Analysis Paper on Impulsivity

Tara Hebison

Psyc 421-001

















Section 1: What criteria did White et al. use in selecting the tests of impulsivity
they would use in their study?
Several criteria were used to select the impulsivity measures in this study.
First, the aim of the impulsivity assessment was to tap the multiple dimensions of
impulsivity which were cognitive, behavioral, and personality. Second, to assess
impulsivity as reliably as possible by using multiple reporters. In addition to this
each session was videotaped and observations of the boys impulsive behaviors were
recorded by multiple trained observers. Third, tasks in this assessment were
selected to be engaging to keep the validity of the data from being compromised by
low subject motivation. Task formats were varied so as to engage the child and
circumvent boredom, with some measures being presented as computer games, and
others as winning money for correct responses. Lastly, Measures were included that
have published evaluations of reliability and validity.
From these 4 criteria, 11 different measures of impulsivity were identified.
Section 2: What criteria did White et al. use in selecting subjects in their
study?
The sample was randomly selected from fourth grade boys enrolled in public
schools in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The subjects were participants in the
Pittsburgh Youth study, which was a high-risk longitudinal survey on the causes and
correlates of early forms of delinquency. At the screening each boy, his caregiver,
and a teacher were interviewed using an appropriate form of the Child Behavior
Checklist to identify boys at risks for delinquency and criminal behavior. Boys
ranking in the top 30% of the risk index were retained in the study. Along with the
30% an additional 30% were randomly selected from the remaining 70% of the
sample. This led the sample to consist of 508 boys, half high-risk and half not at
high-risk.
Section 3: What kinds of correlations would you have expected between the
measures if all of the measures had defined impulsivity in the same way and
were all valid measures of it?
I would have predicted that the correlation between cognitive impulsivity and
SES would be significantly negative. This is because as the SES in a family lowers, the
impulsivity of an individual would rise. I also predicted that the correlation between
cognitive impulsivity and IQ to be significantly negative. The lower an individuals IQ is,
the more impulsive they become. I would expect that the correlation between cognitive
impulsivity and delinquency to be significantly positive. When a child is more delinquent
in their life, I would expect that their impulsivity is high. In terms of behavioral
impulsivity, I would expect the correlation with SES and IQ to also be negative. I would
also expect the correlation between behavioral impulsivity and delinquency to be
significantly positive. Overall, I expect that the behavioral impulsivity of the fourth grade
boys to be more significant than the cognitive impulsivity.
Section 4: What kind of correlations did White et al. calculate, and how did
they explain this findings?
White et al. calculated a few correlations between impulsivity and delinquency.
These correlations examined relationships between cognitive/behavioral impulsivity and
SES, IQ, and delinquency at ages 10, 12, and 13. The explanation for the significantly
negative correlation between cognitive impulsivity and SES is that boys from
disadvantaged backgrounds were more cognitively impulsive. This is the same
explanation for the significantly negative correlation between cognitive impulsivity and
IQ indicating that children with lower IQ scores were more impulsive when completing
hard and complex tasks. The correlation between impulsivity and delinquent boys ages
10, 12, and 13 was significantly positive. This indicated that delinquent boys were more
impulsive.
The correlation between behavioral impulsivity and SES and IQ were also
significantly negative. This means that boys with a low IQ and that came from
disadvantaged backgrounds were more behaviorally impulsive. Just like the correlation
between cognitive impulsivity and delinquency at ages 10, 12, and 13, the correlation
between behavioral impulsivity and delinquent boys ages 10, 12, and 13 was also
significantly positive
Section 5: White et al. determined that four variables loaded on one factor
they called behavioral impulsivity. What were the four variables that loaded
on that factor?
The four variables loaded on the behavioral factor were parent-reported,
observer-reported, teacher-reported, and self-reported measures. Parents completed
the California Child Q-Set which is a language simplified personality assessment. The
teachers completed the CBCL which is a list of symptoms of childhood disorders. The
observers watched the videotaped sessions and drew conclusions from them about the
individuals within the study. The boys completed a self-report questionnaire called the
Eysenck Impulsiveness Scale.
Section 6: White et al. determined that six variables loaded on a second factor
they called cognitive impulsivity. What were these six variables?
These variables were Trail Making Test time, Stroop errors, time perception,
number of cards played on the CPT, circle tracing, and delay of gratification. The
Trial Making Test time tests attention and concentration skills. The Stroop test tests
sustained concentration and mental control. Time perception tests cognitive tempo.
Number of cards played on the CPT tests an individuals response style. The circle
tracing task tests motor control. The delay of gratification task tests an individuals ability
when a less desirable but immediate monetary outcome against a more desirable but less
immediate monetary outcome is presented.
Section 7: Write a simple research outline to follow up on the White et al.
study.
To follow up on the White et al. study I would first address the confusion
surrounding the construct of impulsivity, more so the cognitive approach to measuring
impulsivity. To better clarify the nature of the cognitive impulsivity approach, I would
produce another task to test the mental control and cognitive tempo in individuals that
show signs of antisocial behavior. The validity of such task would be compared to those
tasks already performed in the White et al study. By doing so the concurrent validity of
my test would be strong which enables the confusion surrounding the construct of
cognitive impulsivity to be lessened. With this continued effort, I would hope to see the
tests and tasks strengthened and the outcomes of the correlations reinforced.

Section 8: What do these findings tell us about the construct validity of the
measures used in the White et al. study?
White et al. sought to address questions concerning the construct of impulsivity.
First they sought to answer whether different measures of impulsivity display differential
relationships to delinquent behavior. The measures that White et al. used adequately
answered this theory. Each theory, whether it is cognitive or behavioral, showed a
different relationship to the measure of delinquency. They discovered that impulsivity is
not one-dimensional but two-dimensional. They predicted such before they conducted
their study. Therefore, the construct validity of the measures conducted was strong and
accurate. This, like all other study goals found in White et al.s study, were found to be
valid and sound. White et al. used measures that correctly answered their theories about
impulsivity. By doing so, they were able to further close the gap between the discrepancy
of impulsivity and antisocial behavior.