4.4 Review

Measurement of constructs using self-report and behavioral lab tasks: Is there overlap in nomothetic span and construct representation for impulsivity?

Journal

CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW
Volume 31, Issue 6, Pages 965-982

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.06.001

Keywords

Impulsivity; Self-report; Behavioral lab tasks; Validity; Measurement

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There has been little empirical evidence examining the overlap in nomothetic span for self-report measures and construct representation for behavioral lab tasks in most psychological constructs. Using the personality trait of impulsivity as an example, the authors completed a meta-analysis of 27 published research studies examining the relationship between these methods. In general, although there is a statistically significant relationship between multidimensional self-report and lab task impulsivity (r= 0.097). practically, the relationship is small. Examining relationships among unidimensional impulsivity self-report and lab task conceptualizations indicated very little overlap in self-report and behavioral lab task constructs. Significant relationships were found between lack of perseverance and prepotent response inhibition (r= 0.099); between lack of planning and prepotent response inhibition (r= 0.106), delay response (r= 0.134), and distortions in elapsed time (r= 0.104); between negative urgency and prepotent response inhibition (r= 0.106); and between sensation seeking and delay response (r = 0.131). Researchers should take care to specify which particular unidimensional constructs are operationalized with not only impulsivity, but with all traits. If self-report and lab task conceptualizations measure disparate aspects of impulsivity, we, as a field, should not expect large conceptual overlap between these methods. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available