Comparison among various methods of assessment of impulsiveness.
The current confused status of the research on impulsivity may be attributed to the lack of precise definitions, the reliance of most operationalizations on a single index, and inconsistency among different measures of the construct. Empirical measurements of impulsivity by self-reports, rating scales, or performance tasks suggest that the instruments employed measure aspects that have very little in common, a finding that throws serious doubts on the validity of the construct and implies a need for further research. To clarify this topic, we applied four different measures of impulsivity to 46 7th-grade (12 to 13 years old) schoolchildren. The children were rated by their teachers on an impulsivity behavior scale and were administered Kagan's Matching Familiar Figures Test, Version MFF-20, and two self-report forms, the Eysenck Impulsiveness Questionnaire, and the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Although the results confirmed the lack of convergence among these measures, high latencies on matching were associated with the cognitive aspect of the self-report scales. Treating impulsivity as a multidimensional construct is discussed.
Carrillo-de-la-Peña
M T
MT
Departamento de Psicología Clínica y Psicobiología, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Otero
J M
JM
Romero
E
E
D000293:Adolescent; D001288:Attention; D004193:Discrimination Learning; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007175:Impulsive Behavior / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000523:psychology; D008297:Male; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual; D010552:Personality Assessment / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D010553:Personality Development; D010555:Personality Inventory / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D011594:Psychometrics; D012016:Reference Values; D015203:Reproducibility of Results