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

Abstract

Although highly emphasized in psychological research, there has been little empirical evidence examining the overlap in meaning 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 selfreport 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). This little convergent validity evidence for impulsivity as measured by self-report and behavioral lab tasks could indicate that these two measures are assessing different constructs. If these are different constructs, referring to them in the literature as "impulsivity" influences one to think of them as representing a unitary underlying construct, when, in fact, we may be measuring disparate constructs. When disparate measures are described using the same multidimensional moniker, little forward progress can be made in figuring out how a trait relates to a criterion of interest. 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.

UPPS-P model impulsivity and marijuana use behaviors in adolescents: A meta-analysis

“…Although some have proposed that impulsivity can be assessed via self-reports and behavioral tasks, recent meta-analytic evidence suggests that these two domains share very little (~5%) variance to warrant calling them both impulsivity (Cyders & Coskunpinar, 2011). The authors suggest that trait and behavioral approaches measure different things (self-report assessments measuring more stable personality traits and behavioral tasks measuring impulsive states) and should not be combined (Cyders & Coskunpinar, 2011).…”

“…The authors suggest that trait and behavioral approaches measure different things (self-report assessments measuring more stable personality traits and behavioral tasks measuring impulsive states) and should not be combined (Cyders & Coskunpinar, 2011). We chose to focus our review on impulsivity traits because they have superior content and ecological validity as compared to behavioral tasks (Sperry, et al, 2016), reflecting cognitions, emotions and behaviors individuals experience in everyday life.…”

Impulsivity as a vulnerability factor for poor addiction treatment outcomes: A review of neurocognitive findings among individuals with substance use disorders

“…As proximate measures of the neurobiology underlying impulsive behavior, neurocognitive instruments serve as indicators of endophenotypes, which may represent particularly attractive therapeutic targets (Gottesman & Gould, 2003). Although a number of studies suggest some degree of correspondence between self-report and neurocognitive tasks of impulsivity (Christiansen, Cole, Goudie, & Field, 2012), there are more data to suggest that these disparate measures should not be referred to under the same rubric (Aichert et al, 2012;Christiansen et al, 2012;Cyders & Coskunpinar, 2011;Dom, De Wilde, Hulstijn, & Sabbe, 2007;Meda et al, 2009;Reynolds et al, 2006). Indeed, the small magnitude of the observed effect sizes indicates that largely, there is more variability in what is being assessed via self-report and neurocognitive tasks of impulsivity than there is overlapping content domain (Cyders & Coskunpinar, 2011).…”

Impulsividad en varones con prescripción de benzodiacepinas y metadona en prisión

“…Estos datos sugieren que el grupo de abstinentes poseería las características de tolerancia a la frustración y aburrimiento además de concentración en la tarea, que un proceso de deshabituación (con o sin apoyo especializado), requiere, y del que adolece los grupos con metadona más necesitados de un apoyo farmacológico. La metadona afecta procesos de atención selectiva (Mintzer y Stitzer, 2002;Prosser et al, 2006, y datos propios obtenidos en esta muestra y no publicados), y a su vez, estos procesos de inhibición de respuesta prepotente se han relacionado con la escala de "falta de perseverancia" (Cyders y Coskunpinar, 2011) por lo que se sugiere un proceso común subyacente especialmente distintivo en los grupos de consumo de metadona respecto al grupo de no consumidores. La mayor SC asociada a los grupos de metadona podría estar relacionado con una regulación a la baja de la actividad noradrenérgica debida a la estimulación crónica del receptor mu opioide que altera su procesamiento de percepción del castigo, tal como ha sido propuesta por Ersche et al (2005).…”