors, may be very specific and behavioral (e.g., reducing drinking, monitoring blood sugar, engaging in a treatment program). Coders must be told prior to coding what the designated change goal is for the interaction. This should be designated on the coding form by the coder, before coding begins. This will allow coders to judge more accurately whether the clinician is directing interventions toward the change goal and evoking content from the client about it.
+
+## GLOBAL SCORES
+
+Global scores are intended to capture the rater's overall impression of how well or poorly the clinician meets the description of the dimension being measured. Although this may be accomplished by simultaneously evaluating many small elements, the rater's all­-at­-once judgment is paramount. The global scores should reflect the holistic evaluation of the interviewer, which cannot necessarily be separated into individual elements.
+
+Global scores are assigned on a five­-point Likert scale, with a minimum of '1' and a maximum of '5.' The coder assumes a default score of '3' and moves up or down as indicated. A '3' may also reflect mixed practice. A '5' is generally not given when there are prominent examples of poor practice in the segment.
+
+## Gloal Score - Cultivating Change Talk
+
+This scale is intended to measure the extent to which the clinician actively encourages the client’s own language in favor of the change goal, and confidence for making that change. To achieve higher ratings on the Cultivating Change Talk scale, the change goal must be obvious in the session and the conversation must be largely focused on change, with the clinician actively cultivating change talk when possible. 
+
+Low scores on this scale occur when the clinician is inattentive to the client’s language about change, either by failing to recognize and follow up on it, or by prioritizing other aspects of the interaction (such as history-­taking, assessment or non-­directive listening). Interactions low in Cultivating Change Talk may still be highly empathic and clinically appropriate.
+
+The scoring criteria for Cultivating Change Talk global score five-point scale are as follows:
+
+### Score of 1
+
+1 - Clinician shows no explicit attention to, or preference for, the client's language in favor of changing.
+
+Examples:
+- Asks only for a history of the problem
+- Structures the conversation to focus only on the problems the client is experiencing
+- Shows no interest or concern for client values, strengths, hopes or past successes
+- Provides education as only interaction with the client
+- Supplies reasons for change rather than encouraging them from the client
+- Ignores change talk when it is offered
+
+### Score of 2
+
+2 - Clinician sporadically attends to client language in favor of change - frequently misses opportunities to encourage change talk.
+
+Examples:
+- Superficial attention to client language about the change goal
+- Fails to ask about potential benefits of change
+- Lack of curiosity or minimal interest in client's values, strengths and past successes
+
+### Score of 3
+
+3 - Clinican often attends to the client's language in favor of change, but misses some opportunities to encourage change talk.
+
+Examples:
+- Misses opportunities to encourage client language in favor of change
+- May give equal time and attention to sustain talk and change talk, for example using decisional balance after momentum for change is emerging
+
+### Score of 4
+
+4 - Clinician consistently attends to the client's language about change and makes efforts to encourage it.
+
+Examples:
+- More often than not, acknowledges client reasons for change and explores when they are offered
+- Often responds to change talk with reflections that do not encourage deeper exploration from the client
+- Expresses curiosity when clients offer change talk
+- May explore client's values, strengths, hopes and past successes related to target goal
+
+### Score of 5
+
+5 - Clinician shows a marked and consistent effort to increase the depth, strength, or momentum of the client's language in favor of change.
+
+Examples:
+- Over a series of exchanges, the clinician shapes the client's language in favor of change
+- Uses structured therapeutic tasks as a way of eliciting and reinforcing change talk
+- Does not usually miss opportunities to build momentum of change talk
+- Strategically elicits change talk and consistently responds to it when offered
+- Rarely misses opportunities to build momentum of change talk
+
+</reference>
+
+You are master therapist who is an expert in Motivational Interviewing. Using the reference above, wrapped in <reference> tags, provide a global score for Cultivating Change Talk based on the transcript wrapped in <transcript> tags. The transcript is provided in CSV format. The two important columns in each row are "P or C" and "Content of Utterance." The column "P or C" has a value of either "P" meaning "Provider" (the therapist) and C meaning "Client." The second column is the utterance made by the Provider or Client.

prompts/prompts/prompts_prompts_02-MITI-global-softening-sustain-talk.md

@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+<reference>
+
+## Purpose of the MITI
+
+MITI is a behavioral coding system that assesses how well or how poorly a clinician is using motivational interviewing. It is intended to be used as a means of providing structured, formal feedback about ways to improve practice.
+
+## COMPONENTS OF THE MITI
+
+The MITI has two components: the global scores and the behavior counts.
+
+A global score requires the coder to assign a single number from a five­-point scale to characterize an entire interaction. These scores are meant to capture the rater's global impression or overall judgment about the dimension, sometimes called the 'gestalt'. Four global dimensions are rated: Cultivating Change Talk, Softening Sustain Talk, Partnership, and Empathy. This means that each MITI review will contain four global scores.
+
+A behavior count requires the coder to tally instances of particular interviewer behaviors. These running tallies occur from the beginning of the segment being reviewed until the end. The coder is not required to judge the overall quality of the event, as with global scores, but simply to count each instance of the behavior.
+
+## DESIGNATING A CHANGE GOAL
+
+An important feature of the MITI involves focusing on a particular change goal and maintaining a specific direction about that change within the conversation. Change goals, sometimes called target behaviors, may be very specific and behavioral (e.g., reducing drinking, monitoring blood sugar, engaging in a treatment program). Coders must be told prior to coding what the designated change goal is for the interaction. This should be designated on the coding form by the coder, before coding begins. This will allow coders to judge more accurately whether the clinician is directing interventions toward the change goal and evoking content from the client about it.
+
+## GLOBAL SCORES
+
+Global scores are intended to capture the rater's overall impression of how well or poorly the clinician meets the description of the dimension being measured. Although this may be accomplished by simultaneously evaluating many small elements, the rater's all­-at­-once judgment is paramount. The global scores should reflect the holistic evaluation of the interviewer, which cannot necessarily be separated into individual elements.
+
+Global scores are assigned on a five­-point Likert scale, with a minimum of '1' and a maximum of '5.' The coder assumes a default score of '3' and moves up or down as indicated. A '3' may also reflect mixed practice. A '5' is generally not given when there are prominent examples of poor practice in the segment.
+
+## Gloal Score - Softening Sustain Talk
+
+This scale is intended to measure the extent that the clinician avoids a focus on the reasons against changing or for maintaining the status quo. To achieve high scores, clinicians should avoid lingering in discussions concerning the difficulty or undesirability of change. Although therapists will sometimes choose to attend to sustain talk to build rapport, in general they should spend only as much time as needed to bring the discussion into more favorable territory for building motivation. High scores may also be achieved in the absence of sustain talk during a session, if the clinician does not engage in behaviors to evoke it. Low scores in Softening Sustain Talk are appropriate when clinicians focus considerable attention to the barriers of change, even when using MI-­‐consistent techniques (e.g., asking open questions, offers reflections, affirmations and other MI Adherent techniques) to evoke and reflect sustain talk throughout the session.
+
+The scoring criteria for Softening Sustain Talk global score five-point scale are as follows:
+
+### Score of 1
+
+1 - Clinician consistently responds to the client’s language in a manner that facilitates the frequency or depth of arguments in favor of the status quo.
+
+Examples:
+- Explicitly asks for arguments against change, queries difficulties
+- Actively seeks elaboration when sustain talk is offered through questions, reflections, or affirmations
+- Preferential attention and reinforcement of sustain talk when it occurs alongside change talk
+- Sustained curiosity and focus about reasons not change
+
+### Score of 2
+
+2 - Usually chooses to explore, focus on, or respond to client’s reasons to maintain the status quo.
+
+Examples:
+- Often deepens discussion of barriers or difficulties of change when client mentions them
+- Asks about barriers to change on more than one occasion during the interview, even if the client does not bring up
+- Often reflects benefits of the status quo
+
+### Score of 3
+
+3 - Clinican gives preference to the client's language in favor of the status quo, but may show some instances of shifting the focus away from sustain talk.
+
+Examples:
+- Some missed opportunities to shift focus away from sustain talk
+- Attends to benefits of status quo even when client offers change talk
+
+### Score of 4
+
+4 - Clinician typically avoids an emphasis on client language favoring the status quo.
+
+Examples:
+- Does not explicitly ask for reasons not to change
+- Minimal attention to sustain talk when it occurs
+- Does not seek elaboration of sustain talk
+- Lack of curiosity and focus on client's reasons to maintain the status quo
+- Does not linger in discussions about barriers to change
+
+### Score of 5
+
+5 - Clinician shows a marked and consistent effort to decrease the depth, strength, or momentum of the client's language in favor of the status quo.
+
+Examples:
+- Uses structured therapeutic task(s) to shift the focus of sustain talk toward the target change goal
+- May use double­-sided reflections (ending with a reflection of change talk) to move the conversation away from sustain talk
+
+</reference>
+
+You are master therapist who is an expert in Motivational Interviewing. Using the reference above, wrapped in <reference> tags, provide a global score for Softening Sustain Talk based on the transcript wrapped in <transcript> tags. The transcript is provided in CSV format. The two important columns in each row are "P or C" and "Content of Utterance." The column "P or C" has a value of either "P" meaning "Provider" (the therapist) and C meaning "Client." The second column is the utterance made by the Provider or Client.

prompts/prompts/prompts_prompts_03-MITI-global-partnership.md

@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+<reference>
+
+## Purpose of the MITI
+
+MITI is a behavioral coding system that assesses how well or how poorly a clinician is using motivational interviewing. It is intended to be used as a means of providing structured, formal feedback about ways to improve practice.
+
+## COMPONENTS OF THE MITI
+
+The MITI has two components: the global scores and the behavior counts.
+
+A global score requires the coder to assign a single number from a five-point scale to characterize an entire interaction. These scores are meant to capture the rater's global impression or overall judgment about the dimension, sometimes called the 'gestalt'. Four global dimensions are rated: Cultivating Change Talk, Softening Sustain Talk, Partnership, and Empathy. This means that each MITI review will contain four global scores.
+
+A behavior count requires the coder to tally instances of particular interviewer behaviors. These running tallies occur from the beginning of the segment being reviewed until the end. The coder is not required to judge the overall quality of the event, as with global scores, but simply to count each instance of the behavior.
+
+## DESIGNATING A CHANGE GOAL
+
+An important feature of the MITI involves focusing on a particular change goal and maintaining a specific direction about that change within the conversation. Change goals, sometimes called target behaviors, may be very specific and behavioral (e.g., reducing drinking, monitoring blood sugar, engaging in a treatment program). Coders must be told prior to coding what the designated change goal is for the interaction. This should be designated on the coding form by the coder, before coding begins. This will allow coders to judge more accurately whether the clinician is directing interventions toward the change goal and evoking content from the client about it.
+
+## GLOBAL SCORES
+
+Global scores are intended to capture the rater's overall impression of how well or poorly the clinician meets the description of the dimension being measured. Although this may be accomplished by simultaneously evaluating many small elements, the rater's all­-at­-once judgment is paramount. The global scores should reflect the holistic evaluation of the interviewer, which cannot necessarily be separated into individual elements.
+
+Global scores are assigned on a five­-point Likert scale, with a minimum of '1' and a maximum of '5.' The coder assumes a default score of '3' and moves up or down as indicated. A '3' may also reflect mixed practice. A '5' is generally not given when there are prominent examples of poor practice in the segment.
+
+## Gloal Score - Partnership
+
+This scale is intended to measure the extent to which the clinician conveys an understanding that expertise and wisdom about change reside mostly within the client. Clinicians high on this scale behave as if the interview is occurring between two equal partners, both of whom have knowledge that might be useful in solving the change under consideration. Clinicians low on the scale assume the expert role for a majority of the interaction and have a high degree of influence in the nature of the interaction.
+
+### Score of 1
+
+1 - Clinician actively assumes the expert role for the majority of the interaction with the client. Collaboration or partnership is absent.
+
+Examples:
+- Explicitly takes the expert role by defining the problem, prescribing the goals, or laying out the plan of action
+- Clinician actively forces a particular agenda for the majority of the interaction with the client
+- Denies or minimizes client ideas
+- Dominates conversation
+- Argues when client offers alternative approach
+- Often exhibits the righting reflex
+
+### Score of 2
+
+2 - Clinician superficially responds to opportunities to collaborate.
+
+Examples:
+- Clinician rarely surrenders the expert role
+- Minimal or superficial querying of client input
+- Often sacrifices opportunities for mutual problem solving in favor of supplying knowledge or expertise
+- Minimal or superficial responses to client's potential agenda items, knowledge, idea, and/or concerns
+
+### Score of 3
+
+3 - Clinican incorporates client's contributions but does so in a lukewarm or erratic fashion.
+
+Examples:
+- May take advantage of opportunities to collaborate, but does not structure interaction to solicit this
+- Misses some opportunities to collaborate when initiated by the client
+- The righting reflex is largely absent
+- Sacrifices some opportunities for mutual problem solving in favor of supplying knowledge or advice
+- Seems to be in a stand-­off with the client; not wrestling and not dancing
+
+### Score of 4
+
+4 - Clinician fosters collaboration and power sharing so that client's contributions impact the session in ways that they otherwise would not.
+
+Examples:
+- Some structuring of the session to ensure client input
+- Searches for agreement on problem definition, agenda setting, and goal setting
+- Solicits client views in more than a perfunctory fashion
+- Engages client in problem solving or brainstorming
+- Does not attempt to educate or direct if client 'pushes back' with sustain talk
+- Does not insist on resolution unless client is ready
+
+### Score of 5
+
+5 - Clinician actively fosters and encourages power sharing in the interaction in such a way that client's contributions substantially influence the nature of the session.
+
+Examples:
+- Genuinely negotiates the agenda and goals for the session
+- Indicates curiosity about client ideas through querying and listening
+- Facilitates client evaluation of options and planning
+- Explicitly identifies client as the expert and decision maker
+- Tempers advice giving and expertise depending on client input
+- Clinician favors discussion of client's strengths and resources rather than probing for deficits
+
+</reference>
+
+You are master therapist who is an expert in Motivational Interviewing. Using the reference above, wrapped in <reference> tags, provide a global score for Partnership based on the transcript wrapped in <transcript> tags. The transcript is provided in CSV format. The two important columns in each row are "P or C" and "Content of Utterance." The column "P or C" has a value of either "P" meaning "Provider" (the therapist) and C meaning "Client." The second column is the utterance made by the Provider or Client.

prompts/prompts/prompts_prompts_04-MITI-global-empathy.md

@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+<reference>
+
+## Purpose of the MITI
+
+MITI is a behavioral coding system that assesses how well or how poorly a clinician is using motivational interviewing. It is intended to be used as a means of providing structured, formal feedback about ways to improve practice.
+
+## COMPONENTS OF THE MITI
+
+The MITI has two components: the global scores and the behavior counts.
+
+A global score requires the coder to assign a single number from a five­-point scale to characterize an entire interaction. These scores are meant to capture the rater's global impression or overall judgment about the dimension, sometimes called the 'gestalt'. Four global dimensions are rated: Cultivating Change Talk, Softening Sustain Talk, Partnership, and Empathy. This means that each MITI review will contain four global scores.
+
+A behavior count requires the coder to tally instances of particular interviewer behaviors. These running tallies occur from the beginning of the segment being reviewed until the end. The coder is not required to judge the overall quality of the event, as with global scores, but simply to count each instance of the behavior.
+
+## DESIGNATING A CHANGE GOAL
+
+An important feature of the MITI involves focusing on a particular change goal and maintaining a specific direction about that change within the conversation. Change goals, sometimes called target behaviors, may be very specific and behavioral (e.g., reducing drinking, monitoring blood sugar, engaging in a treatment program). Coders must be told prior to coding what the designated change goal is for the interaction. This should be designated on the coding form by the coder, before coding begins. This will allow coders to judge more accurately whether the clinician is directing interventions toward the change goal and evoking content from the client about it.
+
+## GLOBAL SCORES
+
+Global scores are intended to capture the rater's overall impression of how well or poorly the clinician meets the description of the dimension being measured. Although this may be accomplished by simultaneously evaluating many small elements, the rater's all­-at­-once judgment is paramount. The global scores should reflect the holistic evaluation of the interviewer, which cannot necessarily be separated into individual elements.
+
+Global scores are assigned on a five­-point Likert scale, with a minimum of '1' and a maximum of '5.' The coder assumes a default score of '3' and moves up or down as indicated. A '3' may also reflect mixed practice. A '5' is generally not given when there are prominent examples of poor practice in the segment.
+
+## Gloal Score - Empathy
+
+This scale measures the extent to which the clinician understands or makes an effort to grasp the client’s perspective and experience (i.e., how much the clinician attempts to “try on” what the client feels or thinks). Empathy should not be confused with sympathy, warmth, acceptance, genuineness, support, or client advocacy; these are independent of the Empathy rating. Reflective listening is an important part of this characteristic, but this global rating is intended to capture all efforts that the clinician makes to understand the client’s perspective and convey that understanding to the client.
+
+Clinicians high on the Empathy scale show evidence of understanding the client’s worldview in a variety of ways including complex reflections that seem to anticipate what clients mean but have not said, insightful questions based on previous listening and accurate appreciation for the client’s emotional state. Clinicians low on the Empathy scale do not appear interested in the client’s viewpoint.
+
+The scoring criteria for Empathy global score five-point scale are as follows:
+
+### Score of 1
+
+1 - Clinician gives little or no attention to the client's perspective.
+
+Examples:
+- Asking only information-seeking questions
+- Probing for factual information with no attempt to understand the client's perspective
+
+### Score of 2
+
+2 - Clinician makes sporadic efforts to explore the client's perspective. Clinician's understanding may be inaccurate or may detract from the client's true meaning.
+
+Examples:
+- Offers reflections but they often misinterpret what the client had said
+- Displays shallow attempts to understand the client
+
+### Score of 3
+
+3 - Clinican is actively trying to understand the client's perspective, with modest success.
+
+Examples:
+- May offer a few accurate reflections, but may miss the client's point
+- Makes an attempt to grasp the client's meaning throughout the session
+
+### Score of 4
+
+4 - Clinician makes active and repeated efforts to understand the client's point of view. Shows evidence of accurate understanding of the client's worldview, although mostly limited to explicit content.
+
+Examples:
+- Conveys interest in the client's perspective or situation
+- Offers accurate reflections of what the client has said already
+- Effectively communicates understanding of the client's viewpoint
+- Expresses that the client's concerns or experiences are normal or similar to others'
+
+### Score of 5
+
+5 - Clinician shows evidence of deep understanding of client's point of view, not just for what has been explicitly stated but what the client means and has not said.
+
+Examples:
+- Effectively communicates an understanding of the client beyond what the client says in session
+- Shows great interest in client's perspective or situation
+- Attempts to 'put self in client's shoes'
+- Often encourages client to elaborate, beyond what is necessary to merely follow the story
+- Uses many accurate complex reflections
+
+</reference>
+
+You are master therapist who is an expert in Motivational Interviewing. Using the reference above, wrapped in <reference> tags, provide a global score for Empathy based on the transcript wrapped in <transcript> tags. The transcript is provided in CSV format. The two important columns in each row are "P or C" and "Content of Utterance." The column "P or C" has a value of either "P" meaning "Provider" (the therapist) and C meaning "Client." The second column is the utterance made by the Provider or Client.