Relationships Among Laboratory and Psychometric Measures of Impulsivity: Implications in Substance Abuse and Dependence (original) (raw)
Related papers
Distinctions in Behavioral Impulsivity: Implications for Substance Abuse Research
Addictive Disorders & Their Treatment, 2009
Objectives-Researchers have clearly implicated impulsivity as having a key role in substance use disorders, and comparisons of self-report measures suggest there are measurably different components of impulsive behavior. However comparatively little research has been devoted to understanding the multidimensional nature of this construct using laboratory measures of impulsivity that may be more sensitive to tracking changes across time. Many studies have measured impulsivity, but this construct has been measured using methodologically different types of laboratory impulsivity paradigms that are often used in isolation. As a result, it is important to determine whether some of the most frequently used types of behavioral measures of impulsivity account for unique variance.
Psychological Assessment, 2014
Self-reported impulsivity confers risk factor for substance abuse. However, the psychometric properties of many self-report impulsivity measures have been questioned, thereby undermining the interpretability of study findings using these measures. To better understand these measurement limitations and to suggest a path to assessing self-reported impulsivity with greater psychometric stability, we conducted a comprehensive psychometric evaluation of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11 (BIS-11), the Behavioral Inhibition and Activation Scales (BIS/BAS), and the Brief Self Control Scale (BSCS) using data from 1,449 individuals who participated in substance use research. For each measure, we evaluated: 1) latent factor structure, 2) measurement invariance, 3) test-criterion relationships between the measures, and 4) test-criterion relations with drinking and smoking outcomes. Notably, we could not replicate the originally published latent structure for the BIS, BIS/BAS, or BSCS or any previously published alternative factor structures (English language). Using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, we identified psychometrically improved, abbreviated versions of each measure (i.e., 8-item, 2 factor BIS-11
The Role of Behavioral Impulsivity in the Development of Alcohol Dependence: A 4Year Follow-Up Study
Alcoholism-clinical and Experimental Research, 2008
Background: Although many studies have established a close relation between impulsivity and alcohol use disorders, little is known about the role of behavioral impulsivity in the development of these disorders.Objectives: To determine the role of 2 laboratory paradigms of impulsivity in the development of alcohol use disorders.Methods: Follow-up study carried out with 471 participants diagnosed as heavy drinkers (HD) and followed-up for 4 years. Initially, they were compared with a healthy control group. Assessment of behavioral impulsivity was carried out with the Continuous Performance Test (CPT), and the Stop-Signal Task (SST) assessed behavioral inhibitory control. Differential reinforcement for low-rate responding (DRLR) was used to evaluate the delay reward dimension. The Structured Clinical Interview (SCID-DSM-IV) was used to diagnose alcohol dependence.Results: The HD performed worse than the control group in all the behavioral tests of impulsivity. Performance in DRLR was the only behavioral impulsivity test that classified the HD correctly compared to controls. Logistic regression analysis indicated that performance on SST was a significant predictor [odds = 1.52(CI = 1.08–2.31)] of developing alcohol dependence.Conclusions: Our results support the relation between behavioral impulsivity and alcohol use disorders. The paradigm related to delay of reward may be a factor associated with the use of alcohol and the incapacity to control inhibition as dependence develops.
A test of alcohol dose effects on multiple behavioral measures of impulsivity
Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 2008
Acute alcohol administration affects impulsive behavior, although these effects vary as a function of alcohol dose, assessment instrument, and time of measurement following administration. We concurrently examined the dose-dependent effects of alcohol on three distinct types of impulsivity tasks (continuous performance [IMT], stop-signal [GoStop], and delay-discounting [SKIP] tasks). Ninety healthy alcohol drinkers were assigned to one of the three task groups (n=30 each), each group experienced placebo, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, and 0.8 g/kg alcohol doses across 5 experimental days, and task performance was assessed at 0.5h before and 0.25, 1.0, and 2.0 h after alcohol administration. We hypothesized that impulsive responding on all tasks would be increased by acute alcohol administration both across time and during the peak BrAC, but the magnitude would depend on the task being tested. Analyses included the time course and the peak BrAC effects. Task comparisons of peak behavioral changes following each dose are illustrated using standardized scores. While alcohol consumption increased impulsive responding during all three tasks to some extent, our hypothesis was only partially supported. During the IMT, the 0.6 and 0.8 g/kg doses produced increased impulsive responding across time and at the peak BrAC. However, during the GoStop and SKIP, impulsivity increased across time regardless of the alcohol dose size, with no differences in impulsive responding among dose conditions at peak BrAC. This study demonstrated alcohol-induced changes in impulsivity are not uniformly affected by alcohol. These data, in conjunction with previous studies, further support that impulsivity is not a unitary construct.
Impulsivity and history of drug dependence
Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 1998
Impulsivity was contrasted between 32 subjects with a history of drug-dependence (DRUG + ) and 26 subjects with no drug use history (DRUG − ) using both behavioral and self-report measures. The hypothesis was that the DRUG + group would be more impulsive than the DRUG− group. Subjects in the DRUG+ group self-reported more of a tendency toward impulsivity than the DRUG− group in the situations posed in questionnaires. In the behavioural paradigm involving a choice between a smaller intermediate reward and a larger but delayed reward, DRUG + subjects selected the impulsive option more often, but these differences were not significant. The DRUG + and DRUG − groups did differ on the mean delay interval for the larger reward, indicating less ability to tolerate longer delays for the larger reward. A frequency distribution of delay intervals for the larger reward indicated that DRUG + subjects were more likely to maintain very short intervals and less likely to maintain longer intervals.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2019
Impulse control is becoming a critical survival skill for the twenty-first century. Impulsivity is implicated in virtually all externalizing behaviours and disorders, and figures prominently in the aetiology and long-term sequelae of substance use disorders (SUDs). Despite its robust clinical and predictive validity, the study of impulsivity is complicated by its multidimensional nature, characterized by a variety of trait-like personality dimensions, as well as by more state-dependent neurocognitive dimensions, with variable convergence across measures. This review provides a hierarchical framework for linking self-report and neurocognitive measures to latent constructs of impulsivity and, in turn, to different psychopathology vulnerabilities, including substance-specific addictions and comorbidities. Impulsivity dimensions are presented as novel behavioural targets for prevention and intervention. Novel treatment approaches addressing domains of impulsivity are reviewed and recomm...
Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 2013
Behavioral measures of impulsivity are widely used in substance abuse research, yet relatively little attention has been devoted to establishing their psychometric properties, especially their reliability over repeated administration. The current study examined the test-retest reliability of a battery of standardized behavioral impulsivity tasks, including measures of impulsive choice (i.e., delay discounting, probability discounting, and the Balloon Analogue Risk Task), impulsive action (i.e., the stop signal task, the go/no-go task, and commission errors on the continuous performance task), and inattention (i.e., attention lapses on a simple reaction time task and omission errors on the continuous performance task). Healthy adults (n ϭ 128) performed the battery on two separate occasions. Reliability estimates for the individual tasks ranged from moderate to high, with Pearson correlations within the specific impulsivity domains as follows: impulsive choice (r range: .76 -.89, ps Ͻ .001); impulsive action (r range: .65-.73, ps Ͻ .001); and inattention (r range: .38 -.42, ps Ͻ .001). Additionally, the influence of day-to-day fluctuations in mood, as measured by the Profile of Mood States, was assessed in relation to variability in performance on each of the behavioral tasks. Change in performance on the delay discounting task was significantly associated with change in positive mood and arousal. No other behavioral measures were significantly associated with mood. In sum, the current analysis demonstrates that behavioral measures of impulsivity are reliable measures and thus can be confidently used to assess various facets of impulsivity as intermediate phenotypes for drug abuse.
Impulsivity as a predictor of treatment outcome in substance use disorders: Review and synthesis
Drug and Alcohol Review, 2014
Issues. Impulsivity is a widely studied personality trait and research construct that has been implicated as a risk factor for substance use, including initiating and continuing use. However, relatively few studies have examined impulsivity as a predictor of treatment outcome. Because impulsivity has been operationalised in many different ways, cross-comparisons of empirical studies have been difficult. Approach. The PubMed database was searched in September 2013. Reference lists of papers retrieved from this search were also manually scanned for additional resources. Studies were included if they presented data that assessed impulsivity as a predictor of treatment outcomes. Key Findings. The body of literature reviewed in this paper suggests that higher pretreatment impulsivity, regardless of how it is measured, usually is associated with poorer treatment outcomes. Recent data indicate that some psychosocial and pharmacological treatments may directly impact impulsivity and thus represent an interesting avenue for further research. Conclusions. Impulsivity appears to be a key predictor of substance use treatment outcomes and warrants more attention in the improvement of treatment outcomes. Suggestions for future research on the role of impulsivity in substance use treatment are provided. [Amy M. Loree AM, Leslie H. Lundahl LH, David M. Ledgerwood DM. Impulsivity as a predictor of treatment outcome in substance use disorders: Review and synthesis. Drug Alcohol Rev 2014]
Psychiatry Research, 2004
The construction and initial psychometric evaluation of an interview assessment of clinically significant impulsivity (Lifetime History of Impulsive Behaviors; LHIB) is presented. Personality-disordered and control subjects participated by completing self-report measures of depression, anxiety and social desirability, along with self-report and laboratory analogue measures of impulsivity, and finally the LHIB. The LHIB demonstrated good to excellent internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Supporting concurrent construct validity, scores on the LHIB correlated with other selfreport measures of impulsivity. Diagnostic group differences were obtained and the LHIB evidenced concurrent validity in its ability to classify subjects by scores. No relationship was obtained between the LHIB and laboratory analogue measures. While evidence of discriminant validity was mixed, these data suggest that the LHIB may be a useful instrument for the assessment of impulsive behavior. ᮊ
Links between self-reported and laboratory behavioral impulsivity
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2012
A major problem in the research considering impulsivity is the lack of mutual understanding on how to measure and define impulsivity. Our study examined the relationship between self-reported impulsivity, behavioral excitatory and inhibitory processes and time perception. Impulsivity-fast, premature, thoughtless or disinhibited behavior-was assessed in 58 normal, healthy participants (30 men, mean age 21.9 years). Self-reported impulsivity as measured by Adaptive and Maladaptive Impulsivity Scale (AMIS) and behavioral excitatory and inhibitory processes as measured by Stop Signal Task were not directly related. Time perception, measured by the retrospective Time Estimation Task, was related to both. The length of the perceived time interval was positively correlated to AMIS Disinhibition subscale and negatively to several Stop Signal Task parameters. The longer subjects perceived the duration to last, the higher was their score on Disinhibition scale and the faster were their reactive responses in the Stop Signal Task. In summary our findings support the idea of cognitive tempo as a possible mechanism underlying impulsive behavior.