Robin Davidson presents an annotated bibliography of his work
To accompany his interview for the Addiction Lives series, Robin Davidson has prepared and annotated a list of key reading from his body of work, including “one of the first specific critiques in the international literature of the Transtheoretical Model of Change, at a time when it was almost unchallenged”.
Raistrick, D., Davidson, R. J. (1986). Alcoholism and Drug Addiction. Edinburgh, Churchill Livingstone.
I’ve included this book as it was written by the interviewer, Duncan Raistrick, and myself, and was part of a long collaboration.
Davidson, R. J., Raistrick, D. (1986). The Validity of the Short Alcohol Dependence Questionnaire (SADD). The British Journal of Addiction, 82, 217-222.
The SADD questionnaire is still widely used, and I think has retained its popularity, because of ease of administration and construct validity (i.e. it assesses pretty much all of the elements of alcohol use disorder). It also laid the foundations for the Leeds Dependence Questionnaire (LDQ.)
Davidson, R. J. (1987). Assessment of Alcohol Dependence Syndrome: A Review of Self-report Screening Questionnaires. The British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 26, 243-254.
This paper took a long time and discussed all of the measures available at that time. Although it was 35 years ago, nearly all the scales I considered are still in use!
Davidson, R. J., Bunting, B., Raistrick, D. (1989). The Homogeneity of the Alcohol Dependence Syndrome. The British Journal of Addiction, 84, 907-916.
More on alcohol dependence syndrome – this time because I think we put to (mathematical) bed the idea of physical and psychological dependence being in some sense quantitatively different.
Alderdice, F., Davidson, R. J. (1990). The Effect of Alcohol Consumption on Recency Discrimination Ability: An Early Screening Test for Alcohol Induced Cognitive Impairment. The British Journal of Addiction, 84, 531-536.
At the time we were concerned about the late and indeed underdiagnosis of alcohol-related brain damage and were looking for an early, valid, and evidence-based cognitive screening method. It also represented an early and subsequent lifelong clinical interest in neuropsychology.
Davidson, R. J. (1992). Prochaska and DiClemente’s model of change: a case study? Invited editorial. British Journal of Addiction, 87, 821-822.
This is, I think, the shortest paper I have written but the most pivotal in my view. As far as I am aware it was one of the first specific critiques in the international literature of the Transtheoretical Model of Change, at a time when it was almost unchallenged.
Davidson, R. J. (1995). Can Psychology Make Sense of Change? In Edwards, G. and Lader, M. (Eds) Addiction Processes of Change. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
I included this chapter for two reasons. First, it represents an attempt to address more general motivational issues in our field, and second, I think the book itself is one of Griffith Edward’s finest collaborations.
Davidson, R. J. (1998). The Transtheoretical Model: A Critical Overview. In Miller, W. R. and Heather, N. (Eds). Treating Addictive Behaviours. New York, Plenum Press.
This, for me, represents animated, constructive, scientific debate, as Prochaska and DiClemente assertively defend their model in light of my critique in another chapter.
Davidson, R. J. (2001). Psychology of Cancer: In Oncology. Spence, R., and Johnston, P. (Eds). Oxford University Press. Oxford.
In midlife, I took a decade out of managing psychological services and moved into cancer and palliative care. I think this was one of the first strictly medical cancer textbooks to devote a complete chapter to cancer psychology.
Davidson, R. J. (2002). The Oxford Group and Alcoholics Anonymous. Journal of Substance Use, 8, 1-3.
On re-reading the interview, I included this because of my frequent mention of the Oxford Group.
Davidson, R., Geoghegan, L., McLaughlin, L., Woodward, R. (2005). Psychological characteristics of cancer patients who use complementary therapies. Psycho-oncology. 14; 3; p187 – 195.
This was a typical example of my cancer research. I developed an interest in properly evaluating the increasingly extensive use of complementary therapy in UK cancer care at the time. I also addressed meditation and mindfulness elsewhere.
Davidson, R. J. (2005) Two wrongs. A response to the integrity of the science base. A test case. Addiction 100,1370-1373.
As Chair of the Research Committee of the Alcohol Education and Counsel at the time, I felt I had to defend our position, in the light of Addiction criticism, that an industry presence on the AERC would lead to a complete distortion of the UK alcohol research agenda by the drinks industry, and associated advice to researchers to eschew AERC grants.
Davidson R. (2008) Accredited, Brand named Psychotherapies and the Standard of Evidence. Clinical Psychology Forum.191, p 48-52.
This little critique was something of a catharsis for me more than anything else. At the time and indeed now, I was exercised by the proliferation of acronym therapies like EMDR, NLP, ACT etc., which I regarded as techniques and not in any sense based on psychological theory.
Davidson, R (2013 ) Evidenced based alcohol policy: not as simple as it sounds. In Mistral, W (ed). Substance Misuse; Emerging Perspectives. Wiley Blackwell.
I included this chapter as it gave me an opportunity to reflect on my time as Chair of Alcohol Research UK and the subsequent merger with Alcohol Concern to form Alcohol Change UK and the important link between research and policy.
Orford, J. (2001). Excessive appetites: A psychological view of addictions (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Finally, a publication which has nothing whatsoever to do with me, although I wish it had. This wonderful book has been personally influential, and is also valued by almost all psychologists, both currently and historically, working in our field.
The opinions expressed in this post reflect the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the opinions or official positions of the SSA.
The SSA does not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of the information in external sources or links and accepts no responsibility or liability for any consequences arising from the use of such information.