SummaryIf meta-analysis is to provide valuable answers, then it is critical to ensure clarity about the questions being asked. Here, we distinguish two important questions concerning cognitive bias modification research that are not differentiated in the meta-analysis recently published by Cristea et al (2015) in this journal: (1) do the varying procedures that investigators have employed with the intention of modifying cognitive bias, on average, significantly impact emotional vulnerability?; and (2) does the process of successfully modifying cognitive bias, on average, significantly impact emotional vulnerability? We reanalyse the data from Cristea et al to address this latter question. Our new analyses demonstrate that successfully modifying cognitive bias does significantly alter emotional vulnerability. We revisit Cristea et al's conclusions in light of these findings.

Cognitive models of anxiety propose that selective attention to negative information plays a causal role in heightened anxiety vulnerability and dysfunction. However, there has been theoretical disagreement concerning whether anxiety-linked attentional biases reflect enhanced attentional engagement with, or impaired attentional disengagement from, negative information. We contend that previous methodologies have not been optimal in terms of their capacity to differentiate both types of bias. The present study introduces a refined methodology, in which the conventional dot-probe task is modified in a novel manner to enable the independent assessment of these components of attention. The findings demonstrate that facilitated attentional engagement and impaired attentional disengagement are both characteristic of elevated levels of anxiety vulnerability. Moreover, these prove to be unrelated facets of attentional selectivity that independently contribute to variation in anxiety vulnerability. We discuss the possibility that these two types of attentional bias may represent independent pathways to anxiety vulnerability.

No abstract

Trait anxiety is an individual-difference variable reflecting variation in state-anxiety elevations resulting from exposure to a stressor. It is usually measured using questionnaire instruments, such as the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-T). The present research conceptually distinguishes, and independently assesses, two hypothetical dimensions of anxiety vulnerability which, it is argued, could plausibly make independent contributions to variance in trait-anxiety scores. These dimensions are anxiety reactivity, the probability of experiencing an anxiety reaction to a stressor, and anxiety perseveration, the persistence of anxiety symptoms once elicited. Participants were asked three questions about each STAI-T item. The traditional STAI-T question assessed how much of the time this symptom was experienced; the anxiety-reactivity question assessed the probability of experiencing the symptom in response to a stressor; and the anxiety-perseveration question assessed how long the symptom persisted, if elicited. Regression analysis determined that anxiety reactivity and anxiety perseveration scores both accounted for independent variance in trait-anxiety scores. It is argued that models of anxiety vulnerability should seek to differentiate both the causes and the consequences of elevated anxiety reactivity and increased anxiety perseveration.

Aims Up to 50% of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) also present with difficulties with motor proficiency. Several assessments of motor proficiency are available for occupational therapists, though the validity of these measures in an ADHD population requires further exploration. The aim of this paper was to evaluate the consistency of scores obtained using the long‐form and short‐form of the Bruininks–Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency—Second Edition (BOT‐2) in a school‐age ADHD sample. Method The BOT‐2 long‐form was administered to 84 school‐age children (78 males) with ADHD; short‐form scores were extracted from the relevant long‐form items. Results Long‐form and short‐form total scores were highly correlated (r = .87), though the average short‐form score was significantly higher. As a categorical measure, 52 children were classified as “at‐risk” for movement difficulties by the long‐form; but only 36 by the short‐form, yielding a false‐negative rate of 30.77%. The sensitivity of short‐form could be improved by raising the cut‐off thresholds of short‐form scores as identified by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis but did not yield practical utility. Interpretation As a continuous indicator (i.e. total scores), the short‐form is comparable to the long‐form. However, the short‐form overestimates the child's motor proficiency relative to the long‐form and yields an unacceptably high rate of false negatives as a categorical measure. The current revision of the short‐form is therefore not recommended as a screening nor diagnostic instrument in an ADHD population. In the absence of ADHD‐specific norms, use of the long‐form provides greater opportunity for occupational therapists to identify those at‐risk for movement difficulties. However, any assessment of motor proficiency should be accompanied by a broader comprehensive assessment to best understand a child's motor functioning.