Investigating the behavioral and self-report constructs of impulsivity domains using principal component analysis.

Olin Neuropsychiatry Research Center, Institute of Living at Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut 06106, USA.
Behavioural pharmacology (Impact Factor: 2.19). 10/2009; 20(5-6):390-9. DOI: 10.1097/FBP.0b013e32833113a3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Impulsivity, often defined as a human behavior characterized by the inclination of an individual to act on urge rather than thought, with diminished regard to consequences, encompasses a range of maladaptive behaviors, which are in turn affected by distinct neural systems. Congruent with the above definition, behavioral studies have consistently shown that the underlying construct of impulsivity is multidimensional in nature. However, research to date has been inconclusive regarding the different domains or constructs that constitute this behavior. In addition there is also no clear consensus as to whether self-report and laboratory based measures of impulsivity measure the same or different domains. This study aimed to: (i) characterize the underlying multidimensional construct of impulsivity using a sample with varying degrees of putative impulsivity related to substance misuse, including subjects who were at-risk of substance use or addicted (ARA), and (ii) assess relationships between self-report and laboratory measures of impulsivity, using a principal component-based factor analysis. In addition, our supplementary goal was to evaluate the structural constructs of impulsivity within each group separately (healthy and ARA). We used five self-report measures (Behavioral Inhibition System/Behavioral Activation System, Barratt Impulsivity Scale-11, Padua Inventory, Zuckerman Sensation Seeking Scale, and Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire) and two computer-based laboratory tasks (Balloon Analog Risk Task and the Experiential Discounting Task) to measure the aspects of impulsivity in a total of 176 adult subjects. Subjects included healthy controls (n = 89), nonalcoholic subjects with family histories of alcoholism (family history positive; n = 36) and both former (n = 20) and current (n = 31) cocaine users. Subjects with a family history of alcoholism and cocaine abusers were grouped together as 'at-risk/addicted' (ARA) to evaluate our supplementary goal. Our overall results revealed the multidimensional nature of the impulsivity construct as captured optimally through a five-factor solution that accounted for nearly 70% of the total variance. The five factors/components were imputed as follows 'Self-Reported Behavioral Activation', 'Self-Reported Compulsivity and Reward/Punishment', 'Self-Reported Impulsivity', 'Behavioral Temporal Discounting', and 'Behavioral Risk-Taking'. We also found that contrary to previously published reports, there was significant overlap between certain laboratory and self-report measures, indicating that they might be measuring the same impulsivity domain. In addition, our supplemental analysis also suggested that the impulsivity constructs were largely, but not entirely the same within the healthy and ARA groups.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 'Impulsivity' refers to a range of behaviours including preference for immediate reward (temporal-impulsivity) and the tendency to make premature decisions (reflection-impulsivity) and responses (motor-impulsivity). The current study aimed to examine how different behavioural and self-report measurements of impulsivity can be categorised into distinct subtypes. Exploratory factor analysis using full information maximum likelihood was conducted on 10 behavioural and 1 self-report measure of impulsivity. Four factors of impulsivity were indicated, with Factor 1 having a high loading of the Stop Signal Task, which measures motor-impulsivity, factor 2 representing reflection-impulsivity with loadings of the Information Sampling Task and Matching Familiar Figures Task, factor 3 representing the Immediate Memory Task, and finally factor 4 which represents the Delay Discounting Questionnaire and The Monetary Choice Questionnaire, measurements of temporal-impulsivity. These findings indicated that impulsivity is not a unitary construct, and instead represents a series of independent subtypes. There was evidence of a distinct reflection-impulsivity factor, providing the first factor analysis support for this subtype. There was also support for additional factors of motor- and temporal-impulsivity. The present findings indicated that a number of currently accepted tasks cannot be considered as indexing motor- and temporal-impulsivity suggesting that additional characterisations of impulsivity may be required.
    Personality and Individual Differences 04/2015; 76. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.059 · 1.86 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Impulsivity critically relates to many psychiatric disorders. Given the multifaceted construct that impulsivity represents, defining core aspects of impulsivity is vital for the assessment and understanding of clinical conditions. Choice impulsivity (CI), involving the preferential selection of smaller sooner rewards over larger later rewards, represents one important type of impulsivity. The International Society for Research on Impulsivity (InSRI) convened to discuss the definition and assessment of CI and provide recommendations regarding measurement across species. Commonly used preclinical and clinical CI behavioral tasks are described, and considerations for each task are provided to guide CI task selection. Differences in assessment of CI (self-report, behavioral) and calculating CI indices (e.g., area-under-the-curve, indifference point, and steepness of discounting curve) are discussed along with properties of specific behavioral tasks used in preclinical and clinical settings. The InSRI group recommends inclusion of measures of CI in human studies examining impulsivity. Animal studies examining impulsivity should also include assessments of CI and these measures should be harmonized in accordance with human studies of the disorders being modeled in the preclinical investigations. The choice of specific CI measures to be included should be based on the goals of the study and existing preclinical and clinical literature using established CI measures. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).
    Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment 04/2015; 6(2):182-198. DOI:10.1037/per0000099 · 3.54 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Impulsivity is a heritable, multifaceted construct with clinically relevant links to multiple psychopathologies. We assessed impulsivity in young adult (N~2100) participants in a longitudinal study, using self-report questionnaires and computer-based behavioral tasks. Analysis was restricted to the subset (N=426) who underwent genotyping. Multivariate association between impulsivity measures and single-nucleotide polymorphism data was implemented using parallel independent component analysis (Para-ICA). Pathways associated with multiple genes in components that correlated significantly with impulsivity phenotypes were then identified using a pathway enrichment analysis. Para-ICA revealed two significantly correlated genotype-phenotype component pairs. One impulsivity component included the reward responsiveness subscale and behavioral inhibition scale of the Behavioral-Inhibition System/Behavioral-Activation System scale, and the second impulsivity component included the non-planning subscale of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale and the Experiential Discounting Task. Pathway analysis identified processes related to neurogenesis, nervous system signal generation/amplification, neurotransmission and immune response. We identified various genes and gene regulatory pathways associated with empirically derived impulsivity components. Our study suggests that gene networks implicated previously in brain development, neurotransmission and immune response are related to impulsive tendencies and behaviors.
    Translational Psychiatry 09/2014; 4(9):e451. DOI:10.1038/tp.2014.95 · 4.36 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 17, 2014