MSW 512 Week 2 Intervention Model Write-Up Example

Direct Practice II Chamberlain University Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

This MSW 512 Week 2 sample paper argues that motivational interviewing targets the mechanism holding M.'s drinking in place: pressure from others that draws M. into defending drinking. Chamberlain MSW 512 (MSW-512), Direct Practice II, asks Master of Social Work (MSW) students to write a model as an argument with a case inside it. The write-up sets out M.'s reasons on both sides, explains change talk and sustain talk with Miller and Rollnick and the causal chain Moyers and colleagues traced to drinking outcomes, outlines four sessions from engaging to planning, lists what the worker will not do, adapts for phone sessions and sets a way to know it is working.

CourseMSW 512 Direct Practice II
Week2
Paper typeIntervention model write-up
LengthAbout 510 words, 5 pages
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolChamberlain University
ProgramMaster of Social Work (MSW)
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for MSW 512 Week 2

1

Intervention Model Write-Up: Motivational Interviewing for M.'s Ambivalence About Drinking, the Mechanism Holding the Problem in Place, How the Model Targets It Rather Than Drinking in General and What Four Sessions Will Contain

Student Name

Chamberlain University

MSW 512: Direct Practice II

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title presents the model as an argument about one client's mechanism, which is what separates a model write-up from a summary of theory.
2

Intervention Model Write-Up: Motivational Interviewing for M.'s Ambivalence About Drinking, the Mechanism Holding the Problem in Place, How the Model Targets It Rather Than Drinking in General and What Four Sessions Will Contain

What Holds the Problem in Place

M. holds two sets of reasons at once. Against drinking: the arrest, the suspended commercial license, which is M.'s income, and the spouse's anger. For drinking: it is how M. relaxes after two-week runs, it is what M.'s friends and father did and stopping would mean admitting a problem M. does not believe M. has. When the spouse pushes, M. argues for drinking, which strengthens M.'s own case for it. That loop, pressure producing defense, is the mechanism.

What this page is doingNaming the mechanism in this client's material, rather than restating the theory, is what the write-up is graded on.
3

How the Model Targets It

Motivational interviewing works on the balance of what a person says in favor of change, change talk, and against it, sustain talk (Miller & Rollnick, 2013). Arguing with M. would repeat the spouse's pressure and draw more sustain talk. The model asks the worker to evoke M.'s own reasons, reflect them back and avoid the righting reflex. Research on in-session processes has linked therapist behaviors consistent with the model to more client change talk, and change talk in turn to drinking outcomes (Moyers et al., 2009). The target is not drinking in general; it is what M. says about drinking in the room.

Four Sessions

Session 1, engaging: hear M.'s account of the arrest and of life on the road; no talk of change unless M. raises it. Session 2, focusing: agree with M. on what the work is about; M. may choose the license rather than the drinking. Session 3, evoking: explore M.'s reasons for and against, using a decisional balance M. fills in and questions about what M. values as a parent. Session 4, planning only if M. signals readiness, such as saying, "I can't lose the license again."

Moves to Avoid

The sessions will not label M. an alcoholic, present the arrest as proof or give advice unless M. asks for it. Each of these would feed the loop.

What this page is doingListing what the worker will avoid shows the model's logic carried into specific behavior.
4

Adaptations

M. is on the road for two weeks at a time once the license is restored, so later sessions may need to be by phone. The model's spirit carries over to phone sessions, but reflections must be spoken more slowly without visual cues.

Signs of Progress

The check is a count of change talk and sustain talk in recorded sessions. A shift toward change talk by session 3 suggests the model is working; if sustain talk rises, I am likely pushing.

If the counts do not move by session 4, I will ask M. directly what would make the sessions more useful, which is itself consistent with the model.

What this page is doingSetting a countable sign of progress lets the worker judge the model in the room rather than by impression.
5

References

Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2013). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.

Moyers, T. B., Martin, T., Houck, J. M., Christopher, P. J., & Tonigan, J. S. (2009). From in-session behaviors to drinking outcomes: A causal chain for motivational interviewing. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(6), 1113-1124. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017189

Reading the MSW 512 Week 2 instructions

In week 2, the task is an intervention model write-up. Make it an argument, not a summary of theory. Say what appears to hold the problem in place for this client system, then show that the model targets that mechanism rather than the problem in general. Keep theory to what the case needs. Outline session content, often session by session, and say what the worker will avoid. Note any adaptation the client's situation requires. Close with how you will know whether the model is working. If the assigned case does not suit the week's model, say so and explain what you would adapt. Cite the model's core sources and any evidence on its mechanism.

How this MSW 512 Week 2 example is built

The mechanism section sets out M.'s reasons against drinking, the arrest, the license and the spouse's anger, and for it, relaxation after runs, family habit and not believing there is a problem, then names the loop in which pressure produces defense. The targeting section explains change talk and sustain talk from Miller and Rollnick (2013) and cites Moyers et al. (2009) linking therapist behavior to change talk and drinking outcomes. Four sessions follow: engaging, focusing, evoking with a decisional balance and planning only if M. signals readiness. A section lists what the worker will not do. Adaptations cover phone sessions on the road. The last section counts change and sustain talk to judge progress.

Reading the MSW 512 Week 2 grading rubric

Model write-ups are graded first on the mechanism. A paper that restates the model's theory without naming what holds this client's problem in place earns little. Showing that the model targets that mechanism carries the largest share. Session content should follow from the model and the case. Faculty credit a clear list of what the worker will avoid, since it shows the model's logic in behavior. Adaptations for the client's situation are expected. A way to judge whether the model is working rounds out the main criteria.Every citation should match an APA reference entry. Theory should appear only where the case needs it.

MSW 512 Week 2 help from the desk

Model write-ups commonly summarize the theory for two pages and attach the case in a final paragraph. Another frequent gap is a session outline that could apply to any client. Some papers also skip how the worker will know the model is working. If your case or model is different, such as cognitive behavioral work for anxiety or solution-focused work with a family, send the case and the model; we would name the mechanism, show how the model targets it, outline sessions, list what to avoid, note adaptations and set a measure of progress. A session-by-session outline would be included when your section asks for one, with each session tied to the mechanism.

Get a MSW-512 Week 2 example written to your instructions

Hand over the assignment brief, the rubric and the case your section assigned. We write a custom MSW-512 Week 2 intervention model write-up against them and have it back with you in 24-48h, no charge on the first. A finished argument beside your own case shows quickly where a rationale stops arguing.

Request this week free All MSW-512 weeks Finished samples

More MSW 512 papers and MSW samples

MSW 512 Week 2 questions, answered

Does the write-up need a session by session outline?

Some sections ask for one and some want the model described at the level of components. Either way the marks follow specificity. Naming what happens in an early session, what changes by the middle, and what the person is asked to do between meetings gives a grader something to judge. A phase list with no content in it does not.

How much theory belongs in the document?

Enough to make the mechanism claim legible and no more. A common shape is a short paragraph establishing what the model says maintains problems of this kind, then everything after it applied to the assigned material. Write-ups that spend half their length on the model's history usually run out of room exactly where the rubric starts paying.

What if the assigned case does not suit the model the week is teaching?

Say so and defend the fit you can make. An honest write-up that identifies where the model strains against this presentation, keeps the components that still apply and names what it cannot reach, reads as advanced practice. A forced fit that reports the approach working smoothly on material it was never designed for reads as the opposite.

Where can I find a free MSW 512 Week 2 sample paper?

A complete MSW 512 Week 2 intervention model write-up applying motivational interviewing to one client's ambivalence about drinking is on this page.

How will the worker know the model is working in the MSW 512 Week 2 sample?

By counting change talk and sustain talk in recorded sessions and looking for a shift toward change talk by the third session.