Motivational Interviewing changes the treatment trajectory of group Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy for anxiety

Anxiety disorders have been viewed as manifestations of broad underlying predisposing personality constructs such as neuroticism combined with more specific individual differences of unhelpful information processing styles. Given the high prevalence of anxiety and the significant impairment that it causes, there is an important need to continue to explore successful treatments for this disorder. Research indicates that there is still room for significantly improving attrition rates and treatment adherence. Traditionally Motivational Interviewing (MI) has been used to facilitate health behaviour change. Recently MI has been applied to psychotherapy and has been shown to improve the outcome of CBT. However, these studies have been limited to only considering pre- and post-treatment measures and neglected to consider when changes occur along the course of therapy. This leaves the unanswered question of what is the impact of pre-treatment MI on the treatment trajectory of therapy. This study provides preliminary research into answering this question by tracking changes on a weekly basis along the course of group CBT. Prior to group CBT, 40 individuals with a principal anxiety disorder diagnosis were randomly assigned to receive either 3 individual sessions of MI or placed on a waitlist control group. All participants then received the same dosage of 10 weekly 2 hour sessions of group CBT. Tracking treatment outcome trajectory over the course of CBT, the pre-treatment MI group, compared to the control group, experienced a greater improvement early on in the course of therapy in their symptom distress, interpersonal relationships and quality of life. This early advantage over the control group was then maintained throughout therapy. These results not only demonstrate the value of adding MI to CBT, but also highlight the immediacy of MI effects. Further research is needed to determine the robustness of these effects to inform clinical implications of how to best apply MI to improve treatment adherence to CBT for anxiety disorders.

Identifying constraints on children with movement difficulties : implications for pedagogues and clinicians

A constraints- based framework for understanding processes of movement coordination and control is predicated on a range of theoretical ideas including the work of Bernstein (1967), Gibson (1979), Newell (1986) and Kugler, Kelso & Turvey (1982). Contrary to a normative perspective that focuses on the production of idealized movement patterns to be acquired by children during development and learning (see Alain & Brisson, 1986), this approach formulates the emergence of movement co- ordination as a function of the constraints imposed upon each individual. In this framework, cognitive, perceptual and movement difficulties and disorders are considered to be constraints on the perceptual- motor system, and children’s movements are viewed as emergent functional adaptations to these constraints (Davids et al., 2008; Rosengren, Savelsbergh & van der Kamp, 2003). From this perspective, variability of movement behaviour is not viewed as noise or error to be eradicated during development, but rather, as essentially functional in facilitating the child to satisfy the unique constraints which impinge on his/her developing perceptual- motor and cognitive systems in everyday life (Davids et al., 2008). Recently, it has been reported that functional neurobiological variability is predicated on system degeneracy, an inherent feature of neurobiological systems which facilitates the achievement of task performance goals in a variety of different ways (Glazier & Davids, 2009). Degeneracy refers to the capacity of structurally different components of complex movement systems to achieve different performance outcomes in varying contexts (Tononi et al., 1999; Edelman & Gally, 2001). System degeneracy allows individuals with and without movement disorders to achieve their movement goals by harnessing movement variability during performance. Based on this idea, perceptual- motor disorders can be simply viewed as unique structural and functional system constraints which individuals have to satisfy in interactions with their environments. The aim of this chapter is to elucidate how the interaction of structural and functional organismic, and environmental constraints can be harnessed in a nonlinear pedagogy by individuals with movement disorders.

Model selection and error estimation

We study model selection strategies based on penalized empirical loss minimization. We point out a tight relationship between error estimation and data-based complexity penalization: any good error estimate may be converted into a data-based penalty function and the performance of the estimate is governed by the quality of the error estimate. We consider several penalty functions, involving error estimates on independent test data, empirical VC dimension, empirical VC entropy, and margin-based quantities. We also consider the maximal difference between the error on the first half of the training data and the second half, and the expected maximal discrepancy, a closely related capacity estimate that can be calculated by Monte Carlo integration. Maximal discrepancy penalty functions are appealing for pattern classification problems, since their computation is equivalent to empirical risk minimization over the training data with some labels flipped.

Learning the kernel matrix with semidefinite programming

Kernel-based learning algorithms work by embedding the data into a Euclidean space, and then searching for linear relations among the embedded data points. The embedding is performed implicitly, by specifying the inner products between each pair of points in the embedding space. This information is contained in the so-called kernel matrix, a symmetric and positive semidefinite matrix that encodes the relative positions of all points. Specifying this matrix amounts to specifying the geometry of the embedding space and inducing a notion of similarity in the input space - classical model selection problems in machine learning. In this paper we show how the kernel matrix can be learned from data via semidefinite programming (SDP) techniques. When applied to a kernel matrix associated with both training and test data this gives a powerful transductive algorithm -using the labeled part of the data one can learn an embedding also for the unlabeled part. The similarity between test points is inferred from training points and their labels. Importantly, these learning problems are convex, so we obtain a method for learning both the model class and the function without local minima. Furthermore, this approach leads directly to a convex method for learning the 2-norm soft margin parameter in support vector machines, solving an important open problem.

Rademacher and Gaussian complexities: Risk bounds and structural results

We investigate the use of certain data-dependent estimates of the complexity of a function class, called Rademacher and Gaussian complexities. In a decision theoretic setting, we prove general risk bounds in terms of these complexities. We consider function classes that can be expressed as combinations of functions from basis classes and show how the Rademacher and Gaussian complexities of such a function class can be bounded in terms of the complexity of the basis classes. We give examples of the application of these techniques in finding data-dependent risk bounds for decision trees, neural networks and support vector machines.

Classification with a reject option using a hinge loss

We consider the problem of binary classification where the classifier can, for a particular cost, choose not to classify an observation. Just as in the conventional classification problem, minimization of the sample average of the cost is a difficult optimization problem. As an alternative, we propose the optimization of a certain convex loss function φ, analogous to the hinge loss used in support vector machines (SVMs). Its convexity ensures that the sample average of this surrogate loss can be efficiently minimized. We study its statistical properties. We show that minimizing the expected surrogate loss—the φ-risk—also minimizes the risk. We also study the rate at which the φ-risk approaches its minimum value. We show that fast rates are possible when the conditional probability P(Y=1|X) is unlikely to be close to certain critical values.

Exponentiated gradient algorithms for conditional random fields and max-margin Markov Networks

Log-linear and maximum-margin models are two commonly-used methods in supervised machine learning, and are frequently used in structured prediction problems. Efficient learning of parameters in these models is therefore an important problem, and becomes a key factor when learning from very large data sets. This paper describes exponentiated gradient (EG) algorithms for training such models, where EG updates are applied to the convex dual of either the log-linear or max-margin objective function; the dual in both the log-linear and max-margin cases corresponds to minimizing a convex function with simplex constraints. We study both batch and online variants of the algorithm, and provide rates of convergence for both cases. In the max-margin case, O(1/ε) EG updates are required to reach a given accuracy ε in the dual; in contrast, for log-linear models only O(log(1/ε)) updates are required. For both the max-margin and log-linear cases, our bounds suggest that the online EG algorithm requires a factor of n less computation to reach a desired accuracy than the batch EG algorithm, where n is the number of training examples. Our experiments confirm that the online algorithms are much faster than the batch algorithms in practice. We describe how the EG updates factor in a convenient way for structured prediction problems, allowing the algorithms to be efficiently applied to problems such as sequence learning or natural language parsing. We perform extensive evaluation of the algorithms, comparing them to L-BFGS and stochastic gradient descent for log-linear models, and to SVM-Struct for max-margin models. The algorithms are applied to a multi-class problem as well as to a more complex large-scale parsing task. In all these settings, the EG algorithms presented here outperform the other methods.

The psychosocial factors influencing aggressive driving behaviour

Many drivers in highly motorised countries believe that aggressive driving is increasing. While the prevalence of the behaviour is difficult to reliably identify, the consequences of on-road aggression can be severe, with extreme cases resulting in property damage, injury and even death. This research program was undertaken to explore the nature of aggressive driving from within the framework of relevant psychological theory in order to enhance our understanding of the behaviour and to inform the development of relevant interventions. To guide the research a provisional ‘working’ definition of aggressive driving was proposed encapsulating the recurrent characteristics of the behaviour cited in the literature. The definition was: “aggressive driving is any on-road behaviour adopted by a driver that is intended to cause physical or psychological harm to another road user and is associated with feelings of frustration, anger or threat”. Two main theoretical perspectives informed the program of research. The first was Shinar’s (1998) frustration-aggression model, which identifies both the person-related and situational characteristics that contribute to aggressive driving, as well as proposing that aggressive behaviours can serve either an ‘instrumental’ or ‘hostile’ function. The second main perspective was Anderson and Bushman’s (2002) General Aggression Model. In contrast to Shinar’s model, the General Aggression Model reflects a broader perspective on human aggression that facilitates a more comprehensive examination of the emotional and cognitive aspects of aggressive behaviour. Study One (n = 48) examined aggressive driving behaviour from the perspective of young drivers as an at-risk group and involved conducting six focus groups, with eight participants in each. Qualitative analyses identified multiple situational and person-related factors that contribute to on-road aggression. Consistent with human aggression theory, examination of self-reported experiences of aggressive driving identified key psychological elements and processes that are experienced during on-road aggression. Participants cited several emotions experienced during an on-road incident: annoyance, frustration, anger, threat and excitement. Findings also suggest that off-road generated stress may transfer to the on-road environment, at times having severe consequences including crash involvement. Young drivers also appeared quick to experience negative attributions about the other driver, some having additional thoughts of taking action. Additionally, the results showed little difference between males and females in the severity of behavioural responses they were prepared to adopt, although females appeared more likely to displace their negative emotions. Following the self-reported on-road incident, evidence was also found of a post-event influence, with females being more likely to experience ongoing emotional effects after the event. This finding was evidenced by ruminating thoughts or distraction from tasks. However, the impact of such a post-event influence on later behaviours or interpersonal interactions appears to be minimal. Study Two involved the quantitative analysis of n = 926 surveys completed by a wide age range of drivers from across Queensland. The study aimed to explore the relationships between the theoretical components of aggressive driving that were identified in the literature review, and refined based on the findings of Study One. Regression analyses were used to examine participant emotional, cognitive and behavioural responses to two differing on-road scenarios whilst exploring the proposed theoretical framework. A number of socio-demographic, state and trait person-related variables such as age, pre-study emotions, trait aggression and problem-solving style were found to predict the likelihood of a negative emotional response such as frustration, anger, perceived threat, negative attributions and the likelihood of adopting either an instrumental or hostile behaviour in response to Scenarios One and Two. Complex relationships were found to exist between the variables, however, they were interpretable based on the literature review findings. Factor analysis revealed evidence supporting Shinar’s (1998) dichotomous description of on-road aggressive behaviours as being instrumental or hostile. The second stage of Study Two used logistic regression to examine the factors that predicted the potentially hostile aggressive drivers (n = 88) within the sample. These drivers were those who indicated a preparedness to engage in direct acts of interpersonal aggression on the road. Young, male drivers 17–24 years of age were more likely to be classified as potentially hostile aggressive drivers. Young drivers (17–24 years) also scored significantly higher than other drivers on all subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992) and on the ‘negative problem orientation’ and ‘impulsive careless style’ subscales of the Social Problem Solving Inventory – Revised (D’Zurilla, Nezu & Maydeu-Olivares, 2002). The potentially hostile aggressive drivers were also significantly more likely to engage in speeding and drink/drug driving behaviour. With regard to the emotional, cognitive and behavioural variables examined, the potentially hostile aggressive driver group also scored significantly higher than the ‘other driver’ group on most variables examined in the proposed theoretical framework. The variables contained in the framework of aggressive driving reliably distinguished potentially hostile aggressive drivers from other drivers (Nagalkerke R2 = .39). Study Three used a case study approach to conduct an in-depth examination of the psychosocial characteristics of n = 10 (9 males and 1 female) self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers. The self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers were aged 24–55 years of age. A large proportion of these drivers reported a Year 10 education or better and average–above average incomes. As a group, the drivers reported committing a number of speeding and unlicensed driving offences in the past three years and extensive histories of violations outside of this period. Considerable evidence was also found of exposure to a range of developmental risk factors for aggression that may have contributed to the driver’s on-road expression of aggression. These drivers scored significantly higher on the Aggression Questionnaire subscales and Social Problem Solving Inventory Revised subscales, ‘negative problem orientation’ and ‘impulsive/careless style’, than the general sample of drivers included in Study Two. The hostile aggressive driver also scored significantly higher on the Barrett Impulsivity Scale – 11 (Patton, Stanford & Barratt, 1995) measure of impulsivity than a male ‘inmate’, or female ‘general psychiatric’ comparison group. Using the Carlson Psychological Survey (Carlson, 1982), the self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers scored equal or higher scores than the comparison group of incarcerated individuals on the subscale measures of chemical abuse, thought disturbance, anti-social tendencies and self-depreciation. Using the Carlson Psychological Survey personality profiles, seven participants were profiled ‘markedly anti-social’, two were profiled ‘negative-explosive’ and one was profiled as ‘self-centred’. Qualitative analysis of the ten case study self-reports of on-road hostile aggression revealed a similar range of on-road situational factors to those identified in the literature review and Study One. Six of the case studies reported off-road generated stress that they believed contributed to the episodes of aggressive driving they recalled. Intense ‘anger’ or ‘rage’ were most frequently used to describe the emotions experienced in response to the perceived provocation. Less frequently ‘excitement’ and ‘fear’ were cited as relevant emotions. Notably, five of the case studies experienced difficulty articulating their emotions, suggesting emotional difficulties. Consistent with Study Two, these drivers reported negative attributions and most had thoughts of aggressive actions they would like to take. Similarly, these drivers adopted both instrumental and hostile aggressive behaviours during the self-reported incident. Nine participants showed little or no remorse for their behaviour and these drivers also appeared to exhibit low levels of personal insight. Interestingly, few incidents were brought to the attention of the authorities. Further, examination of the person-related characteristics of these drivers indicated that they may be more likely to have come from difficult or dysfunctional backgrounds and to have a history of anti-social behaviours on and off the road. The research program has several key theoretical implications. While many of the findings supported Shinar’s (1998) frustration-aggression model, two key areas of difference emerged. Firstly, aggressive driving behaviour does not always appear to be frustration driven, but can also be driven by feelings of excitation (consistent with the tenets of the General Aggression Model). Secondly, while the findings supported a distinction being made between instrumental and hostile aggressive behaviours, the characteristics of these two types of behaviours require more examination. For example, Shinar (1998) proposes that a driver will adopt an instrumental aggressive behaviour when their progress is impeded if it allows them to achieve their immediate goals (e.g. reaching their destination as quickly as possible); whereas they will engage in hostile aggressive behaviour if their path to their goal is blocked. However, the current results question this assertion, since many of the hostile aggressive drivers studied appeared prepared to engage in hostile acts irrespective of whether their goal was blocked or not. In fact, their behaviour appeared to be characterised by a preparedness to abandon their immediate goals (even if for a short period of time) in order to express their aggression. The use of the General Aggression Model enabled an examination of the three components of the ‘present internal state’ comprising emotions, cognitions and arousal and how these influence the likelihood of a person responding aggressively to an on-road situation. This provided a detailed insight into both the cognitive and emotional aspects of aggressive driving that have important implications for the design of relevant countermeasures. For example, the findings highlighted the potential value of utilising Cognitive Behavioural Therapy with aggressive drivers, particularly the more hostile offenders. Similarly, educational efforts need to be mindful of the way that person-related factors appear to influence one’s perception of another driver’s behaviour as aggressive or benign. Those drivers with a predisposition for aggression were more likely to perceive aggression or ‘wrong doing’ in an ambiguous on-road situation and respond with instrumental and/or hostile behaviour, highlighting the importance of perceptual processes in aggressive driving behaviour.