Alcohol expectancy changes over a 12-week cognitive–behavioral therapy program are predictive of treatment success

This study examines if outcome expectancies (perceived consequences of engaging in certain behavior) and self- efficacy expectancies (confidence in personal capacity to regulate behavior) contribute to treatment outcome for alcohol dependence. Few clinical studies have examined these constructs. The Drinking Expectancy Profile (DEP), a psychometric measure of alcohol expectancy and drinking refusal selfefficacy, was administered to 298 alcohol-dependent patients (207 males) at assessment and on completion of a 12-week cognitive–behavioral therapy alcohol abstinence program. Baseline measures of expectancy and self-efficacy were not strong predictors of outcome. However, for the 164 patients who completed treatment, all alcohol expectancy and self-efficacy factors of the DEP showed change over time. The DEP scores approximated community norms at the end of treatment. Discriminant analysis indicated that change in social pressure drinking refusal self-efficacy, sexual enhancement expectancies, and assertion expectancies successfully discriminated those who successfully completed treatment from those who did not. Future research should examine the basis of expectancies related to social functioning as a possible mechanism of treatment response and a means to enhance treatment outcome.

Validation of the Cannabis Expectancy Questionnaire (CEQ) in adult cannabis users in treatment

Background Outcome expectancies are a key cognitive construct in the etiology, assessment and treatment of Substance Use Disorders. There is a research and clinical need for a cannabis expectancy measure validated in a clinical sample of cannabis users. Method The Cannabis Expectancy Questionnaire (CEQ) was subjected to exploratory (n = 501, mean age 27.45, 78% male) and confirmatory (n = 505, mean age 27.69, 78% male) factor analysis in two separate samples of cannabis users attending an outpatient cannabis treatment program. Weekly cannabis consumption was clinically assessed and patients completed the Severity of Dependence Scale-Cannabis (SDS-C) and the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-28). Results Two factors representing Negative Cannabis Expectancies and Positive Cannabis Expectancies were identified. These provided a robust statistical and conceptual fit for the data. Internal reliabilities were high. Negative expectancies were associated with greater dependence severity (as measured by the SDS) and positive expectancies with higher consumption. The interaction of positive and negative expectancies was consistently significantly associated with self-reported functioning across all four GHQ-28 scales (Somatic Concerns, Anxiety, Social Dysfunction and Depression). Specifically, within the context of high positive cannabis expectancy, higher negative expectancy was predictive of more impaired functioning. By contrast, within the context of low positive cannabis expectancy, higher negative expectancy was predictive of better functioning. Conclusions The CEQ is the first cannabis expectancy measure to be validated in a sample of cannabis users in treatment. Negative and positive cannabis expectancy domains were uniquely associated with consumption, dependence severity and self-reported mental health functioning.

The obsessive compulsive drinking scale is a valid measure of alcohol craving in young adults

Background: Alcohol craving is associated with greater alcohol-related problems and less favorable treatment prognosis. The Obsessive Compulsive Drinking Scale (OCDS) is the most widely used alcohol craving instrument. The OCDS has been validated in adults with alcohol use disorders (AUDs), which typically emerge in early adulthood. This study examines the validity of the OCDS in a nonclinical sample of young adults. Methods: Three hundred and nine college students (mean age of 21.8 years, SD = 4.6 years) completed the OCDS, Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), and measures of alcohol consumption. Subjects were randomly allocated to 2 samples. Construct validity was examined via exploratory factor analysis (n = 155) and confirmatory factor analysis (n = 154). Concurrent validity was assessed using the AUDIT and measures of alcohol consumption. A second, alcohol-dependent sample (mean age 42 years, SD 12 years) from a previously published study (n = 370) was used to assess discriminant validity. Results: A unique young adult OCDS factor structure was validated, consisting of Interference/Control, Frequency of Obsessions, Alcohol Consumption and Resisting Obsessions/Compulsions. The young adult 4-factor structure was significantly associated with the AUDIT and alcohol consumption. The 4 factor OCDS successfully classified nonclinical subjects in 96.9% of cases and the older alcohol-dependent patients in 83.7% of cases. Although the OCDS was able to classify college nonproblem drinkers (AUDIT <13, n = 224) with 83.2% accuracy, it was no better than chance (49.4%) in classifying potential college problem drinkers (AUDIT score ≥13, n = 85). Conclusions: Using the 4-factor structure, the OCDS is a valid measure of alcohol craving in young adult populations. In this nonclinical set of students, the OCDS classified nonproblem drinkers well but not problem drinkers. Studies need to further examine the utility of the OCDS in young people with alcohol misuse.

The relative impact of work-related stress, life stress and driving environment stress on driving outcomes

Previous research has shown the association between stress and crash involvement. The impact of stress on road safety may also be mediated by behaviours including cognitive lapses, errors, and intentional traffic violations. This study aimed to provide a further understanding of the impact that stress from different sources may have upon driving behaviour and road safety. It is asserted that both stress extraneous to the driving environment and stress directly elicited by driving must be considered part of a dynamic system that may have a negative impact on driving behaviours. Two hundred and forty-seven public sector employees from Queensland, Australia, completed self-report measures examining demographics, subjective work-related stress, daily hassles, and aspects of general mental health. Additionally, the Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ) and the Driver Stress Inventory (DSI) were administered. All participants drove for work purposes regularly, however the study did not specifically focus on full-time professional drivers. Confirmatory factor analysis of the predictor variables revealed three factors: DSI negative affect; DSI risk taking; and extraneous influences (daily hassles, work-related stress, and general mental health). Moderate intercorrelations were found between each of these factors confirming the ‘spillover’ effect. That is, driver stress is reciprocally related to stress in other domains including work and domestic life. Structural equation modelling (SEM) showed that the DSI negative affect factor influenced both lapses and errors, whereas the DSI risk-taking factor was the strongest influence on violations. The SEMs also confirmed that daily hassles extraneous to the driving environment may influence DBQ lapses and violations independently. Accordingly, interventions may be developed to increase driver awareness of the dangers of excessive emotional responses to both driving events and daily hassles (e.g. driving fast to ‘blow off steam’ after an argument). They may also train more effective strategies for self-regulation of emotion and coping when encountering stressful situations on the road.

Copyright future copyright freedom

If copyright law does not liberate us from restrictions on the dissemination of knowledge, if it does not encourage expressive freedom, what is its purpose? This volume offers the thinking and suggestions of some of the finest minds grappling with the future of copyright regulation. The Copyright Future Copyright Freedom conference held in 2009 at Old Parliament House Canberra brought together Lawrence Lessig, Julie Cohen, Leslie Zines, Adrian Sterling, Sam Ricketson, Graham Greenleaf, Anne Fitzgerald, Susy Frankel, John Gilchrist, Michael Kirby and others to share the rich fruits of their experience and analysis. Zines, Sterling and Gilchrist outline their roles in the genesis and early growth of Australian copyright legislation, enriching the knowledge of anyone asking urgent questions about the future of information regulation.

Self-reported driving difficulty by persons with Hemianopia and Quadrantanopia

Purpose: To compare self-reported driving difficulty by persons with hemianopic or quadrantanopic field loss with that reported by age-matched drivers with normal visual fields; and to examine how their self- reported driving difficulty compares to ratings of driving performance provided by a certified driving rehabilitation specialist(CDRS). Method: Participants were 17 persons with hemianopic field loss, 7 with quadrantanopic loss, and 24 age-matched controls with normal visual fields, all of whom had current drivers’ licenses. Information was collected via questionnaire regarding driving difficulties experienced in 21 typical driving situations grouped into 3 categories(involvement of peripheral vision, low visibility conditions, and independent mobility). On-road driving performance was evaluated by a CDRS using a standard assessment scale. Results: Drivers with hemianopic and quadrantanopic field loss expressed significantly more difficulty with driving maneuvers involving peripheral vision and independent mobility, compared to those with normal visual fields. Drivers with hemianopia and quadrantanopia who were rated as unsafe to drive based upon an on-road assessment by the CDRS were no more likely to report driving difficulty than those rated as safe. Conclusion: This study highlights aspects of driving that hemianopic or quadrantanopic persons find particularly problematic, thus suggesting areas that could be focused on driving rehabilitation. Some drivers with hemianopia or quadrantanopia may inappropriately view themselves as good drivers when in fact their driving performance is unsafe as judged by a driving professional.