Test for Psychological Impulsivity

Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Abstract.
Impulsivity refers to a human behavior influenced by the inclination of an individual to act on the urge as opposed to thoughts. The actions are made without regard to
consequences. Congruent with the mentioned definition, behavioral studies have persistently indicated that impulsivity’s construct is multi-dimensional in nature.
However, research to date remains sketchy regarding different domains that incorporate the mentioned behavior. Furthermore, there lacks a valid consensus demarcating
self-report and laboratory-based measures of impulsivity. Impulsivity is established through a self-report questionnaire and also through an independent
neuropsychological test. Current studies have majorly focused on a detailed empirical research incorporating all the previous aspects of impulsive actions. This paper
presents a detailed discussion and critique of different impulsivity test. Furthermore, the paper focus on impulsivity features and its utility in various assessment
scenario.
Psychological impulsivity is a multifactorial construct. This construct involves behaviors characterized by the absence of forethought, self-reflection, and
consideration for the consequences. Thus, actions are poorly conceived, prematurely expressed, and unduly risky and mismatches the applicable situation resulting in
undesirable outcomes. These actions are empirically decoded through the use of self-report approach that is one of the tests for impulsivity. This method majorly
focuses on a nomothetic span. Self-report methods are instrumental when circumstance in question remains to be unclear (Thompson, 2011). This method can also be
applied when an individual has insights to their own feelings and thoughts (Anne, 2013). Additionally, this method is suitable for mass assessments. This method is
also helpful in assessment of individual’s current status. Nomothetic span is often considered important in the domain of personal differences.
Research indicates that face validity of the self-report approach is majorly considered as the major weakness of this method (Aboujaoude, 2011). Research analysis
found in this method is only valid contextually between the researcher and the participant. Thus, subjecting this context to universal study makes the way to loose
reliance. Current studies indicate that this method yields variant analysis findings when applied in the similar context (Costello, 2014). Despite the weakness
mentioned above, researchers establishing the current patterns within the existing measures. This scales will determine deception encountered in test-takers. This
aspect projects the weakness of the current methods that yields research findings.
Despite the shortcomings mentioned above, this method is considered to be instrumental in establishing individual differences. Thus, the method enhances the
determination of cognitive process ability (Verdejo-Gracia, 2009 ). Furthermore, the method determines the overlap involving the dependable variable and the underlying
contrast of interest (Cyders, 2011). Comparative studies justifies the validity of this process. This is due to construct representation is usually underestimated in
clinical psychology, since there exists negligible construct.

Behavioral lab task conceptualization of impulsivity is an impulsive test that majorly focus on level and nature of the trait. Furthermore, the method also focuses on
momentarily rush behaviors. Researchers predict different cognitive processes that are detailed in this way (Gillies, 2015). The method focuses on suppressing dominant
responses. Contextually, different measure has been proposed to establish the validity of this method. An unresolved puzzle is whether there exists a critical
structure underpinning the multiple dimensions of behavioral lab task conceptualization. A number of previous studies have attempted to address this, some deeply
attached to implicit theories, others further empirically driven, but few have established mechanism from different domains from a number of participants (Gracia,
2010). Minimal correlation were found between self-report and lab based specimens, thus studies concluded that they measured different domains (Weinstein, Encyclopedia
of psychology research, 2010). Other studies primarily report insufficient correlations between self-report and lab based specimens, with divergent research findings
involving some contradictory factors emanating from research. Since behavioral and self-report assessments are established in separate models, some researchers have
posited the establishment of method based factors inherent in factor-based approaches (Haydel, 2013). However, some research evidence indicate that methodology may not
result in significant obstacles in establishing a theoretically coherent correlation between the two mentioned methods. Two major frameworks of impulsivity that might
supersede evaluation method that includes impulsive action and decision making.
UPPS-P impulsive behavior scale is also a test for psychological impulsivity. It consists of sixty components self-report scale that revises the original UPPS. The
level identifies several personality facets both in adolescents and adults. The scale consists of five subsets that focus on personality aspects. In a modern study,
120 adolescents were assessed on a UPPS-P impulsive behavior scale. Several delay and discounting tasks and advanced laboratory measures of a harmonized attention and
inhibition factors were considered in the test. Principal component assessment hinted three major aspects accounting for 65% variation in the entire test. Two
components correlated with the impulsive decision making and impulsive disinhibition. The supplementary factor analysis hinted three independent models of impulsivity
that included decision making, inattention and inhibition. Imperative to note however, the significant amount of research findings considered in this area have been
done using samples of healthy people. This study resulted in strength in the study of individual personality contrast, however there exist expectations of less overall
variations among samples established in clinically categorized group (Johansson, 2001). There exists a possibility that more detailed results about a possibility of
over-arching correlation for the current and the past methods, since there exists a different pattern of impulsivity traits.
Dickman Impulsivity Inventory count as the third psychological impulsivity test. Studies indicate that this test explores two types of impulsivity that antagonize each
other. This impulsivity includes functional impulsivity that is characterized by quick decision making that is optimal. This trait is suggested to be a source of
pride. The scale also incorporates dysfunctional impulsivity described by making a quick decision when it is not optimal. This impulsivity is linked with difficulties
resulting from adverse outcomes. This test suggested that there exists two separate traits, one that leads to inaccurate performance in optimal situations (Olmstead,
2014). The other quality results in rapid, incorrect performance in non-optimal situations.
Neurology studies suggest that the internal consistency of dysfunctional impulsivity scale proved to be moderate as compared to functional impulsive level (Postal,
2013). Reference to the original studies, inter-correlation between the subscales is minimal, a possible suggestion that they measure two comparative personal traits
(John, 2008). A significant correlation existed between dysfunctional impulsive scale and the Eysenck’s Narrow-Impulsivity Scale. The association referred to
psychological aspects that leads to impaired actions resulting to negative consequences.
Modern Psychological impulsivity studies relate reaction times and general intelligence. This relation suggests that high functional impulsiveness are intelligent as
compared to the little functional impulsiveness (Leventhal, 2012 ). Justification for this suggestion is because there exists a significance correlation between
functional impulsivity and academic level. University degree holders portray a higher dysfunctional impulsivity as compared to those with elementary educational
qualification.
Research has consistently described the weaknesses of the impulsivity tests. Despite the rejuvenated focus on the concept of impulsivity, agreement on the definition
and core practical guidelines remains to be a puzzle in the minds of researchers (Ramsay, 2002). Multiple conceptual models appear to overlap irregularly and poorly
thus contradicting the research findings. Separation of the mentioned models is pertinent, as they influence different circuits in the brain. However, research has
been inconclusive as appertains the various domains of research (Tardiff, 2008). Research to date has failed to provide empirical evidence correlating impulsivity with
risk-taking behaviors (Madden, 2010). Research findings is yet to establish the overlap existing within a different aspect of impulsivity suggested by self-report and
behavioral lab tasks methods (Weinstein, Encyclopedia of psychology research. volume 1, 2011). There have been contradictory research findings linking impulsivity to
many problem behaviors and conditions (Mallory, Encyclopedia of psychology research. volume 3, 2011). Some research results consider impulsivity to be multifaceted.
To establish the framework of self-report and behavioral assessment impulsivity, a principal component factor is employed in the analysis. This component analyzes data
extracted from a larger population of adults, including people with addiction and risk-related behaviors.
Factor analysis in this method was to enhance and investigate the proposal for the hypothesis. A prediction was made so as to establish whether the results will be in
line with other well-conducted research findings. However, the study was not consistent with the proposed hypothesis. Research indicates that the Bart measure showed
that the results were orthogonal with the all other measures. This was not in line with Reynold study. Further research suggests that Reynolds studies incorporated
participants who were ten years younger than those in later studies (Melissa, 2012). The core value of this comparative analysis is to extend an upcoming
conceptualization correlating amongst different indicators of impulsivity. Additionally, it is worth noting that a concise multidimensional model, amicably in
agreement with past studies, corresponds to the contrary findings (Monika, 2011). On one side, this supports the constructs of impulsivity as determinant to the
causative agents only. On the opposite view, this complimented the support the proposed hypothesis which never in modern studies.

Conclusion.
In summary, the paper elaborates a significant extension to previous studies and further hints the multidimensional construct of impulsivity measures, with a detailed
correlation between various self-report and laboratory assessments in a cohort of healthy controls. Besides, the paper further demonstrates the contrast in the
underlying constructs of impulsivity between the different groups. This work will allow researchers to establish the physiological systems underpinning the behaviors
and in turn aids in developing targeted diagnosis for impulsivity related pathological behaviors.
References
Aboujaoude, E. (2011). Virtually you: the dangerous powers of the e-personality. New York: W Norton.
Anne, M. (2013). Affective traits in humans Chicago: IUPUI ScholarWorks.
Costello, V. (2014). Rein in your brain: from impulsivity to thoughtful living in recovery. Center City: Minnesota Hazelden.
Cyders. (2011). The self-report analysis in the personal facets analysis for impulsivity Newyork: Clinical psychology review.
Cyders, M. (2012). Psychology of impulsivity. Ney York New York.
Gillies, A. (2015). The enlightenment of Nina Findlay. New York: other press.
Gracia, V. (2010). Psychometric properties of UPPS-P impulsive scale.
Haydel, M. P. (2013). Essays in behavioral and experimental economics: time preferences and risk measures. Richardson, Texas: The University of Texas at Dallas.
Johansson, A. (2001). Neuropsychological studies on alcohol consumption öteborg: Dep of Psychology Göteborg University.
John, T. G. (2008). The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
Leventhal, R. (2012 ). Neurocognitive correlations defining impulsivity New York: Publishers.
Madden, G. (2010). Impulsivity: the behavioral science was interpreting research data Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Mallory, W. (2011). Encyclopedia of psychology research. Volume 2. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Mallory, W. (2011). Encyclopedia of psychology research. Volume 3. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Melissa, C. (2012). Relations for the research data and data conceptualization. Berlin: Pergamon.
Monika, K. (2011). The association of childhood trauma, eating disorder symptoms and general psychopathology in individuals. Chicago: SAGE publisher.
Olmstead, M. (2014). Psychology of impulsivity: new research. Hauppauge New York: Nova Science Publisher.
Postal, K. (2013). Feedback that Sticks: the art of communicating neuropsychological assessment results. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ramsay, M. (2002). Essentials of behavioral assessment. New York: J. Wiley & Sons.
Tardiff, K. (2008). Textbook of violence evaluation and management. Washington: American Psychiatric Pub.
Thompson, C. (2011). Evaluation of a dialectical behavior therapy skills group for female inmates who voluntarily seek treatment: a pilot study. Louisville, Kentucky:
University of Louisville.
Verdejo-Gracia. (2009 ). Women with high and low impulsive traits neuropsychological tasks.
Weinstein, M. (2010). Encyclopedia of psychology research. Hauppauge,: Nova Science Publishers.
Weinstein, M. (2011). Encyclopedia of psychology research. Volume 1. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

TO GET YOUR ASSIGNMENTS DONE AT A CHEAPER PRICE,PLACE YOUR ORDER WITH US NOW