Literature DB >> 25580611

The assessment of risky decision making: a factor analysis of performance on the Iowa Gambling Task, Balloon Analogue Risk Task, and Columbia Card Task.

Melissa T Buelow1, Amber L Blaine1.   

Abstract

Researchers and clinicians frequently use behavioral measures to assess decision making. The most common task that is marketed to clinicians is the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), thought to assess risky decision making. How does performance on the IGT relate to performance on other common measures of decision making? The present study sought to examine relationships between the IGT, the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART), and the Columbia Card Task (CCT). Participants were 390 undergraduate students who completed the IGT, BART, and either the "hot" or "cold" CCT. Principal components factor analysis on the IGT, BART, and CCT-cold (n = 112) indicated that the IGT measures a different component of decision making than the BART, and the CCT-cold weakly correlated with early IGT trials. Results of the exploratory factor analysis on the IGT, BART, and CCT-hot (n = 108) revealed a similar picture: the IGT and BART assessed different types of decision making, and the BART and CCT-hot were weakly correlated. A confirmatory factor analysis (n = 170) indicated that a 3-factor model without the CCT-cold (Factor 1: later IGT trials; Factor 2: BART; and Factor 3: early IGT trials) was a better fitting model than one that included the CCT-cold and early IGT trials on the same factor. Collectively, the present results suggest that the IGT, BART, and CCT all measure unique, nonoverlapping decision making processes. Further research is needed to more fully understand the neuropsychological construct of decision making. (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25580611     DOI: 10.1037/a0038622

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Assess        ISSN: 1040-3590


  13 in total

1.  Decision-Making as a Latent Construct and its Measurement Invariance in a Large Sample of Adolescent Cannabis Users.

Authors:  Ileana Pacheco-Colón; Samuel W Hawes; Jacqueline C Duperrouzel; Catalina Lopez-Quintero; Raul Gonzalez
Journal:  J Int Neuropsychol Soc       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 2.892

2.  Risk taking, decision-making, and brain volume in youth adopted internationally from institutional care.

Authors:  Max P Herzberg; Amanda S Hodel; Raquel A Cowell; Ruskin H Hunt; Megan R Gunnar; Kathleen M Thomas
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2018-08-28       Impact factor: 3.139

3.  Altered subjective reward valuation among female heavy marijuana users.

Authors:  Kathryn R Hefner; Mark J Starr
Journal:  Exp Clin Psychopharmacol       Date:  2016-12-12       Impact factor: 3.157

Review 4.  Neuroimaging of reward mechanisms in Gambling disorder: an integrative review.

Authors:  Luke Clark; Isabelle Boileau; Martin Zack
Journal:  Mol Psychiatry       Date:  2018-09-13       Impact factor: 15.992

5.  A Systematic Review of the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) in Alcohol Research.

Authors:  Jessica R Canning; Macey R Schallert; Mary E Larimer
Journal:  Alcohol Alcohol       Date:  2022-01-08       Impact factor: 2.826

6.  Caudate nucleus-dependent navigation strategies are associated with increased risk-taking and set-shifting behavior.

Authors:  Étienne Aumont; Caroll-Ann Blanchette; Veronique D Bohbot; Greg L West
Journal:  Learn Mem       Date:  2019-03-21       Impact factor: 2.460

7.  Beyond dual systems: A genetically-informed, latent factor model of behavioral and self-report measures related to adolescent risk-taking.

Authors:  K Paige Harden; Natalie Kretsch; Frank D Mann; Kathrin Herzhoff; Jennifer L Tackett; Laurence Steinberg; Elliot M Tucker-Drob
Journal:  Dev Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2016-12-26       Impact factor: 6.464

8.  Psychometric Properties of the Chinese version of UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale.

Authors:  Yingying Zhang; Xian Qiu; Qihuan Ren; Zhirong Zhou; Huijing Zhou; Jiang Du; Valerie Voon; Chencheng Zhang; Wenjuan Liu
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2020-03-26       Impact factor: 4.157

9.  It's All in How You Think About It: Construal Level and the Iowa Gambling Task.

Authors:  Bradley M Okdie; Melissa T Buelow; Kurstie Bevelhymer-Rangel
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2016-01-22       Impact factor: 4.677

10.  Information Use Differences in Hot and Cold Risk Processing: When Does Information About Probability Count in the Columbia Card Task?

Authors:  Łukasz Markiewicz; Elżbieta Kubińska
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-11-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.