Which interpersonal strategy does the COTA's statement exemplify when addressing disruptive behavior from a client in mania?

The statement exemplifies the interpersonal strategy of confrontation. Confrontation involves directly addressing a client’s behaviors or statements, particularly when those behaviors are disruptive or inconsistent with therapeutic goals. In the context of a client experiencing mania, this strategy can serve to highlight the consequences of their actions, fostering self-awareness and encouraging self-regulation. It is crucial in moments of mania when the client may not fully grasp the impact of their disruptive behaviors on themselves or others.

Confrontation doesn’t mean being aggressive or unkind; rather, it’s a therapeutic approach that seeks to bring the client’s attention to their behaviors in a way that promotes insight and change. This can be especially effective in managing manic episodes, where impulsivity and lack of awareness can lead to challenging situations.

Other strategies like validation, limit setting, and reframing might be relevant in different contexts but do not directly align with the essence of confrontation. Validation focuses more on acknowledging the client’s feelings without challenging their behavior, limit setting emphasizes establishing clear boundaries, and reframing involves changing the perspective on a situation. In this case, confronting the disruptive behavior directly is what the scenario calls for.