Methodological factors as a potential source of discordance between self-report and behavioral measures of impulsivity and related constructs.
Methodological factors as a potential source of discordance between self-report and behavioral measures of impulsivity and related constructs.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.04.005
复制
发表时间：
2018-09
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
Pearlson GD
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ellingson JM;Potenza MN;Pearlson GD
有一个一致的但知之甚少的发现，即自我报告和冲动行为的测量是弱相关或不相关的。对这一观察结果有许多可能的解释，包括这些工具的管理和评分方式的差异。本研究探讨了自我报告措施，旨在确定参与者的高峰冲动（或自我控制），项目反应理论（IRT）分析的项目难度估计告知替代评分算法的效用。对大学生进行了自我报告问卷调查（Zuckerman感觉寻求量表[ZSS]，Barratt冲动量表[BIS-11]，与冒险和冲动相关的行为测量（气球模拟风险任务[BART]，经验折扣任务[EDT]），以及临床访谈的物质使用模块（过去六个月的酒精和大麻使用）。IRT分析进行自我报告的措施，以估计项目的难度。评分算法按难度对项目进行排名，并根据连续项目的认可或拒绝对项目进行评分。最大评分算法增加了BIS-11和BART之间的一致性（r = 0.08 vs. -0.07），但没有证据表明物质使用的增量有效性增加。研究结果表明，方法因素可能有助于解释自我报告和冲动行为措施的不一致性，但这些相关性的幅度仍然很小。此外，替代评分算法与物质使用相关，但不能解释与典型算法不同的任何差异。未来的方向进行了讨论，阐明自我报告和冲动相关结构的行为措施之间的差异，如使用大型自我报告项目池开发计算机自适应测试。
There is a consistent but poorly understood finding that self-report and behavioral measures of impulsivity are weakly correlated or uncorrelated. There are many possible explanations for this observation, including differences in how these instruments are administered and scored. The present study examined the utility of alternative scoring algorithms for self-report measures that aim to identify participants' peak impulsivity (or self-control), informed by estimates of item difficulty from Item Response Theory (IRT) analyses. College students were administered self-report questionnaires (Zuckerman Sensation Seeking Scale [ZSS], Barratt Impulsiveness Scale [BIS-11], behavioral measures related to risk-taking and impulsivity (Balloon Analog Risk Task [BART], Experiential Discounting Task [EDT]), and the substance use module of a clinical interview (past-six-month alcohol and marijuana use). IRT analyses were conducted on self-report measures to estimate item difficulty. Scoring algorithms ranked items by difficulty and scored items based on consecutive items endorsed or denied. A maximal scoring algorithm increased the concordance between the BIS-11 and BART (r = .08 vs. -.07), but there was no evidence of increased incremental validity for substance-use. Findings suggest that methodological factors may help explain the poor concordance of self-report and behavioral measures of impulsivity, but the magnitude of these correlations remained quite small. Further, alternative scoring algorithms were correlated with substance use but did not explain any variance that was distinct from typical algorithms. Future directions are discussed for elucidating the discrepancy between self-report and behavioral measures of impulsivity-related constructs, such as using large self-report item pools to develop computer adaptive tests.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
4.3
作者：
Allom, Vanessa;Panetta, Giulia;Hagger, Martin S.
通讯作者：
Hagger, Martin S.
影响因子：
1.3
作者：
Reynolds, B;Schiffbauer, R
通讯作者：
Schiffbauer, R
影响因子：
4.2
作者：
Thush, Carolien;Wiers, Reinout W.;Stacy, Alan W.
通讯作者：
Stacy, Alan W.
影响因子：
22.4
作者：
MELLENBERGH, GJ
通讯作者：
MELLENBERGH, GJ
影响因子：
4.2
作者：
Krishnan-Sarin, Suchitra;Reynolds, Brady;Potenza, Marc N.
通讯作者：
Potenza, Marc N.