Electronic-Diary for Recording Headaches, Triggers, and Medication Use: Development and Evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an e-diary developed for measuring headaches, triggers, and medication consumption, in terms of reliability and validity, and variables such as ease of use and participant compliance. BACKGROUND: For many decades, behavioral treatment of headaches has been evaluated via participants completing paper diaries recording their headaches and associated phenomena. There is some limited evidence supporting the reliability and validity of paper diaries, and criticisms have been offered such as the large amount of effort involved for both participants and researchers. This study evaluates a new e-diary that will operate on virtually any device that can connect to the internet, and yields 5 of the recommended outcome measures. METHODS: One hundred and eighty-one participants (146 females, 35 males) were allocated to 2 groups, e-diaries vs paper diaries, via a disproportionate stratified allocation process. The e-diary group included 4 subgroups based on the technology available to the participant, and the paper diary group included 2 subgroups, one parallel to the e-dairies (short paper), and one representative of traditional paper diaries (long paper). The study commenced with individuals who had self-identified as headache and migraine sufferers attending a screening session that included headache diagnosis. Participants who met selection criteria then completed the Headache Disability Inventory and a measure of quality of life (SF-36) to assess the convergent validity of the diaries, and the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales to assess the discriminant validity of the diaries. They also completed a Measure of Acceptance Questionnaire. Participants then completed the headache diaries over the next 30 days. Finally, participants completed for a second time the questionnaires completed previously. RESULTS: The 5 outcome measures - headache frequency, peak intensity, average intensity, duration, and medication usage - were found to have strong test-retest reliability (r, 0.68-0.79), for all 3 types of diary. These 5 measures for the e-diaries were shown to have good convergent validity via comparison with scores on the Headache Disability Inventory (r, 0.46-0.55) and SF-36 (r, -0.35 to -0.49), and divergent validity via comparison with scores on the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale (r, 0.10-0.25). The long-paper diaries had significantly higher missing data scores (M = 15.20, SD = 14.84) and more errors in data completion (M = 5.47, SD = 3.28) than the e-diaries and short-paper diaries (P < .05). In addition, the long-paper diaries were evaluated by the participants as more burdensome and significantly less easy to use than the e-diaries and short-paper diaries. CONCLUSIONS: The e-diaries evaluated in this research would prove a useful tool in clinical trials of behavioral treatment for headaches.

Re-conceptualising the reckless driving behaviour of young drivers.

Reckless driving is a major contributing factor to road morbidity and mortality. While further research into the nature and impact of reckless driving, particularly among young people, is urgently needed, the measurement of reckless driving behaviour also requires increased attention. Three major shortcomings apparent in established measures of driver behaviour are that they do not target the full range of reckless driving behaviours, they measure characteristics other than driving behaviours, and/or they fail to categorise and label reckless driver behaviour based on characteristics of the behaviours themselves. To combat these shortcomings, this paper reports the development and preliminary validation of a new measure of reckless driving behaviour for young drivers. Exploratory factor analysis of self-reported driving data revealed four, conceptually distinct categories of reckless driving behaviour: those that increase crash-risk due to (a) distractions or deficits in perception, attention or reaction time (labelled "distracted"), (b) driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol (labelled "substance-use"), (c) placing the vehicle in an unsafe environment beyond its design expectations (labelled "extreme"), and (d) speed and positioning of the vehicle relative to other vehicles and objects (labelled "positioning"). Confirmatory factor analysis of data collected from a separate, community sample confirmed this four-factor structure. Multiple regression analyses found differences in the demographic and psychological variables related to these four factors, suggesting that interventions in one reckless driving domain may not be helpful in others.

Evaluating a novice driver and pre-driver road safety intervention.

Intervention or evaluation studies represent a small proportion of traffic psychology research. The current study evaluated the effectiveness of a road safety intervention by measuring attitudes toward unsafe driving behaviors and risk perception. A sample of high school students (n=133) participated in a road safety intervention program focusing on attitudes and risk perceptions of young people as novice drivers, pre-drivers, and passengers. This sample was compared with a matched sample of students who did not take the program (n=172) on their attitudes and perceived risk toward unsafe driving, both prior to the program (T1), immediately after the program (T2), and at 6-week follow-up (T3). While no changes in attitudes toward unsafe driving were found for the control group, the intervention group reported riskier attitudes toward unsafe driving behaviors from T1 to T2 and T3. No differences were found from T1 to T3 in perceived risk toward unsafe driving for either the intervention or control groups. Implications of the study include encouraging a higher rate of road safety program evaluations, leading to better understanding of the effectiveness of road safety intervention programs and how they may be designed and delivered to ensure lower engagement in unsafe driving behaviors by young drivers.