4.7 Article

Factor Analysis of the Brazilian Version of UPPS Impulsive Behavior Scale

Journal

FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00622

Keywords

impulsivity; UPPS Impulsive Behavior Scale; psychometric; UPPS (urgency, lack of premeditation, lack of perseverance; sensation seeking); executive function

Funding

  1. INCT-MM (FAPEMIG) [CBB-APQ00075-09/CNPq 573646/2008-2]
  2. Sociedade Interdisciplinar de Neurociencias Aplicadas a Saude e Educacao (SINApSE)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To examine the internal consistency and factor structure of the Brazilian adaptation of the UPPS Impulsive Behavior Scale. Methods: UPPS is a self-report scale composed by 40 items assessing four factors of impulsivity: (a) urgency, (b) lack of premeditation; (c) lack of perseverance; (d) sensation seeking. In the present study 384 participants (278 women and 106 men), who were recruited from schools, universities, leisure centers and workplaces fulfilled the UPPS scale. An exploratory factor analysis was performed by using Varimax factor rotation and Kaiser Normalization, and we also conducted two confirmatory analyses to test the independency of the UPPS components found in previous analysis. Results: Results showed a decrease in mean UPPS total scores with age and this analysis showed that the youngest participants (below 30 years) scored significantly higher than the other groups over 30 years. No difference in gender was found. Cronbach's alpha, results indicated satisfactory values for all subscales, with similar high values for the subscales and confirmatory factor analysis indexes also indicated a poor model fit. The results of two exploratory factor analysis were satisfactory. Conclusion: Our results showed that the Portuguese version has the same four-factor structure of the original and previous translations of the UPPS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available