Evaluating Prochaska's six stage model

Question 1

A03 - Supporting evidence?

Answer 1

P - Supporting evidence for the model and it’s usefulness as a way of facilitating behaviour change (e.g. to recover from addiction)

E - Velicer et al (2007) conducted a meta - analysis and found there was a robust 22 - 26% success rate for reducing addictive behaviours using model. There were also no demographic differences (e.g. age etc). However, succes was dependent on the smoking habits (e.g. frequancy).

E - This suggests that the model can put to good effect in positive behavioural change.

• Velicer et al (2007)
• meta analysis
• 22 - 26 %
• demographic changes

Question 2

A03 - Practical applications?

Answer 2

P - The model has practical applications as it has led to measures being developed.

E - For example, appropiate interventions can be administered depending on the stage and treatment can be personalised to suit the needs of the individual.

E - For instance, someone in the contemption phase may be advised to re-evaluate the pros and cons of the behaviour whereas someone in the action phase may be encouraged to use NRP to help stopping smoking.

L - This has a strength because it will make support more tailored and person - control treatments are considerbly more successful in helping the individual.

• Practical applications
• contemption phase
• re-evaluate pros/cons
• NRP

Question 3

A03 - Contradicting research?

Answer 3

P - However, other research contradicts these findings about the model.

E - For example, Aveyard et al (2009) found no increase in effectivness if the intervention was tailored to Prochaska’s stages of change for individuals trying to stop smoking.

L - This clealy contradicts the evidence found by Velicer et al (2007). and suggests aspects of the model may be less clear cut and unreliable.

• Aveyard et al (2009)
• no increase