Behavioral measures of impulsivity are widely used in substance abuse research yet relatively little attention has been devoted to establishing their psychometric properties especially their reliability over repeated administration. to high with Pearson correlations within the specific impulsivity domains as follows: impulsive choice (= .76 – .89 = .65 – .73 = .38-.42 NVP-BAG956 = .64 to = .91 have been reported for delay discounting jobs (with sample sizes ranging from n = 22 to n = 299) (Baker Johnson & Bickel 2003 Beck & Triplett 2009 Ohmura Takahashi Kitamura & Wehr 2006 Simpson & Vuchinich 2000 Smits Stein Rabbit Polyclonal to Claudin 2. Johnson Odum & Madden 2013 and a correlation of NVP-BAG956 = .77 was reported within the BART in a sample of n = 40 (White colored Lejuez & de Wit 2008 To day one study has examined the reliability of multiple behavioral impulsivity jobs in the same participants (Wostmann et al. 2013 This study included a battery of executive function steps including three impulsive action steps. Significant test-retest reliability was observed for commission errors within the proceed/no-go task but not for the CPT or quit signal steps. However the sample in this study was small (n = 23) and it is important to assess the reliability of a range of behavioral impulsivity jobs including steps of impulsive choice and inattention in a larger sample of healthy adults. Reliability estimations of behavioral impulsivity steps are important to address the query of whether these steps mainly assess temporary ‘claims“ or whether they reflect stable ‘characteristics“. Typically self-report inventories of impulsive personality are considered to be trait-like steps whereas behavioral jobs are thought to assess more fluctuating claims (Dick et al. 2010 although observe Odum (2011; 2012) for conversation of discounting like a trait measure). If this is the case performance might be expected to vary from day to day depending on an individual“s mood motivation or level of fatigue. Pronounced day-to-day variability would be of interest to predict vulnerable claims but NVP-BAG956 low day-to-day variability would indicate that overall performance within the jobs is a stable trait-like measure. Here we examined the regularity of overall performance on these steps given on two independent occasions separated by at least one day and analyzed the variability in task performance in relation to variations in mood. The current study examined the test-retest reliability of a electric battery of standardized behavioral impulsivity jobs. Steps of impulsive choice included delay discounting probability discounting and the BART; steps of impulsive action included the quit signal task proceed/no-go task and CPT (percentage errors); and steps of inattention included reaction time variability on a simple reaction time task and omission errors within the CPT. As a assessment two widely used self-report steps of impulsive personality were given (we.e. the Barratt Impulsiveness Level (Patton Stanford & Barratt 1995 and the UPPS-P (Cyders et al. 2007 Whiteside & Lynam 2001 Participants completed the battery of behavioral and self-report steps over four hours twice on two independent days. The reliability of overall performance across test classes was assessed as were associations in between-session variations in overall performance and mood. Methods Participants Volunteers were recruited from the community through on-line and imprinted advertisements. Inclusion criteria included age 18-30 at least a high school education fluency in English no current or past 12 months DSM-IV diagnosis and no lifetime compound NVP-BAG956 dependence (other than caffeine or nicotine). Because these data were collected as part of a larger genetic study all participants were Caucasian. The study was authorized by the Institutional Review Table of the University or college of Chicago and was carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Participants were compensated for his or her time. Steps Impulsive choice (DDT and PDT; Richards Zhang Mitchell & de Wit 1999 These jobs assess the relative value of immediate vs. delayed/probable consequences. Participants are asked to make a series of choices between smaller immediate rewards and larger delayed or probabilistic rewards. Participants are told that at the end of the session a random quantity will be generated and depending on the quantity they could potentially receive one of the rewards they chose. The task.