4.7 Article

Correlates of trait impulsiveness in performance measures and neuropsychological tests

Journal

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH
Volume 135, Issue 3, Pages 191-201

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2005.03.006

Keywords

impulsiveness; neuropsychology; Barratt Impulsiveness Scale; executive function; Go-No Go task; decision-making

Categories

Funding

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [MH46745] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Performance measures of impulsiveness offer great promise for assessing this trait in clinical and experimental studies. However, little is known about their relative superiority or inferiority to standard cognitive performance measures as correlates of this trait. In this study, 58 healthy volunteers completed a self-rating of impulsiveness (Barratt Impulsiveness Scale) and a battery of neuropsychological tests. The test battery included measures of reaction time, attention, memory, fluency, and executive function, as well as two performance measures of impulsiveness - Time Estimation and a Go-No Go task. Self-ratings correlated moderately with a number of these test scores, but many correlations became non-significant after adjustment for age and education. Correlations with the Go-No Go task, verbal fluency, executive function measures (Trails 13), and tasks requiring decision-making against time (Choice Reaction Time, Reaction Time to Paired Words and Paired Faces Memory Tasks, and response bias on the Continuous Performance Test) remained significant. Performance on the Go-No Go task was the strongest correlate of self-rated impulsiveness. The findings suggest that once general demographic or ability factors are accounted for, specialized performance tasks requiring decision-making and response organization under time pressure provide the most effective means of assessing this behavioral trait. (C) 2005 Elsevier Ireland 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available