The Practice of Exposure Therapy: Relevance of Cognitive-Behavioral Theory and Extinction Theory

Exposure therapy is the most effective psychological intervention for people with anxiety disorders. While many therapists learn how to implement exposure techniques through clinical training programs or instructional workshops, not all of these educational efforts include a focus on the theory underlying this treatment. The availability of treatment manuals providing step-by-step instructions for how to implement exposure makes it easier for clinicians to use these techniques with less training than they might otherwise receive. This raises questions regarding whether it is necessary to understand the theory behind the use of exposure. This article argues that knowledge of the relevant theory is crucial to being able to implement exposure therapy in ways that optimize both short- and long-term outcome. Specific ways in which theory is relevant to using exposure techniques are discussed.     

The Cruelest Cure? Ethical Issues in the Implementation of Exposure-Based Treatments

Numerous studies have provided supportive evidence for the efficacy of exposure-based treatments for many psychological disorders. However, surprisingly few therapists use exposure therapy in the clinical setting. Although the limited use of exposure-based treatments may be partially attributable to a shortage of suitably trained therapists, exposure therapy also suffers from a “public relations problem” predicated upon concerns that it is cruel and at odds with some ethical considerations (e.g., first do no harm). This article provides an overview of ethical issues and considerations relevant to the use of exposure therapy. It is argued that the degree to which ethical issues become problematic in implementing exposure-based treatments is largely dependent upon the therapist's ability to create an adequately safe and professional context. Specific strategies that may be employed for avoiding potential ethical conflicts in the use of exposure-based treatments are discussed.     

Dimensionality of the Obsessive Beliefs Questionnaire (OBQ)

The Obsessive Beliefs Questionnaire (OBQ) is a self-report measure in development by the Obsessive Compulsive Cognitions Working Group (OCCWG), who studies cognitive aspects of obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD). The aim of this paper was to evaluate the dimensionality of the OBQ in students (n = 995). Two models were tested in a confirmatory framework, corresponding to the OCCWG's (a) original six subscales (87 items), and (b) more recent three subscales (44 items). Both models fit the present data poorly; thus, an exploratory analysis was undertaken. Results revealed one large factor that is relevant, but not unique, to OCD, and three factors that are conceptually consistent with the OCCWG's recent three: (a) distorted beliefs about one's own thoughts, (b) perfectionism, and (c) inflated responsibility. Convergent and divergent validity analyses of the present OBQ factors generally supported the preceding interpretations. Readers are referred to the work of the OCCWG for revisions to the OBQ.     

Hierarchical structure of dysfunctional beliefs in obsessive-compulsive disorder

The Obsessive Beliefs Questionnaire was developed as a comprehensive measure of dysfunctional beliefs, which cognitive models consider to be etiologically related to obsessive-compulsive disorder. Obsessive Beliefs Questionnaire subscales tend to be highly correlated, which raises the question of whether obsessive-compulsive-related beliefs are hierarchically structured, consisting of lower-order factors loading on 1 or more higher-order factors. To investigate the nature and relative importance of these factors, a hierarchical factor analysis was conducted (n = 202 obsessive-compulsive disorder patients), using a Schmid-Leiman transformation. Results indicated a higher-order (general factor) and 3 lower-order factors: (i) responsibility and overestimation of threat, (ii) perfectionism and intolerance of uncertainty and (iii) importance and control of thoughts. The high-order factor accounted for more variance in Obsessive Beliefs Questionnaire scores (22%) than did the lower-order factors (6-7%), thereby underscoring the importance of the higher-order factor. Despite the importance of the higher-order factor, the lower-order factors significantly predicted unique variance in measures of obsessive-compulsive symptoms, including severity ratings of compulsions. These finding suggest that cognitive models of obsessive-compulsive disorder should take into consideration the hierarchic structure of obsessive-compulsive-related beliefs.     

The Disgust Scale: item analysis, factor structure, and suggestions for refinement

In the 4 studies presented (N = 1,939), a converging set of analyses was conducted to evaluate the item adequacy, factor structure, reliability, and validity of the Disgust Scale (DS; J. Haidt, C. McCauley, & P. Rozin, 1994). The results suggest that 7 items (i.e., Items 2, 7, 8, 21, 23, 24, and 25) should be considered for removal from the DS. Secondary to removing the items, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses revealed that the DS taps 3 dimensions of disgust: Core Disgust, Animal Reminder Disgust, and Contamination-Based Disgust. Women scored higher than men on the 3 disgust dimensions. Structural modeling provided support for the specificity of the 3-factor model, as Core Disgust and Contamination-Based Disgust were significantly predictive of obsessive- compulsive disorder (OCD) concerns, whereas Animal Reminder Disgust was not. Results from a clinical sample indicated that patients with OCD washing concerns scored significantly higher than patients with OCD without washing concerns on both Core Disgust and Contamination-Based Disgust, but not on Animal Reminder Disgust. These findings are discussed in the context of the refinement of the DS to promote a more psychometrically sound assessment of disgust sensitivity.     

Presidential Address: Are the Obsessive-Compulsive Related Disorders Related to Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder? A Critical Look at DSM-5’s New Category

The 5^th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) includes a new class of obsessive-compulsive and related disorders (OCRDs) that includes obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and a handful of other putatively related conditions. Although this new category promises to raise awareness of underrecognized and understudied problems, the empirical validity and practical utility of this new DSM category is questionable. This article critically examines the arguments underlying the new OCRD class, illuminates a number of problems with this class, and then discusses implications for clinicians and researchers.