Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Subscribe now for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

An Abbreviated Impulsiveness Scale Constructed Through Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale Version 11

An Abbreviated Impulsiveness Scale Constructed Through Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the... Archives of Scientific Psychology 2014, 2, 1–12 © 2014 American Psychological Association DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000005 2169-3269 Archives of Scientific Psychology http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/arc An Abbreviated Impulsiveness Scale Constructed Through Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale Version 11 Christopher G. Coutlee, Cary S. Politzer, Rick H. Hoyle, and Scott A. Huettel Duke University ABSTRACT Impulsiveness is a personality trait that reflects an urge to act spontaneously without thinking or planning ahead for the consequences of your actions. High impulsiveness is characteristic of various problematic behaviors including attention deficit disorder, hyperactivity, excessive gambling, risk-taking, drug use, and alcoholism. Researchers studying attention and self- control often assess impulsiveness using personality questionnaires, notably the common Barratt Impulsiveness Scale version 11 (BIS-11; last revised in 1995). Advances in techniques for producing personality questionnaires over the last 20 years prompted us to revise and improve the BIS-11. We sought to make the revised scale shorter—so that it would be quicker to administer—and better matched to current behaviors. We analyzed responses from 1,549 adults who took the BIS-11 questionnaire. Using a statistical technique called factor analysis, we eliminated 17 questions that did a poor job of measuring the 3 major types of impulsiveness identified by the scale: inattention, spontaneous action, and lack of planning. We constructed our ABbreviated Impulsiveness Scale (ABIS) using the remaining 13 questions. We showed that the ABIS performed well when administered to additional groups of 657 and 285 adults. Finally, we showed expected relationships between the ABIS and other personality measurements related to impulsiveness, and we showed that the ABIS can help predict alcohol consumption. We present the ABIS as a useful and efficient tool for researchers interested in measuring impulsive personality. SCIENTIFIC ABSTRACT Impulsiveness is a personality construct characterized by the urge to act spontaneously and without reflecting on consequences. It is commonly measured using the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale version 11 (BIS-11), which has remained a prevalent scale despite inconsistent replication of its original factor structure. Here, we applied exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to data from a large adult sample (N  1,549) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to data from two replication samples (N  657; N 285) to reexamine the factor structure of impulsiveness as measured by the BIS-11. We sought to improve scale efficiency, score reliability, and inferential validity by eliminating questionable items and factors. Factors reflecting need for cognition (three items) and domain-specific financial impulsiveness (three items) were removed to increase scale specificity. Three poorly measured factors reflecting restlessness (two items), perseverance (two items), and cognitive instability (two items) were removed, and five items poorly explained by the remaining factors (R from .02 to .26) were also removed. From this final model, we derived the ABbreviated Impulsiveness Scale (ABIS). The ABIS measures attentional (five items,  .72), motor (four items, .75), and nonplanning (four items, .75) impulsiveness. Model fit for the ABIS was superior to fit for the canonical BIS-11 in every sample tested. In addition, the ABIS predicted alcohol consumption in a separate study of impulsive behavior (r  .44, p  .05). By removing unreliable items and poorly measured factors, we produced an efficient, internally consistent, and generalizable scale measuring attentional, motor, and nonplanning impulsiveness. The ABIS can be used as a brief alternative to the BIS-11 or as a model for reanalyzing previously collected BIS-11 questionnaire responses. Keywords: impulsiveness, impulsivity, Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, BIS-11, factor analysis Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000005.supp Data Repository: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR35007.v1 This article was published April 14, 2014. Christopher G. Coutlee, Cary S. Politzer, Rick H. Hoyle, and Scott A. Huettel, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University. The authors thank Dr. Steve Mitroff for contributing questionnaire data used as a part of this study. This research was supported by National Institutes of Health grants DA023026 (R.H.H.) and NS041328 (S.A.H.) The authors report no conflicts of interest. For further discussion on this topic, please visit the Archives of Scientific Psychology online public forum at http://arcblog.apa.org. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Scott A. Huettel, Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Box 90999, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710. E-mail: scott.huettel@duke.edu This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 2 COUTLEE, POLITZER, HOYLE, AND HUETTEL Impulsiveness is a personality trait characterized by the urge to act account for the ordinal nature of scale responses (Muthén, 1983; spontaneously without reflecting on an action and its consequences. Wirth & Edwards, 2007), and the reliance on exploratory analysis Trait impulsiveness influences several important psychological pro- without subsequent confirmatory replication (MacCallum, cesses and behaviors, including self-regulation (Baumeister, 2002; Roznowski, Mar, & Reith, 1994) represent substantial drawbacks Neal & Carey, 2005), risk-taking (Kahn, Kaplowitz, Goodman, & to the original analytic approach. Finally, it is unclear which Emans, 2002; Stanford, Greve, Boudreaux, Mathias, & Brumbelow, BIS-11 scales provide the most psychometrically sound measures 1996), and decision-making (Ainslie, 1975; Bechara, Damasio, & of impulsiveness: the six-factor first-order scales, the canonical Damasio, 2000; Huettel, Stowe, Gordon, Warner, & Platt, 2006). three-factor second-order scales, or the commonly (mis)used single-factor total score (Fossati et al., 2002; Stanford et al., 2009). Impulsiveness is also an important component of several clinical We sought to address these concerns by conducting a method- conditions (American Psychiatric Association, 2000), including atten- ologically rigorous examination of the factor structure underlying tion deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; Malloy-Diniz, Fuentes, the BIS-11 with the goal of producing an efficient and generaliz- Leite, Correa, & Bechara, 2007; Moeller, Barratt, Dougherty, able instrument for measuring impulsiveness. Attempts have been Schmitz, & Swann, 2001), borderline personality disorder (Critch- made to produce abbreviated scales using BIS-11 items—in part field, Levy, & Clarkin, 2004; Ferraz et al., 2009), alcohol and drug because a shorter scale would be valuable in clinical contexts and abuse (Kollins, 2003; Perry & Carroll, 2008), and impulse control for survey research— but these studies either failed to test the disorders such as pathological gambling (Petry, 2001; Steel & Blaszc- adequacy of the underlying BIS-11 factor structure (Spinella, zynski, 1998). 2004) or sought only a unidimensional “total-score” impulsiveness Impulsiveness is typically measured using self-report scales, which measure (Steinberg, Sharp, Stanford, & Tharp, 2013). In addition, provide a relatively unobtrusive means of assessment across various these studies failed to confirm data-driven models in separate clinical and research contexts. The most widely administered instru- replication samples, leaving their scale models vulnerable to cap- ment for this purpose over the last 2 decades is likely the Barratt italization on chance variation (MacCallum, Roznowski, & Ne- Impulsiveness Scale version 11 (BIS-11; Patton, Stanford, & Barratt, cowitz, 1992). 1995), cited by over 2,300 sources since its formulation (Google In the study presented here, we applied exploratory and confir- Scholar, 2013). Consisting of 30 questions, the BIS-11 is thought to matory factor analysis (EFA and CFA, respectively) to reexamine measure six related yet distinct impulsiveness factors that have been the structure of impulsiveness as measured by the BIS-11 and to combined to form three more general subtraits: attentional impulsive- produce an alternative scale, the ABbreviated Impulsiveness Scale ness (“inability to concentrate”), nonplanning impulsiveness (“lack of (ABIS). Our analysis proceeded in three broad phases. First, we premeditation”), and motor impulsiveness (“action without thought”). applied EFA to BIS-11 responses from a large, diverse sample to This canonical three-factor structure of impulsiveness is based on a identify an underlying factor structure and eliminate invalid and long tradition of work by Barratt and colleagues recognizing the unreliable factors and items. The resulting ABIS factor model multidimensional structure of impulsiveness while also seeking to confirmed the attentional, nonplanning, and motor impulsiveness distinguish impulsive traits from comorbid constructs, including anx- subtraits proposed by Patton and colleagues (1995) for the BIS-11. iety, sensation-seeking, and risk-taking (Barratt, 1965; Barratt & Next, we applied CFA to test the generalizability of our ABIS Patton, 1983). Beginning with the BIS-10, Barratt and colleagues factor model in two separate replication samples. The ABIS model formalized their multidimensional hypothesis by developing a set of proved more generalizable than the canonical BIS-11 model. Fi- items to reflect three underlying impulsiveness constructs: motor, nally, we validated the ABIS scales through comparison to the nonplanning, and cognitive (rapid decision) impulsiveness (Barratt, BIS-11 as well as independent behavioral and personality measures 1985). Subsequent studies supported the scale’s multidimensional related to impulsiveness. The ABIS provides an efficient, inter- nature but led to the reconceptualization of cognitive impulsiveness as nally consistent, and generalizable alternative to the BIS-11 for attentional impulsiveness (Luengo, Carrillo-De-La-Pena, & Otero, measuring impulsiveness. 1991; Patton et al., 1995). Thus, prior evidence consistently supports the multidimensional nature of BIS-11 impulsiveness; however, sig- nificant questions remain regarding the number and nature of influ- Methods ences underlying scale responses. Although the BIS-11 continues to see frequent use in experi- Analysis Procedure mental and clinical contexts, attempts to replicate its canonical three-subtrait structure have generated inconsistent results. Studies Our study was designed to examine the associations among examining BIS-11 items using exploratory (Haden & Shiva, 2008; answers to personality survey questions (items) about impulsive- von Diemen, Szobot, Kessler, & Pechansky, 2007) and confirma- ness and to improve upon an existing measure of impulsive per- tory (Ireland & Archer, 2008; Ruiz, Skeem, Poythress, Douglas, & sonality based on these items (i.e., the BIS-11). We used the factor Lilienfeld, 2010; Someya et al., 2001) factor analyses raise impor- analytic techniques EFA and CFA to identify latent impulsive tant questions regarding the adequacy of the canonical BIS-11 personality traits influencing people’s answers to these items. Our factor structure. Some factors have proven unreliable, such as study proceeded in eight stages, which are illustrated in Figure 1. those reflecting cognitive instability (e.g., “I have racing In Stage I, we used CFA to test the ability of the canonical BIS-11 thoughts”) and perseverance (e.g., “I change residences”) (Fossati, model to describe the patterns of item responses. This canonical Barratt, Acquarini, & Ceglie, 2002; Fossati, Di Ceglie, Acquarini, model failed, leading us to Stage II, in which we used exploratory, & Barratt, 2001). Others, such as cognitive complexity (i.e., a data-driven techniques (parallel analysis and EFA) to construct an preference for complex thought), seem to measure personality initial seven-factor model of impulsive personality. Next, in Stage constructs distinct from core impulsiveness (Cacioppo & Petty, III, we identified and took steps to eliminate three problematic 1982). These inconsistencies may derive in part from analytical factors that were unrelated to core impulsiveness. In Stage IV, we choices during the formulation of the BIS-11. In particular, the use targeted individual questions for removal, eliminating idiosyn- cratic items that remained poorly explained after accounting for the of principal components analysis (Gorsuch, 1990), the failure to This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. ABBREVIATED IMPULSIVENESS SCALE 3 Participants ABIS Model Development Our primary sample comprised 1,549 adults from Durham, North Sample 1 (n=1549) Carolina, and surrounding communities (Sample 1). Participants were Canonical BIS-11 Boxes = Items recruited via advertisements in community locations and on the cam- Colors = Factors Model - 30 items puses of Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Two replication samples comprised 657 adults from the Duke University community (Sample 2) and 285 adults recruited Mot NP Att online (Sample 3) through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (http://www .MTurk.com). A final validation sample comprised 49 adults from the Initial Seven Exploratory Factor Model Factor Analysis Durham and surrounding communities (Sample 4) recruited for a functional neuroimaging experiment examining impulsive decision- making. All participants provided informed consent under protocols approved by either the Duke University or Duke University Medical Center Institutional Review Boards. Cut items and factors Primary Study Measures 12 Removed Our primary measures of interest included the following. BIS-11. Responses to these 30 items measuring attentional, mo- tor, and nonplanning impulsiveness (Patton et al., 1995) were our Final model: main measures of interest. Responses were indicated on a computer ABIS - 13 items using a 4-point (5 points in Sample 3) scale: rarely/never, occasion- 5 Removed ally, often, almost always/always. Subjects from all four of our sam- ples completed the BIS-11. Items from this scale were used to for- Mot NP Att mulate the ABIS. The BIS-11 items are reproduced in Appendix 2 (Supplemental File B) and are publicly available at http://www .impulsivity.org/measurement/bis11. Alcohol use questionnaire. Impulsiveness plays a key role in the initiation and maintenance of substance use and dependence (Dick et al., 2010). To examine alcohol use, we asked participants from Sam- Replication ple 4 to self-report the number of alcoholic beverages consumed on a typical day on which they drank and the average number of days per Sample 2 (n=657) Sample 3 (n=285) week alcohol was consumed. From the product of these quantities, we derived a measure of the average number of alcoholic drinks con- Mot NP Att Mot NP Att sumed per week. Additional personality measures. We included additional mea- sures to validate the ABIS. These included the Decision Making Styles Inventory Analytical and Intuitive scales (Nygren & White, 2002), the Need for Cognition and Faith in Intuition scales (Epstein, Pacini, Denes-Raj, & Heier, 1996), the Behavioral Inhibition System/ Validation Behavioral Activation System Scale (Carver & White, 1994), the Sample 1 (n=1549) Samples 1&4 Urgency, Premeditation, Perseverance, and Sensation Seeking impul- Reliability Alcoholic Drinks siveness scale (Whiteside, Lynam, Miller, & Reynolds, 2005), the α=.75 α=.75 α=.72 r =.44 r =.32 Brief Sensation Seeking Scale (Hoyle, Stephenson, Palmgreen, Lorch, ABIS BIS-11 Mot NP Att & Donohew, 2002), and the Impulsive Sensation Seeking Scale (Zuckerman, 2002). Figure 1. Flowchart of study analysis procedure. Small boxes represent Delay discounting—proportion impatient choice. Delay dis- individual scale items, with color representing separate factors. The ABIS counting, or the tendency to devalue (discount) delayed rewards, is a model was developed through Stages I–VI using EFA and CFA (Sample 1), common behavioral measure of impulsive decision-making (Bickel, resulting in a three-factor, 13-item scale. The ABIS was replicated in Stage VII Odum, & Madden, 1999; Reynolds, Richards, Horn, & Karraker, (Samples 2 and 3) and validated in Stage VIII (Samples 1 and 4). Mot  motor 2004; Wittmann & Paulus, 2008). Participants from Sample 4 com- impulsiveness; NP  nonplanning impulsiveness; Att  attentional pleted an experiment examining delay discounting in which they impulsiveness. made 100 choices between two different options: a small monetary amount that could be received immediately and a larger amount influence of identified factors. In Stage V, we eliminated addi- ($5–$50) that could be received after a delay (1–8 weeks). We used tional factors that were poorly measured by the remaining set of the proportion of choices for which the participant chose the impatient items. In Stage VI, we finalized our factor model and simplified the (smaller but immediate reward) option as an individual difference structure of the exploratory model to fit the format of a confirma- measure of impulsive decision-making. tory factor model. In Stage VII, we confirmed our final model in two additional independent samples. Finally, in Stage VIII, we EFA and CFA validated the abbreviated scales derived from our model by relating them to personality and behavioral outcome variables reflecting Model fit was evaluated using the comparative fit index (CFI; impulsiveness. Bentler, 1990) and the root mean square error of approximation This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Stage 8 Stage 7 Stage 5-6 Stage 3-4 Stage 2 Stage 1 4 COUTLEE, POLITZER, HOYLE, AND HUETTEL (RMSEA; Steiger, 1990). These indices have been found to perform BIS-11 model could not explain the patterns of responses in our well with categorical data under our study conditions, including sample. relatively large samples, four-item response scales, and categorical model estimation techniques (DiStefano, 2002; Edwards, Wirth, Stage II: Exploring an Alternative Factor Structure of Houts, & Xi, 2012; Green, Akey, Fleming, Hershberger, & Marquis, Impulsive Personality Using EFA 1997; Hutchinson & Olmos, 1998). We used CFI values of .95 and RMSEA values of .06 as cutoffs for good model fit (Hu & Bentler, Given our failure to explain our data using CFA that was based on 1999). RMSEA cutoffs of .08 and .10 indicated acceptable and mar- the canonical BIS-11 structure, we turned to EFA to derive an alter- ginal fit, respectively (MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996). See native, data-driven model of the factor structure underlying BIS-11 the accompanying APA Publications and Communications Board responses. Parallel analysis (Horn, 1965) using either permuted data Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards, 2008) and or random normal data (Buja & Eyuboglu, 1992) indicated seven JARS-SEM (JARS-Structural Equation Modeling; Hoyle & Isher- factors underlying our BIS-11 responses. EFA using the unrestricted wood, 2013) questionnaires for methodological details regarding our factor model (Hoyle & Duvall, 2004; Jöreskog, Sörbom, Magidson, & factor analyses. Cooley, 1979) corroborated this estimate, demonstrating that a seven- factor solution was the simplest that achieved good fit (RMSEA .05, CFI  .95). The model fit results of this initial EFA appear in Results Table 1 and served as the basis for constructing the abbreviated scale. Our initial seven-factor EFA revealed several constructs that Stage I: Attempting to Confirm the Canonical BIS-11 roughly correspond to subtraits identified in the original BIS-11 Factor Structure of Impulsive Personality six-factor model, including self-control/planning, motor, persever- We first attempted to confirm the BIS-11 factor structure proposed ance, cognitive complexity, and cognitive instability factors. These by Patton et al. (1995). These authors identified six latent factors initial EFA results also suggested several avenues by which the scale underlying responses to the 30 BIS-11 scale items. Theoretical moti- could be abbreviated without sacrificing inferential validity. Our vations led them to aggregate the six factors into three second-order revision proceeded as detailed in the next subsection, with the EFA factors. We used CFA to test the suitability of these six- and three- reestimated at each stage after the removal of items. factor solutions as well as a single-factor (unidimensional/total-score) solution. Each item was specified to load on a single factor on the Stage III: Eliminating Factors Unrelated to Core basis of its assignment to the BIS-11 subscales (Patton et al., 1995). Impulsiveness The magnitude of these loadings and the factor covariances were freely estimated from the data (corresponding to congeneric indica- Our initial EFA revealed a factor similar to BIS-11 “cognitive tors, an oblique factor rotation, and strict simple structure). Model fit complexity” and anchored by items 15, 18, and 29, which refer to a results appear in Table 1. preference for complex thought. These items appeared to measure None of the models that were based on the canonical BIS-11 “need for cognition,” a personality construct that is distinct from structure provided an acceptable explanation of the relationships be- impulsiveness and that reflects an individual’s desire for effortful tween item responses. CFI values were especially poor for these cognitive activity (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982). We examined the cor- models. Substantial exploratory modification was required to achieve relation between responses on items from the cognitive complexity conventionally acceptable model fit. On the basis of these results, we factor (with higher scores reflecting a stronger preference for complex concluded that the item-factor relationships specified by the canonical thought) with responses on the Need for Cognition scale (Epstein et Table 1 Factor Analysis Results and Fit Statistics RMSEA Stage Type Model description  df RMSEA Lower 90% CI Upper 90% CI CFI N I CFA Patton et al. (1995) one factor (total 7,466.59 405 0.106 0.104 0.108 0.639 1,549 score) I CFA Patton et al. (1995) three factor 6,249.95 402 0.097 0.095 0.099 0.701 1,549 (canonical model) I CFA Patton et al. (1995) six factor (first 5,622.44 390 0.093 0.092 0.098 0.732 1,549 order factors) II EFA Seven factors, 30 items 1,145.29 246 0.049 0.046 0.051 0.954 1,549 III EFA Five factors, 25 items 984.49 185 0.053 0.050 0.056 0.949 1,549 IV EFA Five factors, 18 items 498.36 73 0.061 0.056 0.066 0.967 1,549 V EFA Three factors, 14 items 570.84 52 0.080 0.074 0.086 0.955 1,549 VI CFA Three factors, 14 items, simple structure 884.75 74 0.084 0.079 0.089 0.930 1,549 VI CFA Three factors, 13 items, simple structure 753.77 62 0.085 0.080 0.090 0.938 1,549 VI CFA Final model, three factors, 13 items, 371.90 59 0.059 0.053 0.064 0.972 1,549 three error covariances VII CFA Sample 2, replication of final model 262.44 59 0.072 0.064 0.081 0.968 657 VII CFA Sample 2, Patton et al. (1995) three 2,863.76 402 0.096 0.093 0.100 0.743 657 factors (canonical model) VII CFA Sample 3, replication of final model 166.04 59 0.080 0.066 0.094 0.971 285 VII CFA Sample 3, Patton et al. (1995) three 1,659.31 402 0.105 0.100 0.110 0.779 285 factors (canonical model) This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. ABBREVIATED IMPULSIVENESS SCALE 5 al., 1996) collected from a subset of 379 subjects. Items 15 (r  .68, We reestimated our EFA using the 18 remaining items and found 95% confidence interval [CI] [.62, .73]), 18 (r  .51, 95% CI [.43, a five-factor solution to be most interpretable, as summarized in .58]), and 29 (r  .42, 95% CI [.33, .50]) exhibited substantial Table 1. correlation with the need for cognition total score whereas the weaker- loading items 12 (r  .34, 95% CI [.25, .43]) and 20 (r  .26, 95% Stage V: Eliminating Poorly Measured Doublet Factors CI [.16, .35]) showed moderate correlation. We chose to remove items Two of the factors in our five-factor, 18-item model were doublets, 15, 18, and 29 on the basis of their strong relationship to need for featuring strong loadings of only 2 items. These doublet factors cognition. reflected perseverance (items 16 and 21, “I change jobs” and “I Our initial EFA also revealed a doublet factor consisting of items change residences”) and cognitive instability (items 6 and 26, “I have 11 and 28. These items, which refer to either “squirming” (11) or ‘racing’ thoughts” and “I often have extraneous thoughts when think- “restlessness” (28) at plays, the theater, or lectures, are redundant in ing”). The cognitive instability doublet factor also possessed moderate concept and wording. This suggests that the “factor” they form may loadings (.32–.35) on three items (5, 9, 28), but each of these items instead reflect a method effect unrelated to the underlying structure of had stronger loadings on an attention factor. To address the “local impulsive personality (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, dependence” (Yen, 1993) reflected by these item pairs, we first 2003). Consistent with this assessment, the polychoric (i.e., ordinal) attempted to eliminate single items from each factor. Removing either correlation between items 11 and 28 (r  .73, 95% CI [.71, .75]) was item 16 or 21 from the perseverance factor or item 6 or 26 from the among the largest between BIS-11 items. To eliminate this method cognitive instability factor left the remaining doublet item with low factor, we chose to remove one of these two items on the basis of item reliability (.27); therefore, we excluded all four items. Removing the R values. These values, which express the proportion of variance for perseverance and cognitive instability doublet factors left a 14-item each item explained by the modeled factors, can be taken as an scale. estimate of item reliability (Brown, 2006). Item 11 was removed We reestimated our EFA using the 14 remaining items and found a because it proved less reliable than item 28 upon removal and rees- three-factor solution to be most interpretable, as summarized in Table timation (R  .22 for 11 vs. .34 for 28). 1. These three factors reflected constructs similar to motor, nonplan- We also identified a financial factor consisting of items 10, 22, and ning, and attentional impulsiveness, as conceptualized by Patton et al. 25, each of which refers to impulsiveness in the context of spending (1995). or saving decisions. Financial factors have been identified in previous EFAs of BIS-11 responses (Fossati et al., 2001). Although this factor was stable and meaningful, it reflects shared variance related to Stage VI: Confirming the Final Model Using CFA impulsiveness within the particular domain of financial behavior as We translated the results of our three-factor, 14 item EFA into a opposed to a broader trait relevant across domains. Supporting this model reflecting simple structure such that each item loaded on only interpretation, two of the three financial items also had substantial one factor while still allowing the factors themselves to covary. These cross-loadings on the more domain-general planning (item 10, .37) results were promising, indicating marginal fit, as summarized in and motor (item 22, .39) factors. We chose to eliminate this domain- Table 1. Translation to simple structure resulted in one attention item specific financial factor by removing item 25, which possessed the 2 2 with a low R value (28, R  .20), which we removed, leaving a final highest loading on the financial factor (.77) and had no substantial set of 13 items (Table 1). loadings on other factors. Items 10 and 22 were retained at this stage. After examining the model covariance matrix and modification In summary, our first round of item elimination evaluated three indices (which quantify the expected change in model fit due to questionable factors from our initial seven-factor EFA solution, which freeing individual fixed model parameters), three error covariances led to the elimination of five items: three (15, 18, 29) reflecting the were introduced between model uniqueness terms to account for need for cognition, one redundant item (11) from a restlessness residual dependence between scale indicators. First, the error terms doublet, and one item (25) anchoring a domain-specific financial for items 17 and 19 were allowed to covary because their similar factor. wording and proximity on the scale may have introduced additional We reestimated our EFA using the 25 remaining indicators and methodological correlation. Likewise, error terms for items 12 and 20 found a five-factor solution to be most interpretable, as summarized in were allowed to covary on the basis of their similar wordings. Finally, Table 1. This model revealed factors similar to the original BIS-11 error terms for items 13 and 30 were allowed to covary. These two first-order factors, save for the eliminated factor of “cognitive com- items share conceptual variation related to long-term planning and plexity.” often emerged as a doublet separate from items 1 and 7 (which reflect more near-term planning) with higher-order EFA extractions. We Stage IV: Eliminating Unreliable Items believe that there is sufficient evidence to justify a planning factor To identify additional items for removal, we examined the item including all four items, but we allowed for the error covariance reliability as indexed by R values. Items with low reliability fell into between items 13 and 30 to account for the additional dependence one of three categories: items with a pejorative interpretation (e.g., “I between these items. Freeing these three parameters accounted for can only think about one thing at a time”; 23, 27, 3), items with an residual covariance without altering the general pattern and magnitude unusual or narrow relevance (e.g., “I change hobbies”; 4, 24), or items of item loadings, which remained large (.55–.82) and highly signifi- with residual variance due to the eliminated financial factor (10, 22). cant (p  .001) in all cases. When all remaining BIS-11 items were sorted in descending order by Results for our final model, including the three correlated unique- their R values, we found a clear gap separating the low-reliability ness terms specified above, are represented in Figure 2. Model fit items mentioned above (R values from .02 to .26) from the remaining (Table 1) was good. The final model features five items measuring items (R values from .32 to .74). We chose to eliminate all seven of attentional impulsiveness (5, 8, 9, 12, and 20), four items measuring these low-reliability items. Stepwise elimination starting with the nonplanning impulsiveness (1, 7, 13, and 30), and four items measur- lowest reliability item did not substantively change the ordering of ing motor impulsiveness (2, 14, 17, and 19) for a total of 13 items, less items by reliability. The elimination of these 7 items left 18 items. than half of the length of the canonical BIS-11 scale. This reduction This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 6 COUTLEE, POLITZER, HOYLE, AND HUETTEL Motor Non-planning Attentional .82 .60 .65 .66 .61 .60 .66 .67 .63 .82 .71 .56 .69 2 14 17 19 1 7 13 30 5 8 9 12 20 .33 .64 .57 .56 .33 .49 .69 .53 .63 .64 .57 .55 .60 .56 .37 .26 Figure 2. Path diagram illustrating the final ABIS model estimates from Sample 1. The 13 items of the ABIS (boxes, BIS-11 item numbering) measure correlated attentional (five items), motor (four items), and nonplanning (four items) latent factors (ellipses). Item error/uniquenesses are shown as circles; three error covariances (curved arrows between errors) were specified. Parameter estimates are standardized using the variances of the continuous latent variables as well as the variances of the outcome (i.e., Mplus StdYX). All parameters are significant at p  .001 across Samples 1–3. was achieved by eliminating nonrelevant factors, doublet factors, and & Gosling, 2011; Gosling, Vazire, Srivastava, & John, 2004). In unreliable items. addition, the model results generalized well to a 5-point response scale (although we recommend the continued use of a 4-point scale for the sake of continuity with previous research). Stage VII: Confirming Model Generalizability Through Replication of the abbreviated scale model in a local community Replication Using CFA and a broad Internet sample indicates the enhanced generalizability of We next sought to confirm the structural validity of our abbreviated the abbreviated measure. This is particularly clear in comparison to scale using CFA in two additional samples. We replicated the model the performance of the canonical BIS-11 model, which showed inad- structure in an additional survey-based sample of 657 adults (Sample equate fit in every sample we examined. 2). CFA was performed on responses to relevant BIS-11 items, specifying the final model from Stage VI. All estimated model pa- Stage VIII: Validating the Abbreviated Scale Using rameters, including the three error covariance terms specified, were Measures of Personality and Behavior highly significant (p  .001). Overall model fit in the replication sample was acceptable to good (Table 1). Model fit for the canonical On the basis of our model of BIS-11 responses refined and repli- three-factor Patton model was marginal to unacceptable in this sample cated in Stages I–VII, we present the ABIS, a 13-item scale measuring (Table 1). Modification indices did not suggest any conceptually attentional (5 items), nonplanning (4 items), and motor (4 items) relevant alterations. The results of this analysis confirm the factor impulsiveness (Table 2). Scores on each subscale are computed by structure of our abbreviated scale, which produced acceptable repli- averaging responses on all relevant subscale items after accounting for cation fit values in an independent sample. reverse-scored items (see Appendix 1: Supplemental File A for scale To reinforce the generalizability of our abbreviated scale model, we administration and scoring instruction forms, which is available on- implemented a stringent test by using CFA to replicate the model line). Properties of the ABIS scale scores in our factor analysis structure in a diverse Internet sample of 285 individuals (Sample 3) who completed the BIS-11 using a five-point response scale. Analysis Table 2 procedures were identical to those used previously. CFA was per- ABIS Scale Items formed on BIS-11 item responses specifying the final model from Stage VI (including error covariances). Again, all estimated model ABIS scale Item number Item text parameters were highly significant (p  .001). Overall, model fit in Attention 5 I don’t “pay attention.” this replication sample was acceptable/marginal to good (Table 1); the 8 I am self-controlled. CFI value indicated good fit whereas the RMSEA value of .08 was 9 I concentrate easily. equal to the cutoff value separating acceptable and marginal fit for this 12 I am a careful thinker. index. Model fit for the canonical BIS-11 three-factor structure was 20 I am a steady thinker. Motor 2 I do things without thinking. unacceptable in this sample (Table 1). Modification indices did not 14 I say things without thinking. suggest any conceptually relevant alterations. The results of this 17 I act “on impulse.” analysis confirm the factor structure of our abbreviated scale, which 19 I act on the spur of the moment. produced acceptable replication fit values in a moderately sized In- Nonplanning 1 I plan tasks carefully. ternet sample. The Internet sample we collected is quite diverse in 7 I plan trips well ahead of time. 13 I plan for job security. terms of age, occupation, race, and geography, more so than most 30 I am future oriented. samples studied within personality psychology (Buhrmester, Kwang, This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. ABBREVIATED IMPULSIVENESS SCALE 7 Table 3 Descriptive Statistics for ABIS Scales in Factor Analysis Samples Total Females Males Sample MSD  NM SD  NM SD  N Sample 1 ABIS attention 2.05 0.47 0.72 1,549 2.07 0.47 0.74 939 2.04 0.46 0.68 608 * * ABIS motor 2.06 0.51 0.75 1,549 2.03 0.50 0.75 939 2.10 0.52 0.75 608 * * ABIS nonplanning 2.11 0.62 0.75 1,549 2.06 0.61 0.75 939 2.19 0.62 0.75 608 Sample 2 ABIS attention 2.08 0.53 0.77 657 2.08 0.55 0.80 377 2.08 0.51 0.74 278 * * ABIS motor 1.94 0.56 0.81 657 1.89 0.55 0.82 377 2.00 0.56 0.80 278 * * ABIS nonplanning 2.14 0.63 0.71 657 2.06 0.62 0.71 377 2.25 0.63 0.71 278 Sample 3 * * ABIS attention 2.25 0.70 0.77 285 2.15 0.62 0.73 145 2.35 0.76 0.79 140 ABIS motor 2.38 0.99 0.88 285 2.36 1.04 0.90 145 2.40 0.94 0.86 140 ABIS nonplanning 2.35 0.77 0.70 285 2.27 0.76 0.72 145 2.44 0.78 0.66 140 Note. Sample 3 items were measured from 1 to 5, rendering comparisons to Samples 1 and 2 uninformative. Summary statistics are shown for scale scores, which reflect the average of relevant scale items. Two individuals from Sample 2 reported neither male nor female gender. Gender difference p  .05. samples are shown in Table 3. In particular, the internal consistency difference measures relevant to impulsiveness. These associations are of the abbreviated scales, as indexed by coefficient , is greater than depicted in Table 5. Despite the brevity of the ABIS scales, they that for the canonical BIS-11 subscales in all of our samples (BIS-11 produced correlations similar to those of the corresponding BIS-11 : attention  .71; motor  .64; nonplanning  .69). The ABIS scales across various personality measures. Consistent with their values are also similar to or greater than those published for the enhanced internal consistency, there was a general tendency toward BIS-11 subscales in another large sample (Stanford et al., 2009). stronger correlation estimates using the ABIS scales. Exceptions Coefficient  is positively related to the number of scale items tended to have clear explanations, such as the drop in correlation (Churchill Jr. & Peter, 1984; Voss, Stem Jr, & Fotopoulos, 2000), between ABIS nonplanning and need for cognition after the inten- leading us to expect that abbreviated scale scores would exhibit lower tional removal of “cognitive complexity” items in Stage III of our reliability by this measure. The fact that  was actually greater for the analysis. The similar pattern of associations observed with the ABIS shortened ABIS scale scores supports our contention that the ABIS and BIS-11 scales supports the inferential validity of the ABIS scales more reliably measures the impulsive subtraits latent in the BIS-11 when measuring motor, attentional, and nonplanning impulsiveness. item set. Previous research has suggested that impulsiveness is positively We next investigated the relationships among the ABIS scales, related to alcohol consumption in teenagers (Fossati et al., 2002) and BIS-11 subscales, and relevant measures of personality and behavior. adults (Granö, Virtanen, Vahtera, Elovainio, & Kivimäki, 2004), with Table 4 depicts correlations between the ABIS and BIS-11 scales. The small to moderate effect size (r .30 using the BIS-11). We found ABIS attention, motor, and nonplanning scales were strongly corre- that self-reported alcohol consumption in adults was related to ABIS lated with their corresponding BIS-11 subscales (rs from .71 to .77, motor impulsiveness (r  .44, p  .05, 95% CI [.17, .64]) and BIS-11 95% CIs  .02). We also sought to validate the ABIS scales by motor impulsiveness (r  .32, p  .05, 95% CI [.04 .55]). The relating them to a range of self-report and behavioral individual difference between these correlations was nonsignificant (p  .21), Table 4 Correlation of ABIS and BIS-11 Scales in Sample 1 ABIS ABIS ABIS B11 Tot att mot sc cc per ci ATT MOT NP Att Mot NP fin nfc BIS11-Total Score — BIS11-attention 0.72 — BIS11-motor 0.71 0.31 — BIS11-self control 0.79 0.48 0.45 — BIS11-cognitive complexity 0.59 0.35 0.25 0.37 — BIS11-perseverance 0.55 0.22 0.30 0.37 0.23 — BIS11-cognitive instability 0.48 0.37 0.28 0.22 0.04 0.20 — BIS11-ATTENTION 0.75 0.90 0.36 0.45 0.28 0.25 0.73 — BIS11-MOTOR 0.79 0.34 0.91 0.52 0.29 0.68 0.31 0.39 — BIS11-NONPLANNING 0.84 0.51 0.44 0.87 0.78 0.37 0.17 0.45 0.50 — ABIS attention 0.76 0.78 0.35 0.72 0.43 0.28 0.28 0.71 0.39 0.71 — ABIS motor 0.71 0.38 0.79 0.59 0.21 0.30 0.32 0.43 0.75 0.51 0.43 — ABIS nonplanning 0.67 0.34 0.37 0.87 0.34 0.43 0.15 0.31 0.47 0.77 0.50 0.40 — Finance (removed) 0.59 0.27 0.61 0.40 0.45 0.26 0.21 0.29 0.59 0.51 0.35 0.33 0.36 — Need for cognition (removed) 0.50 0.38 0.15 0.23 0.78 0.13 0.30 0.42 0.18 0.57 0.39 0.19 0.15 0.17 — Note. B11 Tot  BIS-11 total score; att  attention; mot  motor; sc  self control; cc  cognitive complexity; per  perseverance; ci  cognitive instability; NP  nonplanning; fin  finance; nfc  need for cognition. BIS-11 first-order scales are abbreviated in lowercase whereas second-order scales are abbreviated in upper case. All correlations significant at p  .01 (excepting BIS-11 cognitive complexity  cognitive instability). This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 8 COUTLEE, POLITZER, HOYLE, AND HUETTEL Table 5 External Validity of ABIS Scales Attention Motor Nonplanning Measure ABIS BIS-11 ABIS BIS-11 ABIS BIS-11 N *a * * * * * Decision-Making Styles Inventory—Analytical 0.46 0.26 0.44 0.39 0.51 0.52 379 * * * * * Decision-Making Styles Inventory—Intuitive 0.11 0.07 0.33 0.37 0.16 0.20 379 *a * * * a * Need for Cognition 0.35 0.26 0.12 0.12 .10 0.45 379 * * Faith in Intuition 0.02 0.05 0.18 0.16 0.01 0.01 379 a * * *a Behavioral Approach System—Drive .02 0.05 0.17 0.16 0.11 0.06 1,167 * * †* * *a * Behavioral Approach System—Fun-Seeking 0.23 0.23 0.50 0.43 0.28 0.23 1,167 a * *a * Behavioral Approach System—Reward Responsiveness .04 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.12 0.07 1,167 * * * * *a Behavioral Inhibition System 0.11 0.13 0.08 0.12 0.13 0.01 1,167 * * * * * UPPS—Premeditation 0.38 0.18 0.49 0.42 0.59 0.57 49 UPPS—Urgency 0.21 0.27 0.42 0.25 0.09 0.17 49 * * * * * * UPPS—Perseverance 0.53 0.51 0.32 0.44 0.55 0.40 49 UPPS—Sensation-Seeking 0.05 0.12 0.15 0.06 0.03 0.16 49 * * Brief Sensation-Seeking Scale 0.15 0.17 0.30 0.21 0.33 0.21 49 * * *a Impulsive Sensation-Seeking 0.27 0.27 0.37 0.33 0.50 0.28 49 * * * Average number of alcoholic drinks per week 0.06 0.10 0.44 0.32 0.20 0.31 48 Delay Discounting—Proportion Impatient Choice 0.04 0.03 0.28 0.14 0.23 0.28 49 Scale difference (ABIS vs. BIS-11, 2-tailed) p  .05. p  .05. although this comparison was likely underpowered (Sample 4, N  We initially set out to reevaluate the factor structure of the BIS-11 48). Definitive conclusions regarding the relative size of these effects using large samples, modern factor analytic methods (exploratory and across scales will require further analysis in larger samples, although confirmatory), and replication in independent samples. Despite dem- the results for motor impulsiveness and alcohol consumption are onstrating poor model fit for the BIS-11’s particular factor structure, consistent with the overall trend toward strengthened relationships our final model corroborates its general structure in that our atten- when using the ABIS scales. There were no significant relationships tional, motor, and nonplanning scales resemble the core impulsiveness with ABIS attentional or nonplanning impulsiveness in this sample subtraits identified by Patton et al. (1995). However, we argue that our (r  .06, 95% CI [–.23, .34] and r  .20, 95% CI [–.10, .45]). systematic removal of extraneous factors and unreliable items allows We also examined the relationship between the ABIS scales and the ABIS to measure these preserved core subtraits with enhanced delay discounting, a laboratory-based measure of impulsive decision- efficiency and clarity. making. Decisions reflecting delay discounting (willingness to accept The ABIS motor impulsiveness scale, anchored by items 2 and 19, a smaller reward that can be obtained sooner) are commonly described “I do things without thinking” and “I act on the spur of the moment,” in terms of self-control and impulsiveness (Coutlee & Huettel, 2012; reflects spontaneous, reactive, and uninhibited action. ABIS motor Madden & Bickel, 2010), although studies have not found a consistent impulsiveness relates strongly to BIS-11 first- and second-order motor relationship between delay-discounting behavior and self-reported impulsiveness and moderately to UPPS Urgent impulsiveness (ten- impulsiveness (Reynolds, Ortengren, Richards, & de Wit, 2006; Stan- dency for uninhibited emotional acts), intuitive decision-making style, ford et al., 2009). Consistent with these latter findings, we failed to BAS Fun Seeking, and sensation-seeking. ABIS motor impulsiveness identify any significant relationship between impulsiveness (measured also showed a significant association with alcohol consumption, and with either the ABIS or BIS-11) and individual differences in impa- that association was at least as large as that from the full BIS-11 using tient decision-making in a delay-discounting task (r  .04 to .28, 95% far fewer items. CIs from .24 to .52), although ABIS motor and BIS-11 nonplanning The ABIS nonplanning impulsiveness scale, anchored by items 1 impulsiveness showed trend-level relationships (p  .10). Because statistical power was relatively low for this sample (N  49), the and 7, “I plan tasks carefully” and “I plan trips well ahead of time” extent of any relationship between impulsiveness and delay discount- (both reverse scored), reflects a tendency to forego premeditation, ing remains unclear. forethought, and preparation. It encompasses lack of planning for shorter-term, concrete aims, such as tasks and trips, as well as longer- term and more abstract aims, such as job security and the future more Discussion generally. It is strongly related to the BIS-11 second-order nonplan- We describe the creation of the ABIS, a brief scale that measures ning and first-order self-control subscales as well as the UPPS pre- attentional, motor, and nonplanning impulsiveness with better than meditation scale. It also shows moderate relationships with an ana- twice the efficiency of the BIS-11 while maintaining similar, if not lytical decision-making style and sensation-seeking. better, score reliability. It is critical to note that we demonstrated The ABIS attentional impulsiveness scale, anchored by items 12 through CFA in two independent replication samples that, in contrast and 9, “I am a careful thinker” and “I concentrate easily,” (both with the BIS-11, the model underlying the ABIS generalizes to reverse scored), reflects inconsistency in controlling thought and independent samples drawn from separate respondent populations. focusing attention. ABIS attentional impulsiveness relates strongly to Finally, we show evidence that links impulsiveness measured by the the BIS-11 first-order attention and self-control subscales as well as to ABIS to other relevant personality measures and alcohol consump- UPPS perseverant impulsiveness (lack of focus and self-discipline). tion. These findings support the use of the ABIS in basic, clinical, and applied research as either a brief alternative to the BIS-11 or a model ABIS attention also showed moderate negative relationships with for reanalyzing previously collected BIS-11 questionnaire responses. analytical decision-making style and need for cognition. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. ABBREVIATED IMPULSIVENESS SCALE 9 Our results indicate that the ABIS scales are best considered mea- attempts to investigate specific impulsiveness traits in isolation should sures of separate but correlated components of impulsiveness. The control for correlated impulsiveness constructs using standard meth- scales show moderate intercorrelation (rs from .40 to .50, 95% CIs  ods (CFA/structural equation modeling, multiple and hierarchical .04). Each scale taken alone is acceptably unidimensional after ac- regression) as opposed to more speculative bifactor models. However, counting for the specified correlated uniquenesses (Table 6). By more generally, questions regarding the higher-order structure of contrast, a single-factor model, reflecting a total score computed by impulsiveness require further investigation and are likely to be in- summing across all items, showed unacceptable fit, reflecting a lack formed by emerging bifactor modeling techniques, including explor- of unidimensionality across all items (Table 6). Despite cautions from atory bifactor analysis (Jennrich & Bentler, 2011; Muthén & Muthén, the scale authors (International Society for Research on Impulsivity, 2012). 2013), the BIS-11 subscales are commonly summed to produce a total To the best of our knowledge, our study reflects the first attempt to scale, a practice which ours and others results fail to support (Ireland independently reexamine and abbreviate the BIS-11 using EFA and & Archer, 2008; Steinberg et al., 2013). We hope to avoid this CFA methods in replication samples. The ABIS scales, which are the misunderstanding with the ABIS scales and emphasize that ignoring result of this analysis, are supported by findings from two previous the multidimensional nature of the ABIS or BIS-11 items undermines studies that sought to produce reduced scales on the basis of BIS-11 the validity of inferences made using those items. Inappropriate use of items. Spinella (2004) produced a 15-item scale with three subscales summary scores in such cases introduces additional measurement by selecting the five items with the highest loadings on each factor error (Fava & Velicer, 1996; Wood, Tataryn, & Gorsuch, 1996) and from a three-factor orthogonal principal components analysis of can distort the nature of the measured construct (Cattell, 1958). This BIS-11 data. This method, although straightforward to implement and can lead to problems identifying true relationships between impul- useful for eliminating some of the weaker-loading and unreliable siveness traits and other constructs, particularly in cases in which BIS-11 items, fails to identify the strong minor factors present in the those relationships differ among motor, attentional, and nonplanning data, such as the restlessness doublet removed in Stage III of our impulsiveness. We reiterate that it is psychometrically inappropriate analysis. Unextracted minor or methodological factors can distort the to combine the ABIS scales, and that they should not be summed or nature of major factors and the patterns of item loadings (Wood et al., averaged to calculate a total score. (Note that, according to our 1996). This may be the case for the Spinella attentional impulsiveness analyses, this admonition also holds equally for the original BIS-11 factor, which is dominated by the restlessness doublet. However, aside subscales.) from the attention scale, the Spinella results show consistency with the Although evidence from our study clearly supports the multidimen- ABIS scales, although our model tends to show modestly better fit sionality of impulsiveness measured via BIS-11 items, we remain values and replicability (Table 6). agnostic regarding the potential existence or nature of a “general Another study (Steinberg et al., 2013) used unidimensional item impulsiveness” construct underlying attentional, motor, and nonplan- response theory models to produce an eight-item scale intended to ning impulsiveness. The correlated-factors model we describe does replace the problematic BIS-11 total score measure. The authors not specifically address this question because this model is statisti- initially applied a bifactor item response model that was based on the cally equivalent to a first-order factor model with a single general BIS-11 canonical three-factor model. As in our own analyses using (second-order) impulsiveness factor. Bifactor models (Holzinger & EFA/CFA (Table 1) and a bifactor model (Table 6), they found that Swineford, 1937), in which items simultaneously load on a general many of the BIS-11 items failed to load on the general impulsiveness factor and uncorrelated specific factors (e.g., attention, motor, non- factor and that many items were characterized by high correlations planning), suggest an alternative possible higher-order structure with only one or two other items, reflecting doublets or other minor (Yung, Thissen, & McLeod, 1999). Our own findings (Table 6) and factors (often because of methodological factors such as similarity of those of others (Steinberg et al., 2013) indicate that bifactor solutions item wording). The authors subsequently switched to fitting unidi- that are based on the canonical BIS-11 model and items provide a mensional models with the goal of producing a revised BIS total score poor fit overall, although including a general factor did improve scale by eliminating items not clearly related to the general impul- models that were based on the full 30-item set. Applied specifically to siveness factor (resulted in an eight-item scale). Although the primary the ABIS items, we found that a bifactor model produced fit some- goal and factor analysis technique used in this study are distinct from what inferior to our final three-factor model (Tables 1 and 6) with our own, their results, which revealed problematic doublet factors and moderate to strong loadings on the general factor across all items items poorly related to impulsiveness, are consistent with our own (covariance terms were dropped to allow model estimation). Practical findings. In addition, the items they selected for their alternative BIS Table 6 Alternative Model Analysis Results and Fit Statistics RMSEA Model description  df RMSEA Lower 90% CI Upper 90% CI CFI N Sample 1, ABIS attention unidimensional model 19.63 4 0.050 0.029 0.073 0.994 1,549 Sample 1, ABIS motor unidimensional model 7.01 1 0.062 0.025 0.109 0.999 1,549 Sample 1, ABIS nonplanning unidimensional model 0.50 1 0.000 0.000 0.059 1.000 1,549 ABIS unidimensional model (12  20; 13  30; 17  19 covariances) 1,170.53 62 0.107 0.102 0.113 0.901 1,549 Steinberg et al. (2013) eight-item unidimensional model (5  9 covariance) 424.46 19 0.117 0.108 0.127 0.900 1,549 Spinella (2004) 15-item three-factor model 1,614.48 87 0.106 0.102 0.111 0.871 1,549 Sample 1, Patton et al. (1995) three-factor bifactor model 3,798.43 375 0.077 0.075 0.079 0.825 1,549 Sample 1, ABIS three-factor bifactor model (no covariances) 515.25 52 0.076 0.070 0.082 0.958 1,549 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 10 COUTLEE, POLITZER, HOYLE, AND HUETTEL total-score scale represent a subset of the items that we independently Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Yielding to temptation: Self-control failure, impul- sive purchasing, and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, selected for the three scales of the ABIS. Given this convergence of 28, 670–676. doi:10.1086/338209 findings, we decided to test the unidimensionality of the Steinberg et Bechara, A., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. R. (2000). Emotion, decision al. (2013) scale items in our data. In contrast to their findings, but making and the orbitofrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 10, 295–307. doi: consistent with our own results that were based on the BIS-11 and 10.1093/cercor/10.3.295 ABIS models, we found that a unidimensional CFA model failed to Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psycho- acceptably fit the data (Table 6). In the case of the Steinberg et al. logical Bulletin, 107, 238–246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 (2013) scale and the ABIS items, the patterns of covariation between Bickel, W. K., Odum, A. L., & Madden, G. J. (1999). Impulsivity and cigarette scale items indicate the need for a more complex explanation of the smoking: Delay discounting in current, never, and ex-smokers. Psychophar- data (e.g., multiple latent factors). In fact, some form of general macology, 146, 447–454. doi:10.1007/PL00005490 impulsiveness may underlie responses to BIS-11 items. However, Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New neither our own findings nor the findings of Steinberg et al. (2013), York, NY: Guilford Press. Spinella (2004),or Patton et al. (1995) provide sufficient evidence to Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical justify measuring such a general impulsiveness factor using a total- Turk. A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980 score scale. Instead, the evidence supports the use of scales designed Buja, A., & Eyuboglu, N. (1992). Remarks on parallel analysis. Multivariate to measure separate impulsiveness subtraits, as with the ABIS atten- Behavioral Research, 27, 509–540. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2704_2 tional, motor, and nonplanning scales. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of A limitation of our analyses and the resulting ABIS scales is that Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131. doi:10.1037/0022-3514 they measure a relatively focused set of impulsive traits. This results .42.1.116 from our decisions to restrict our study to the 30 BIS-11 items and Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral acti- produce an abbreviated scale representing only the core factors re- vation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The flected by those items. Thus, the ABIS is less comprehensive than BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319– measures drawn from a broader set of items, such as the UPPS 313. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319 impulsiveness scale (Whiteside et al., 2005). Our analyses led us to Cattell, R. B. (1958). Extracting the correct number of factors in factor discard several peripheral factors reflecting financial impulsiveness, analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 18, 791–838. doi: restlessness, and cognitive instability, among others. Although these 10.1177/001316445801800412 constructs are poorly measured by the available set of BIS-11 items, Churchill, Jr., G. A., & Peter, J. P. (1984). Research design effects on the they represent potentially interesting aspects of impulsive personality reliability of rating scales: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, and behavior. For instance, impulsiveness in financial domains (e.g., 21, 360–375. doi:10.2307/3151463 Coutlee, C. G., & Huettel, S. A. (2012). The functional neuroanatomy of “I buy things on impulse”) predicted impatient economic decisions in decision making: Prefrontal control of thought and action. Brain Research, a delay-discounting task (r  .35, p  .05, 95% CI [.08, .57]). Such 1428, 3–12. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2011.05.053 minor factors hold promise as a possible basis for expanded or Critchfield, K. L., Levy, K. N., & Clarkin, J. F. (2004). The relationship alternative scales measuring the broader set of impulsive traits re- between impulsivity, aggression, and impulsive-aggression in borderline flected by the BIS-11 items. personality disorder: An empirical analysis of self-report measures. Journal We are optimistic that our findings will inform such a broader of Personality Disorders, 18, 555–570. doi:10.1521/pedi.18.6.555.54795 discussion and contribute to future attempts to revise the BIS scale. Dick, D. M., Smith, G., Olausson, P., Mitchell, S. H., Leeman, R. F., However, in the present, we argue that the ABIS scale scores provide O’Malley, S. S., & Sher, K. (2010). Review: Understanding the construct of the most efficient and reliable measures of core attentional, motor, and impulsivity and its relationship to alcohol use disorders. Addiction Biology, nonplanning impulsiveness currently available. The ABIS generalizes 15, 217–226. doi:10.1111/j.1369-1600.2009.00190.x well to independent samples, especially compared with the BIS-11. DiStefano, C. (2002). The impact of categorization with confirmatory factor However, an important direction for future research will be to exam- analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 327–346. doi:10.1207/ ine the properties of the ABIS in high-impulsiveness populations such S15328007SEM0903_2 as substance abusers, ADHD patients, and prison inmates. Edwards, M., Wirth, R., Houts, C., & Xi, N. (2012). Categorical data in the structural equation modeling framework. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling, 195–208. New York, NY: Guilford Press. References Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differ- ences in intuitive–experiential and analytical–rational thinking styles. Jour- Ainslie, G. (1975). Specious reward: A behavioral theory of impulsiveness and nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 390–405. doi:10.1037/0022- impulse control. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 463– 496. doi:10.1037/ 3514.71.2.390 h0076860 Fava, J. L., & Velicer, W. F. (1996). The effects of underextraction in factor American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual and component analyses. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, of mental disorders (text revision). Washington, DC: Author. 907–929. doi:10.1177/0013164496056006001 APA Publications and Communications Board Working Group on Journal Ferraz, L., Vállez, M., Navarro, J. B., Gelabert, E., Martín-Santos, R., & Article Reporting Standards. (2008). Reporting standards for research in Subira`, S. (2009). Dimensional assessment of personality and impulsiveness psychology: Why do we need them? What might they be? American Psy- in borderline personality disorder. Personality and Individual Differences, chologist, 63, 839–851. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.9.839 46, 140–146. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.09.017 Barratt, E. S. (1965). Factor analysis of some psychometric measures of Fossati, A., Barratt, E. S., Acquarini, E., & Ceglie, A. D. (2002). Psychometric impulsiveness and anxiety. Psychological Reports, 16, 547–554. doi: properties of an adolescent version of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11 for 10.2466/pr0.1965.16.2.547 a sample of Italian high school students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, Barratt, E. S. (1985). Impulsiveness subtraits: Arousal and information pro- 621–635. doi:10.2466/pms.2002.95.2.621 cessing. In J. T. Spence & C. E. Izard (Eds.), Motivation, emotion and personality, 137–146. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science. Fossati, A., Di Ceglie, A., Acquarini, E., & Barratt, E. S. (2001). Psychometric Barratt, E. S., & Patton, J. H. (1983). Impulsivity: Cognitive, behavioral, and properties of an Italian version of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11 (BIS- psychophysiological correlates. In M. Zuckerman (Ed.), Biological bases of 11) in nonclinical subjects. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57, 815–828. sensation-seeking, impulsivity, and anxiety, 77–122. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. doi:10.1002/jclp.1051 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. ABBREVIATED IMPULSIVENESS SCALE 11 Google Scholar. (2013). Factor structure of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis Retrieved August 13, 2013, from http://scholar.google.com/ and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psy- scholar?cluster9152786455601693619&hlen&as_sdt0,34&as_vis1. chological Methods, 1, 130–149. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130 Gorsuch, R. L. (1990). Common factor analysis versus component analysis: MacCallum, R. C., Roznowski, M., Mar, C. M., & Reith, J. V. (1994). Some well and little known facts. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, Alternative strategies for cross-validation of covariance structure models. 33–39. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2501_3 Multivariate Behavioral Research, 29, 1–32. doi:10.1207/ Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust s15327906mbr2901_1 web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about MacCallum, R. C., Roznowski, M., & Necowitz, L. B. (1992). Model modi- Internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59, 93–104. doi:10.1037/ fications in covariance structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on 0003-066X.59.2.93 chance. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 490–504. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.111 Granö, N., Virtanen, M., Vahtera, J., Elovainio, M., & Kivimäki, M. (2004). .3.490 Impulsivity as a predictor of smoking and alcohol consumption. Personality Madden, G. J., & Bickel, W. K. (2010). Impulsivity: The behavioral and and Individual Differences, 37, 1693–1700. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.03.004 neurological science of discounting. Washington, DC: American Psycho- Green, S. B., Akey, T. M., Fleming, K. K., Hershberger, S. L., & Marquis, J. G. logical Association. (1997). Effect of the number of scale points on chi-square fit indices in Malloy-Diniz, L., Fuentes, D., Leite, W. B., Correa, H., & Bechara, A. (2007). confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisci- Impulsive behavior in adults with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: plinary Journal, 4, 108–120. doi:10.1080/10705519709540064 Characterization of attentional, motor and cognitive impulsiveness. Journal Haden, S. C., & Shiva, A. (2008). Trait impulsivity in a forensic inpatient of the International Neuropsychological Society, 13, 693–698. doi:10.1017/ sample: An evaluation of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Behavioral Sci- S1355617707070889 ences & the Law, 26, 675–690. doi:10.1002/bsl.820 Moeller, F. G., Barratt, E. S., Dougherty, D. M., Schmitz, J. M., & Swann, Holzinger, K. J., & Swineford, F. (1937). The bi-factor method. Psy- A. C. (2001). Psychiatric aspects of impulsivity. The American Journal of chometrika, 2, 41–54. doi:10.1007/BF02287965 Psychiatry, 158, 1783–1793. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.158.11.1783 Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor Muthén, B. (1983). Latent variable structural equation modeling with categor- analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185. doi:10.1007/BF02289447 ical data. Journal of Econometrics, 22, 43– 65. doi:10.1016/0304- Hoyle, R. H., & Duvall, J. L. (2004). Determining the number of factors in 4076(83)90093-3 exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), The SAGE Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (2012). Mplus Version 7. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén Handbook of Quantitative Methodology for the Social Sciences (pp. 301– & Muthén. 315). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Neal, D. J., & Carey, K. B. (2005). A follow-up psychometric analysis of the Hoyle, R. H., & Isherwood, J. C. (2013). Reporting results from structural Self-Regulation Questionnaire. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 19, equation modeling analyses in Archives of Scientific Psychology. Archives of 414–422. Scientific Psychology, 1, 14–22. doi:10.1037/arc0000004 Nygren, T. E., & White, R. J. (2002, September). Assessing individual differ- Hoyle, R. H., Stephenson, M. T., Palmgreen, P., Lorch, E. P., & Donohew, ences in decision making styles: analytical vs. intuitive. In Proceedings of R. L. (2002). Reliability and validity of a brief measure of sensation seeking. the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 46, No. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 401–414. doi:10.1016/S0191- 12, pp. 953–957). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 8869(01)00032-0 Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S., & Barratt, E. S. (1995). Factor structure of the Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 768–774. structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural doi:10.1002/1097-4679(199511)51:6768::AID-JCLP22705106073.0 Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 .CO;2-1 Huettel, S. A., Stowe, C. J., Gordon, E. M., Warner, B. T., & Platt, M. L. Perry, J. L., & Carroll, M. E. (2008). The role of impulsive behavior in drug (2006). Neural signatures of economic preferences for risk and ambiguity. abuse. Psychopharmacology, 200, 1–26. doi:10.1007/s00213-008-1173-0 Neuron, 49, 765–775. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2006.01.024 Petry, N. M. (2001). Substance abuse, pathological gambling, and impulsive- Hutchinson, S. R., & Olmos, A. (1998). Behavior of descriptive fit indexes in ness. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 63, 29–38. doi:10.1016/S0376- confirmatory factor analysis using ordered categorical data. Structural 8716(00)00188-5 Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 5, 344–364. doi:10.1080/ Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the International Society for Research on Impulsivity. (2013). BIS 11measurement. literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, Retrieved August 13, 2013, from http://www.impulsivity.org/measurement/ 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 bis11. Reynolds, B., Ortengren, A., Richards, J. B., & de Wit, H. (2006). Dimensions Ireland, J. L., & Archer, J. (2008). Impulsivity among adult prisoners: A of impulsive behavior: Personality and behavioral measures. Personality confirmatory factor analysis study of the Barratt Impulsivity Scale. Person- and Individual Differences, 40, 305–315. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.03.024 ality and Individual Differences, 45, 286–292. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.04 Reynolds, B., Richards, J. B., Horn, K., & Karraker, K. (2004). Delay dis- counting and probability discounting as related to cigarette smoking status in Jennrich, R. I., & Bentler, P. M. (2011). Exploratory bi-factor analysis. adults. Behavioural Processes, 65, 35– 42. doi:10.1016/S0376- Psychometrika, 76, 537–549. doi:10.1007/s11336-011-9218-4 6357(03)00109-8 Jöreskog, K. G., Sörbom, D., Magidson, J., & Cooley, W. W. (1979). Advances Ruiz, M. A., Skeem, J. L., Poythress, N. G., Douglas, K. S., & Lilienfeld, S. O. in factor analysis and structural equation models. Cambridge, MA: Abt (2010). Structure and correlates of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11) Books. in offenders: Implications for psychopathy and externalizing pathology. The Kahn, J. A., Kaplowitz, R. A., Goodman, E., & Emans, S. J. (2002). The International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 9, 237–244. doi:10.1080/ association between impulsiveness and sexual risk behaviors in adolescent 14999013.2010.517258 and young adult women. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30, 229–232. Someya, T., Sakado, K., Seki, T., Kojima, M., Reist, C., Tang, S. W., & doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(01)00391-3 Takahashi, S. (2001). The Japanese version of the Barratt Impulsiveness Kollins, S. H. (2003). Delay discounting is associated with substance use in Scale, 11th version (BIS-11): Its reliability and validity. Psychiatry and college students. Addictive Behaviors, 28, 1167–1173. doi:10.1016/S0306- Clinical Neurosciences, 55, 111–114. doi:10.1046/j.1440-1819.2001 4603(02)00220-4 Luengo, M., Carrillo-De-La-Pena, M., & Otero, J. (1991). The components of .00796.x impulsiveness: A comparison of the I. 7 Impulsiveness Questionnaire and Spinella, M. (2004). Neurobehavioral correlates of impulsivity: Evidence of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, prefrontal involvement. International Journal of Neuroscience, 114, 95– 657–667. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(91)90220-6 104. doi:10.1080/00207450490249347 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 12 COUTLEE, POLITZER, HOYLE, AND HUETTEL Stanford, M. S., Greve, K. W., Boudreaux, J. K., Mathias, C. W., & Brum- Whiteside, S. P., Lynam, D. R., Miller, J. D., & Reynolds, S. K. (2005). below, J. L. (1996). Impulsiveness and risk-taking behavior: Comparison of Validation of the UPPS impulsive behaviour scale: A four-factor model of high-school and college students using the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. impulsivity. European Journal of Personality, 19, 559–574. doi:10.1002/ per.556 Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 1073–1075. doi:10.1016/S0191- Wirth, R. J., & Edwards, M. C. (2007). Item factor analysis: Current ap- 8869(96)00151-1 proaches and future directions. Psychological Methods, 12, 58–79. doi: Stanford, M. S., Mathias, C. W., Dougherty, D. M., Lake, S. L., Anderson, 10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.58 N. E., & Patton, J. H. (2009). Fifty years of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale: Wittmann, M., & Paulus, M. P. (2008). Decision making, impulsivity and time An update and review. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 385–395. perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 7–12. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007 doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.04.008 .10.004 Steel, Z., & Blaszczynski, A. (1998). Impulsivity, personality disorders and Wood, J. M., Tataryn, D. J., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1996). Effects of under-and pathological gambling severity. Addiction, 93, 895–905. doi:10.1046/j overextraction on principal axis factor analysis with varimax rotation. Psy- .1360-0443.1998.93689511.x chological Methods, 1, 354–365. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.4.354 Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An inter- Yen, W. M. (1993). Scaling performance assessments: Strategies for managing val estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180. local item dependence. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 187–213. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4 doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1993.tb00423.x Steinberg, L., Sharp, C., Stanford, M. S., & Tharp, A. T. (2013). New tricks for Yung, Y.-F., Thissen, D., & McLeod, L. D. (1999). On the relationship an old measure: The development of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale–Brief between the higher-order factor model and the hierarchical factor model. (BIS-Brief). Psychological Assessment, 25, 216 –226. doi:10.1037/ Psychometrika, 64, 113–128. doi:10.1007/BF02294531 a0030550 Zuckerman, M. (2002). Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire von Diemen, L., Szobot, C. M., Kessler, F., & Pechansky, F. (2007). Adap- (ZKPQ): An alternative five-factorial model. In B. de Raad & M. Perugini tation and construct validation of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS 11) (Eds.), Big Five Assessment, 377–396. Boston, MA: Hogrefe & Huber. to Brazilian Portuguese for use in adolescents. Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, 29, 153–156. doi:10.1590/S1516-44462006005000020 Received August 26, 2013 Voss, K. E., Stem, Jr., D. E., & Fotopoulos, S. (2000). A comment on the Revision received December 30, 2013 relationship between coefficient alpha and scale characteristics. Marketing Letters, 11, 177–191. doi:10.1023/A:1008146924781 Accepted January 13, 2014 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Archives of Scientific Psychology American Psychological Association

An Abbreviated Impulsiveness Scale Constructed Through Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale Version 11

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-psychological-association/an-abbreviated-impulsiveness-scale-constructed-through-confirmatory-IhpHtec06w

References (76)

Publisher
American Psychological Association
Copyright
© 2014 American Psychological Association
eISSN
2169-3269
DOI
10.1037/arc0000005
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Archives of Scientific Psychology 2014, 2, 1–12 © 2014 American Psychological Association DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000005 2169-3269 Archives of Scientific Psychology http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/arc An Abbreviated Impulsiveness Scale Constructed Through Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale Version 11 Christopher G. Coutlee, Cary S. Politzer, Rick H. Hoyle, and Scott A. Huettel Duke University ABSTRACT Impulsiveness is a personality trait that reflects an urge to act spontaneously without thinking or planning ahead for the consequences of your actions. High impulsiveness is characteristic of various problematic behaviors including attention deficit disorder, hyperactivity, excessive gambling, risk-taking, drug use, and alcoholism. Researchers studying attention and self- control often assess impulsiveness using personality questionnaires, notably the common Barratt Impulsiveness Scale version 11 (BIS-11; last revised in 1995). Advances in techniques for producing personality questionnaires over the last 20 years prompted us to revise and improve the BIS-11. We sought to make the revised scale shorter—so that it would be quicker to administer—and better matched to current behaviors. We analyzed responses from 1,549 adults who took the BIS-11 questionnaire. Using a statistical technique called factor analysis, we eliminated 17 questions that did a poor job of measuring the 3 major types of impulsiveness identified by the scale: inattention, spontaneous action, and lack of planning. We constructed our ABbreviated Impulsiveness Scale (ABIS) using the remaining 13 questions. We showed that the ABIS performed well when administered to additional groups of 657 and 285 adults. Finally, we showed expected relationships between the ABIS and other personality measurements related to impulsiveness, and we showed that the ABIS can help predict alcohol consumption. We present the ABIS as a useful and efficient tool for researchers interested in measuring impulsive personality. SCIENTIFIC ABSTRACT Impulsiveness is a personality construct characterized by the urge to act spontaneously and without reflecting on consequences. It is commonly measured using the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale version 11 (BIS-11), which has remained a prevalent scale despite inconsistent replication of its original factor structure. Here, we applied exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to data from a large adult sample (N  1,549) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to data from two replication samples (N  657; N 285) to reexamine the factor structure of impulsiveness as measured by the BIS-11. We sought to improve scale efficiency, score reliability, and inferential validity by eliminating questionable items and factors. Factors reflecting need for cognition (three items) and domain-specific financial impulsiveness (three items) were removed to increase scale specificity. Three poorly measured factors reflecting restlessness (two items), perseverance (two items), and cognitive instability (two items) were removed, and five items poorly explained by the remaining factors (R from .02 to .26) were also removed. From this final model, we derived the ABbreviated Impulsiveness Scale (ABIS). The ABIS measures attentional (five items,  .72), motor (four items, .75), and nonplanning (four items, .75) impulsiveness. Model fit for the ABIS was superior to fit for the canonical BIS-11 in every sample tested. In addition, the ABIS predicted alcohol consumption in a separate study of impulsive behavior (r  .44, p  .05). By removing unreliable items and poorly measured factors, we produced an efficient, internally consistent, and generalizable scale measuring attentional, motor, and nonplanning impulsiveness. The ABIS can be used as a brief alternative to the BIS-11 or as a model for reanalyzing previously collected BIS-11 questionnaire responses. Keywords: impulsiveness, impulsivity, Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, BIS-11, factor analysis Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000005.supp Data Repository: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR35007.v1 This article was published April 14, 2014. Christopher G. Coutlee, Cary S. Politzer, Rick H. Hoyle, and Scott A. Huettel, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University. The authors thank Dr. Steve Mitroff for contributing questionnaire data used as a part of this study. This research was supported by National Institutes of Health grants DA023026 (R.H.H.) and NS041328 (S.A.H.) The authors report no conflicts of interest. For further discussion on this topic, please visit the Archives of Scientific Psychology online public forum at http://arcblog.apa.org. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Scott A. Huettel, Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Box 90999, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710. E-mail: scott.huettel@duke.edu This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 2 COUTLEE, POLITZER, HOYLE, AND HUETTEL Impulsiveness is a personality trait characterized by the urge to act account for the ordinal nature of scale responses (Muthén, 1983; spontaneously without reflecting on an action and its consequences. Wirth & Edwards, 2007), and the reliance on exploratory analysis Trait impulsiveness influences several important psychological pro- without subsequent confirmatory replication (MacCallum, cesses and behaviors, including self-regulation (Baumeister, 2002; Roznowski, Mar, & Reith, 1994) represent substantial drawbacks Neal & Carey, 2005), risk-taking (Kahn, Kaplowitz, Goodman, & to the original analytic approach. Finally, it is unclear which Emans, 2002; Stanford, Greve, Boudreaux, Mathias, & Brumbelow, BIS-11 scales provide the most psychometrically sound measures 1996), and decision-making (Ainslie, 1975; Bechara, Damasio, & of impulsiveness: the six-factor first-order scales, the canonical Damasio, 2000; Huettel, Stowe, Gordon, Warner, & Platt, 2006). three-factor second-order scales, or the commonly (mis)used single-factor total score (Fossati et al., 2002; Stanford et al., 2009). Impulsiveness is also an important component of several clinical We sought to address these concerns by conducting a method- conditions (American Psychiatric Association, 2000), including atten- ologically rigorous examination of the factor structure underlying tion deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; Malloy-Diniz, Fuentes, the BIS-11 with the goal of producing an efficient and generaliz- Leite, Correa, & Bechara, 2007; Moeller, Barratt, Dougherty, able instrument for measuring impulsiveness. Attempts have been Schmitz, & Swann, 2001), borderline personality disorder (Critch- made to produce abbreviated scales using BIS-11 items—in part field, Levy, & Clarkin, 2004; Ferraz et al., 2009), alcohol and drug because a shorter scale would be valuable in clinical contexts and abuse (Kollins, 2003; Perry & Carroll, 2008), and impulse control for survey research— but these studies either failed to test the disorders such as pathological gambling (Petry, 2001; Steel & Blaszc- adequacy of the underlying BIS-11 factor structure (Spinella, zynski, 1998). 2004) or sought only a unidimensional “total-score” impulsiveness Impulsiveness is typically measured using self-report scales, which measure (Steinberg, Sharp, Stanford, & Tharp, 2013). In addition, provide a relatively unobtrusive means of assessment across various these studies failed to confirm data-driven models in separate clinical and research contexts. The most widely administered instru- replication samples, leaving their scale models vulnerable to cap- ment for this purpose over the last 2 decades is likely the Barratt italization on chance variation (MacCallum, Roznowski, & Ne- Impulsiveness Scale version 11 (BIS-11; Patton, Stanford, & Barratt, cowitz, 1992). 1995), cited by over 2,300 sources since its formulation (Google In the study presented here, we applied exploratory and confir- Scholar, 2013). Consisting of 30 questions, the BIS-11 is thought to matory factor analysis (EFA and CFA, respectively) to reexamine measure six related yet distinct impulsiveness factors that have been the structure of impulsiveness as measured by the BIS-11 and to combined to form three more general subtraits: attentional impulsive- produce an alternative scale, the ABbreviated Impulsiveness Scale ness (“inability to concentrate”), nonplanning impulsiveness (“lack of (ABIS). Our analysis proceeded in three broad phases. First, we premeditation”), and motor impulsiveness (“action without thought”). applied EFA to BIS-11 responses from a large, diverse sample to This canonical three-factor structure of impulsiveness is based on a identify an underlying factor structure and eliminate invalid and long tradition of work by Barratt and colleagues recognizing the unreliable factors and items. The resulting ABIS factor model multidimensional structure of impulsiveness while also seeking to confirmed the attentional, nonplanning, and motor impulsiveness distinguish impulsive traits from comorbid constructs, including anx- subtraits proposed by Patton and colleagues (1995) for the BIS-11. iety, sensation-seeking, and risk-taking (Barratt, 1965; Barratt & Next, we applied CFA to test the generalizability of our ABIS Patton, 1983). Beginning with the BIS-10, Barratt and colleagues factor model in two separate replication samples. The ABIS model formalized their multidimensional hypothesis by developing a set of proved more generalizable than the canonical BIS-11 model. Fi- items to reflect three underlying impulsiveness constructs: motor, nally, we validated the ABIS scales through comparison to the nonplanning, and cognitive (rapid decision) impulsiveness (Barratt, BIS-11 as well as independent behavioral and personality measures 1985). Subsequent studies supported the scale’s multidimensional related to impulsiveness. The ABIS provides an efficient, inter- nature but led to the reconceptualization of cognitive impulsiveness as nally consistent, and generalizable alternative to the BIS-11 for attentional impulsiveness (Luengo, Carrillo-De-La-Pena, & Otero, measuring impulsiveness. 1991; Patton et al., 1995). Thus, prior evidence consistently supports the multidimensional nature of BIS-11 impulsiveness; however, sig- nificant questions remain regarding the number and nature of influ- Methods ences underlying scale responses. Although the BIS-11 continues to see frequent use in experi- Analysis Procedure mental and clinical contexts, attempts to replicate its canonical three-subtrait structure have generated inconsistent results. Studies Our study was designed to examine the associations among examining BIS-11 items using exploratory (Haden & Shiva, 2008; answers to personality survey questions (items) about impulsive- von Diemen, Szobot, Kessler, & Pechansky, 2007) and confirma- ness and to improve upon an existing measure of impulsive per- tory (Ireland & Archer, 2008; Ruiz, Skeem, Poythress, Douglas, & sonality based on these items (i.e., the BIS-11). We used the factor Lilienfeld, 2010; Someya et al., 2001) factor analyses raise impor- analytic techniques EFA and CFA to identify latent impulsive tant questions regarding the adequacy of the canonical BIS-11 personality traits influencing people’s answers to these items. Our factor structure. Some factors have proven unreliable, such as study proceeded in eight stages, which are illustrated in Figure 1. those reflecting cognitive instability (e.g., “I have racing In Stage I, we used CFA to test the ability of the canonical BIS-11 thoughts”) and perseverance (e.g., “I change residences”) (Fossati, model to describe the patterns of item responses. This canonical Barratt, Acquarini, & Ceglie, 2002; Fossati, Di Ceglie, Acquarini, model failed, leading us to Stage II, in which we used exploratory, & Barratt, 2001). Others, such as cognitive complexity (i.e., a data-driven techniques (parallel analysis and EFA) to construct an preference for complex thought), seem to measure personality initial seven-factor model of impulsive personality. Next, in Stage constructs distinct from core impulsiveness (Cacioppo & Petty, III, we identified and took steps to eliminate three problematic 1982). These inconsistencies may derive in part from analytical factors that were unrelated to core impulsiveness. In Stage IV, we choices during the formulation of the BIS-11. In particular, the use targeted individual questions for removal, eliminating idiosyn- cratic items that remained poorly explained after accounting for the of principal components analysis (Gorsuch, 1990), the failure to This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. ABBREVIATED IMPULSIVENESS SCALE 3 Participants ABIS Model Development Our primary sample comprised 1,549 adults from Durham, North Sample 1 (n=1549) Carolina, and surrounding communities (Sample 1). Participants were Canonical BIS-11 Boxes = Items recruited via advertisements in community locations and on the cam- Colors = Factors Model - 30 items puses of Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Two replication samples comprised 657 adults from the Duke University community (Sample 2) and 285 adults recruited Mot NP Att online (Sample 3) through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (http://www .MTurk.com). A final validation sample comprised 49 adults from the Initial Seven Exploratory Factor Model Factor Analysis Durham and surrounding communities (Sample 4) recruited for a functional neuroimaging experiment examining impulsive decision- making. All participants provided informed consent under protocols approved by either the Duke University or Duke University Medical Center Institutional Review Boards. Cut items and factors Primary Study Measures 12 Removed Our primary measures of interest included the following. BIS-11. Responses to these 30 items measuring attentional, mo- tor, and nonplanning impulsiveness (Patton et al., 1995) were our Final model: main measures of interest. Responses were indicated on a computer ABIS - 13 items using a 4-point (5 points in Sample 3) scale: rarely/never, occasion- 5 Removed ally, often, almost always/always. Subjects from all four of our sam- ples completed the BIS-11. Items from this scale were used to for- Mot NP Att mulate the ABIS. The BIS-11 items are reproduced in Appendix 2 (Supplemental File B) and are publicly available at http://www .impulsivity.org/measurement/bis11. Alcohol use questionnaire. Impulsiveness plays a key role in the initiation and maintenance of substance use and dependence (Dick et al., 2010). To examine alcohol use, we asked participants from Sam- Replication ple 4 to self-report the number of alcoholic beverages consumed on a typical day on which they drank and the average number of days per Sample 2 (n=657) Sample 3 (n=285) week alcohol was consumed. From the product of these quantities, we derived a measure of the average number of alcoholic drinks con- Mot NP Att Mot NP Att sumed per week. Additional personality measures. We included additional mea- sures to validate the ABIS. These included the Decision Making Styles Inventory Analytical and Intuitive scales (Nygren & White, 2002), the Need for Cognition and Faith in Intuition scales (Epstein, Pacini, Denes-Raj, & Heier, 1996), the Behavioral Inhibition System/ Validation Behavioral Activation System Scale (Carver & White, 1994), the Sample 1 (n=1549) Samples 1&4 Urgency, Premeditation, Perseverance, and Sensation Seeking impul- Reliability Alcoholic Drinks siveness scale (Whiteside, Lynam, Miller, & Reynolds, 2005), the α=.75 α=.75 α=.72 r =.44 r =.32 Brief Sensation Seeking Scale (Hoyle, Stephenson, Palmgreen, Lorch, ABIS BIS-11 Mot NP Att & Donohew, 2002), and the Impulsive Sensation Seeking Scale (Zuckerman, 2002). Figure 1. Flowchart of study analysis procedure. Small boxes represent Delay discounting—proportion impatient choice. Delay dis- individual scale items, with color representing separate factors. The ABIS counting, or the tendency to devalue (discount) delayed rewards, is a model was developed through Stages I–VI using EFA and CFA (Sample 1), common behavioral measure of impulsive decision-making (Bickel, resulting in a three-factor, 13-item scale. The ABIS was replicated in Stage VII Odum, & Madden, 1999; Reynolds, Richards, Horn, & Karraker, (Samples 2 and 3) and validated in Stage VIII (Samples 1 and 4). Mot  motor 2004; Wittmann & Paulus, 2008). Participants from Sample 4 com- impulsiveness; NP  nonplanning impulsiveness; Att  attentional pleted an experiment examining delay discounting in which they impulsiveness. made 100 choices between two different options: a small monetary amount that could be received immediately and a larger amount influence of identified factors. In Stage V, we eliminated addi- ($5–$50) that could be received after a delay (1–8 weeks). We used tional factors that were poorly measured by the remaining set of the proportion of choices for which the participant chose the impatient items. In Stage VI, we finalized our factor model and simplified the (smaller but immediate reward) option as an individual difference structure of the exploratory model to fit the format of a confirma- measure of impulsive decision-making. tory factor model. In Stage VII, we confirmed our final model in two additional independent samples. Finally, in Stage VIII, we EFA and CFA validated the abbreviated scales derived from our model by relating them to personality and behavioral outcome variables reflecting Model fit was evaluated using the comparative fit index (CFI; impulsiveness. Bentler, 1990) and the root mean square error of approximation This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Stage 8 Stage 7 Stage 5-6 Stage 3-4 Stage 2 Stage 1 4 COUTLEE, POLITZER, HOYLE, AND HUETTEL (RMSEA; Steiger, 1990). These indices have been found to perform BIS-11 model could not explain the patterns of responses in our well with categorical data under our study conditions, including sample. relatively large samples, four-item response scales, and categorical model estimation techniques (DiStefano, 2002; Edwards, Wirth, Stage II: Exploring an Alternative Factor Structure of Houts, & Xi, 2012; Green, Akey, Fleming, Hershberger, & Marquis, Impulsive Personality Using EFA 1997; Hutchinson & Olmos, 1998). We used CFI values of .95 and RMSEA values of .06 as cutoffs for good model fit (Hu & Bentler, Given our failure to explain our data using CFA that was based on 1999). RMSEA cutoffs of .08 and .10 indicated acceptable and mar- the canonical BIS-11 structure, we turned to EFA to derive an alter- ginal fit, respectively (MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996). See native, data-driven model of the factor structure underlying BIS-11 the accompanying APA Publications and Communications Board responses. Parallel analysis (Horn, 1965) using either permuted data Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards, 2008) and or random normal data (Buja & Eyuboglu, 1992) indicated seven JARS-SEM (JARS-Structural Equation Modeling; Hoyle & Isher- factors underlying our BIS-11 responses. EFA using the unrestricted wood, 2013) questionnaires for methodological details regarding our factor model (Hoyle & Duvall, 2004; Jöreskog, Sörbom, Magidson, & factor analyses. Cooley, 1979) corroborated this estimate, demonstrating that a seven- factor solution was the simplest that achieved good fit (RMSEA .05, CFI  .95). The model fit results of this initial EFA appear in Results Table 1 and served as the basis for constructing the abbreviated scale. Our initial seven-factor EFA revealed several constructs that Stage I: Attempting to Confirm the Canonical BIS-11 roughly correspond to subtraits identified in the original BIS-11 Factor Structure of Impulsive Personality six-factor model, including self-control/planning, motor, persever- We first attempted to confirm the BIS-11 factor structure proposed ance, cognitive complexity, and cognitive instability factors. These by Patton et al. (1995). These authors identified six latent factors initial EFA results also suggested several avenues by which the scale underlying responses to the 30 BIS-11 scale items. Theoretical moti- could be abbreviated without sacrificing inferential validity. Our vations led them to aggregate the six factors into three second-order revision proceeded as detailed in the next subsection, with the EFA factors. We used CFA to test the suitability of these six- and three- reestimated at each stage after the removal of items. factor solutions as well as a single-factor (unidimensional/total-score) solution. Each item was specified to load on a single factor on the Stage III: Eliminating Factors Unrelated to Core basis of its assignment to the BIS-11 subscales (Patton et al., 1995). Impulsiveness The magnitude of these loadings and the factor covariances were freely estimated from the data (corresponding to congeneric indica- Our initial EFA revealed a factor similar to BIS-11 “cognitive tors, an oblique factor rotation, and strict simple structure). Model fit complexity” and anchored by items 15, 18, and 29, which refer to a results appear in Table 1. preference for complex thought. These items appeared to measure None of the models that were based on the canonical BIS-11 “need for cognition,” a personality construct that is distinct from structure provided an acceptable explanation of the relationships be- impulsiveness and that reflects an individual’s desire for effortful tween item responses. CFI values were especially poor for these cognitive activity (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982). We examined the cor- models. Substantial exploratory modification was required to achieve relation between responses on items from the cognitive complexity conventionally acceptable model fit. On the basis of these results, we factor (with higher scores reflecting a stronger preference for complex concluded that the item-factor relationships specified by the canonical thought) with responses on the Need for Cognition scale (Epstein et Table 1 Factor Analysis Results and Fit Statistics RMSEA Stage Type Model description  df RMSEA Lower 90% CI Upper 90% CI CFI N I CFA Patton et al. (1995) one factor (total 7,466.59 405 0.106 0.104 0.108 0.639 1,549 score) I CFA Patton et al. (1995) three factor 6,249.95 402 0.097 0.095 0.099 0.701 1,549 (canonical model) I CFA Patton et al. (1995) six factor (first 5,622.44 390 0.093 0.092 0.098 0.732 1,549 order factors) II EFA Seven factors, 30 items 1,145.29 246 0.049 0.046 0.051 0.954 1,549 III EFA Five factors, 25 items 984.49 185 0.053 0.050 0.056 0.949 1,549 IV EFA Five factors, 18 items 498.36 73 0.061 0.056 0.066 0.967 1,549 V EFA Three factors, 14 items 570.84 52 0.080 0.074 0.086 0.955 1,549 VI CFA Three factors, 14 items, simple structure 884.75 74 0.084 0.079 0.089 0.930 1,549 VI CFA Three factors, 13 items, simple structure 753.77 62 0.085 0.080 0.090 0.938 1,549 VI CFA Final model, three factors, 13 items, 371.90 59 0.059 0.053 0.064 0.972 1,549 three error covariances VII CFA Sample 2, replication of final model 262.44 59 0.072 0.064 0.081 0.968 657 VII CFA Sample 2, Patton et al. (1995) three 2,863.76 402 0.096 0.093 0.100 0.743 657 factors (canonical model) VII CFA Sample 3, replication of final model 166.04 59 0.080 0.066 0.094 0.971 285 VII CFA Sample 3, Patton et al. (1995) three 1,659.31 402 0.105 0.100 0.110 0.779 285 factors (canonical model) This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. ABBREVIATED IMPULSIVENESS SCALE 5 al., 1996) collected from a subset of 379 subjects. Items 15 (r  .68, We reestimated our EFA using the 18 remaining items and found 95% confidence interval [CI] [.62, .73]), 18 (r  .51, 95% CI [.43, a five-factor solution to be most interpretable, as summarized in .58]), and 29 (r  .42, 95% CI [.33, .50]) exhibited substantial Table 1. correlation with the need for cognition total score whereas the weaker- loading items 12 (r  .34, 95% CI [.25, .43]) and 20 (r  .26, 95% Stage V: Eliminating Poorly Measured Doublet Factors CI [.16, .35]) showed moderate correlation. We chose to remove items Two of the factors in our five-factor, 18-item model were doublets, 15, 18, and 29 on the basis of their strong relationship to need for featuring strong loadings of only 2 items. These doublet factors cognition. reflected perseverance (items 16 and 21, “I change jobs” and “I Our initial EFA also revealed a doublet factor consisting of items change residences”) and cognitive instability (items 6 and 26, “I have 11 and 28. These items, which refer to either “squirming” (11) or ‘racing’ thoughts” and “I often have extraneous thoughts when think- “restlessness” (28) at plays, the theater, or lectures, are redundant in ing”). The cognitive instability doublet factor also possessed moderate concept and wording. This suggests that the “factor” they form may loadings (.32–.35) on three items (5, 9, 28), but each of these items instead reflect a method effect unrelated to the underlying structure of had stronger loadings on an attention factor. To address the “local impulsive personality (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, dependence” (Yen, 1993) reflected by these item pairs, we first 2003). Consistent with this assessment, the polychoric (i.e., ordinal) attempted to eliminate single items from each factor. Removing either correlation between items 11 and 28 (r  .73, 95% CI [.71, .75]) was item 16 or 21 from the perseverance factor or item 6 or 26 from the among the largest between BIS-11 items. To eliminate this method cognitive instability factor left the remaining doublet item with low factor, we chose to remove one of these two items on the basis of item reliability (.27); therefore, we excluded all four items. Removing the R values. These values, which express the proportion of variance for perseverance and cognitive instability doublet factors left a 14-item each item explained by the modeled factors, can be taken as an scale. estimate of item reliability (Brown, 2006). Item 11 was removed We reestimated our EFA using the 14 remaining items and found a because it proved less reliable than item 28 upon removal and rees- three-factor solution to be most interpretable, as summarized in Table timation (R  .22 for 11 vs. .34 for 28). 1. These three factors reflected constructs similar to motor, nonplan- We also identified a financial factor consisting of items 10, 22, and ning, and attentional impulsiveness, as conceptualized by Patton et al. 25, each of which refers to impulsiveness in the context of spending (1995). or saving decisions. Financial factors have been identified in previous EFAs of BIS-11 responses (Fossati et al., 2001). Although this factor was stable and meaningful, it reflects shared variance related to Stage VI: Confirming the Final Model Using CFA impulsiveness within the particular domain of financial behavior as We translated the results of our three-factor, 14 item EFA into a opposed to a broader trait relevant across domains. Supporting this model reflecting simple structure such that each item loaded on only interpretation, two of the three financial items also had substantial one factor while still allowing the factors themselves to covary. These cross-loadings on the more domain-general planning (item 10, .37) results were promising, indicating marginal fit, as summarized in and motor (item 22, .39) factors. We chose to eliminate this domain- Table 1. Translation to simple structure resulted in one attention item specific financial factor by removing item 25, which possessed the 2 2 with a low R value (28, R  .20), which we removed, leaving a final highest loading on the financial factor (.77) and had no substantial set of 13 items (Table 1). loadings on other factors. Items 10 and 22 were retained at this stage. After examining the model covariance matrix and modification In summary, our first round of item elimination evaluated three indices (which quantify the expected change in model fit due to questionable factors from our initial seven-factor EFA solution, which freeing individual fixed model parameters), three error covariances led to the elimination of five items: three (15, 18, 29) reflecting the were introduced between model uniqueness terms to account for need for cognition, one redundant item (11) from a restlessness residual dependence between scale indicators. First, the error terms doublet, and one item (25) anchoring a domain-specific financial for items 17 and 19 were allowed to covary because their similar factor. wording and proximity on the scale may have introduced additional We reestimated our EFA using the 25 remaining indicators and methodological correlation. Likewise, error terms for items 12 and 20 found a five-factor solution to be most interpretable, as summarized in were allowed to covary on the basis of their similar wordings. Finally, Table 1. This model revealed factors similar to the original BIS-11 error terms for items 13 and 30 were allowed to covary. These two first-order factors, save for the eliminated factor of “cognitive com- items share conceptual variation related to long-term planning and plexity.” often emerged as a doublet separate from items 1 and 7 (which reflect more near-term planning) with higher-order EFA extractions. We Stage IV: Eliminating Unreliable Items believe that there is sufficient evidence to justify a planning factor To identify additional items for removal, we examined the item including all four items, but we allowed for the error covariance reliability as indexed by R values. Items with low reliability fell into between items 13 and 30 to account for the additional dependence one of three categories: items with a pejorative interpretation (e.g., “I between these items. Freeing these three parameters accounted for can only think about one thing at a time”; 23, 27, 3), items with an residual covariance without altering the general pattern and magnitude unusual or narrow relevance (e.g., “I change hobbies”; 4, 24), or items of item loadings, which remained large (.55–.82) and highly signifi- with residual variance due to the eliminated financial factor (10, 22). cant (p  .001) in all cases. When all remaining BIS-11 items were sorted in descending order by Results for our final model, including the three correlated unique- their R values, we found a clear gap separating the low-reliability ness terms specified above, are represented in Figure 2. Model fit items mentioned above (R values from .02 to .26) from the remaining (Table 1) was good. The final model features five items measuring items (R values from .32 to .74). We chose to eliminate all seven of attentional impulsiveness (5, 8, 9, 12, and 20), four items measuring these low-reliability items. Stepwise elimination starting with the nonplanning impulsiveness (1, 7, 13, and 30), and four items measur- lowest reliability item did not substantively change the ordering of ing motor impulsiveness (2, 14, 17, and 19) for a total of 13 items, less items by reliability. The elimination of these 7 items left 18 items. than half of the length of the canonical BIS-11 scale. This reduction This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 6 COUTLEE, POLITZER, HOYLE, AND HUETTEL Motor Non-planning Attentional .82 .60 .65 .66 .61 .60 .66 .67 .63 .82 .71 .56 .69 2 14 17 19 1 7 13 30 5 8 9 12 20 .33 .64 .57 .56 .33 .49 .69 .53 .63 .64 .57 .55 .60 .56 .37 .26 Figure 2. Path diagram illustrating the final ABIS model estimates from Sample 1. The 13 items of the ABIS (boxes, BIS-11 item numbering) measure correlated attentional (five items), motor (four items), and nonplanning (four items) latent factors (ellipses). Item error/uniquenesses are shown as circles; three error covariances (curved arrows between errors) were specified. Parameter estimates are standardized using the variances of the continuous latent variables as well as the variances of the outcome (i.e., Mplus StdYX). All parameters are significant at p  .001 across Samples 1–3. was achieved by eliminating nonrelevant factors, doublet factors, and & Gosling, 2011; Gosling, Vazire, Srivastava, & John, 2004). In unreliable items. addition, the model results generalized well to a 5-point response scale (although we recommend the continued use of a 4-point scale for the sake of continuity with previous research). Stage VII: Confirming Model Generalizability Through Replication of the abbreviated scale model in a local community Replication Using CFA and a broad Internet sample indicates the enhanced generalizability of We next sought to confirm the structural validity of our abbreviated the abbreviated measure. This is particularly clear in comparison to scale using CFA in two additional samples. We replicated the model the performance of the canonical BIS-11 model, which showed inad- structure in an additional survey-based sample of 657 adults (Sample equate fit in every sample we examined. 2). CFA was performed on responses to relevant BIS-11 items, specifying the final model from Stage VI. All estimated model pa- Stage VIII: Validating the Abbreviated Scale Using rameters, including the three error covariance terms specified, were Measures of Personality and Behavior highly significant (p  .001). Overall model fit in the replication sample was acceptable to good (Table 1). Model fit for the canonical On the basis of our model of BIS-11 responses refined and repli- three-factor Patton model was marginal to unacceptable in this sample cated in Stages I–VII, we present the ABIS, a 13-item scale measuring (Table 1). Modification indices did not suggest any conceptually attentional (5 items), nonplanning (4 items), and motor (4 items) relevant alterations. The results of this analysis confirm the factor impulsiveness (Table 2). Scores on each subscale are computed by structure of our abbreviated scale, which produced acceptable repli- averaging responses on all relevant subscale items after accounting for cation fit values in an independent sample. reverse-scored items (see Appendix 1: Supplemental File A for scale To reinforce the generalizability of our abbreviated scale model, we administration and scoring instruction forms, which is available on- implemented a stringent test by using CFA to replicate the model line). Properties of the ABIS scale scores in our factor analysis structure in a diverse Internet sample of 285 individuals (Sample 3) who completed the BIS-11 using a five-point response scale. Analysis Table 2 procedures were identical to those used previously. CFA was per- ABIS Scale Items formed on BIS-11 item responses specifying the final model from Stage VI (including error covariances). Again, all estimated model ABIS scale Item number Item text parameters were highly significant (p  .001). Overall, model fit in Attention 5 I don’t “pay attention.” this replication sample was acceptable/marginal to good (Table 1); the 8 I am self-controlled. CFI value indicated good fit whereas the RMSEA value of .08 was 9 I concentrate easily. equal to the cutoff value separating acceptable and marginal fit for this 12 I am a careful thinker. index. Model fit for the canonical BIS-11 three-factor structure was 20 I am a steady thinker. Motor 2 I do things without thinking. unacceptable in this sample (Table 1). Modification indices did not 14 I say things without thinking. suggest any conceptually relevant alterations. The results of this 17 I act “on impulse.” analysis confirm the factor structure of our abbreviated scale, which 19 I act on the spur of the moment. produced acceptable replication fit values in a moderately sized In- Nonplanning 1 I plan tasks carefully. ternet sample. The Internet sample we collected is quite diverse in 7 I plan trips well ahead of time. 13 I plan for job security. terms of age, occupation, race, and geography, more so than most 30 I am future oriented. samples studied within personality psychology (Buhrmester, Kwang, This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. ABBREVIATED IMPULSIVENESS SCALE 7 Table 3 Descriptive Statistics for ABIS Scales in Factor Analysis Samples Total Females Males Sample MSD  NM SD  NM SD  N Sample 1 ABIS attention 2.05 0.47 0.72 1,549 2.07 0.47 0.74 939 2.04 0.46 0.68 608 * * ABIS motor 2.06 0.51 0.75 1,549 2.03 0.50 0.75 939 2.10 0.52 0.75 608 * * ABIS nonplanning 2.11 0.62 0.75 1,549 2.06 0.61 0.75 939 2.19 0.62 0.75 608 Sample 2 ABIS attention 2.08 0.53 0.77 657 2.08 0.55 0.80 377 2.08 0.51 0.74 278 * * ABIS motor 1.94 0.56 0.81 657 1.89 0.55 0.82 377 2.00 0.56 0.80 278 * * ABIS nonplanning 2.14 0.63 0.71 657 2.06 0.62 0.71 377 2.25 0.63 0.71 278 Sample 3 * * ABIS attention 2.25 0.70 0.77 285 2.15 0.62 0.73 145 2.35 0.76 0.79 140 ABIS motor 2.38 0.99 0.88 285 2.36 1.04 0.90 145 2.40 0.94 0.86 140 ABIS nonplanning 2.35 0.77 0.70 285 2.27 0.76 0.72 145 2.44 0.78 0.66 140 Note. Sample 3 items were measured from 1 to 5, rendering comparisons to Samples 1 and 2 uninformative. Summary statistics are shown for scale scores, which reflect the average of relevant scale items. Two individuals from Sample 2 reported neither male nor female gender. Gender difference p  .05. samples are shown in Table 3. In particular, the internal consistency difference measures relevant to impulsiveness. These associations are of the abbreviated scales, as indexed by coefficient , is greater than depicted in Table 5. Despite the brevity of the ABIS scales, they that for the canonical BIS-11 subscales in all of our samples (BIS-11 produced correlations similar to those of the corresponding BIS-11 : attention  .71; motor  .64; nonplanning  .69). The ABIS scales across various personality measures. Consistent with their values are also similar to or greater than those published for the enhanced internal consistency, there was a general tendency toward BIS-11 subscales in another large sample (Stanford et al., 2009). stronger correlation estimates using the ABIS scales. Exceptions Coefficient  is positively related to the number of scale items tended to have clear explanations, such as the drop in correlation (Churchill Jr. & Peter, 1984; Voss, Stem Jr, & Fotopoulos, 2000), between ABIS nonplanning and need for cognition after the inten- leading us to expect that abbreviated scale scores would exhibit lower tional removal of “cognitive complexity” items in Stage III of our reliability by this measure. The fact that  was actually greater for the analysis. The similar pattern of associations observed with the ABIS shortened ABIS scale scores supports our contention that the ABIS and BIS-11 scales supports the inferential validity of the ABIS scales more reliably measures the impulsive subtraits latent in the BIS-11 when measuring motor, attentional, and nonplanning impulsiveness. item set. Previous research has suggested that impulsiveness is positively We next investigated the relationships among the ABIS scales, related to alcohol consumption in teenagers (Fossati et al., 2002) and BIS-11 subscales, and relevant measures of personality and behavior. adults (Granö, Virtanen, Vahtera, Elovainio, & Kivimäki, 2004), with Table 4 depicts correlations between the ABIS and BIS-11 scales. The small to moderate effect size (r .30 using the BIS-11). We found ABIS attention, motor, and nonplanning scales were strongly corre- that self-reported alcohol consumption in adults was related to ABIS lated with their corresponding BIS-11 subscales (rs from .71 to .77, motor impulsiveness (r  .44, p  .05, 95% CI [.17, .64]) and BIS-11 95% CIs  .02). We also sought to validate the ABIS scales by motor impulsiveness (r  .32, p  .05, 95% CI [.04 .55]). The relating them to a range of self-report and behavioral individual difference between these correlations was nonsignificant (p  .21), Table 4 Correlation of ABIS and BIS-11 Scales in Sample 1 ABIS ABIS ABIS B11 Tot att mot sc cc per ci ATT MOT NP Att Mot NP fin nfc BIS11-Total Score — BIS11-attention 0.72 — BIS11-motor 0.71 0.31 — BIS11-self control 0.79 0.48 0.45 — BIS11-cognitive complexity 0.59 0.35 0.25 0.37 — BIS11-perseverance 0.55 0.22 0.30 0.37 0.23 — BIS11-cognitive instability 0.48 0.37 0.28 0.22 0.04 0.20 — BIS11-ATTENTION 0.75 0.90 0.36 0.45 0.28 0.25 0.73 — BIS11-MOTOR 0.79 0.34 0.91 0.52 0.29 0.68 0.31 0.39 — BIS11-NONPLANNING 0.84 0.51 0.44 0.87 0.78 0.37 0.17 0.45 0.50 — ABIS attention 0.76 0.78 0.35 0.72 0.43 0.28 0.28 0.71 0.39 0.71 — ABIS motor 0.71 0.38 0.79 0.59 0.21 0.30 0.32 0.43 0.75 0.51 0.43 — ABIS nonplanning 0.67 0.34 0.37 0.87 0.34 0.43 0.15 0.31 0.47 0.77 0.50 0.40 — Finance (removed) 0.59 0.27 0.61 0.40 0.45 0.26 0.21 0.29 0.59 0.51 0.35 0.33 0.36 — Need for cognition (removed) 0.50 0.38 0.15 0.23 0.78 0.13 0.30 0.42 0.18 0.57 0.39 0.19 0.15 0.17 — Note. B11 Tot  BIS-11 total score; att  attention; mot  motor; sc  self control; cc  cognitive complexity; per  perseverance; ci  cognitive instability; NP  nonplanning; fin  finance; nfc  need for cognition. BIS-11 first-order scales are abbreviated in lowercase whereas second-order scales are abbreviated in upper case. All correlations significant at p  .01 (excepting BIS-11 cognitive complexity  cognitive instability). This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 8 COUTLEE, POLITZER, HOYLE, AND HUETTEL Table 5 External Validity of ABIS Scales Attention Motor Nonplanning Measure ABIS BIS-11 ABIS BIS-11 ABIS BIS-11 N *a * * * * * Decision-Making Styles Inventory—Analytical 0.46 0.26 0.44 0.39 0.51 0.52 379 * * * * * Decision-Making Styles Inventory—Intuitive 0.11 0.07 0.33 0.37 0.16 0.20 379 *a * * * a * Need for Cognition 0.35 0.26 0.12 0.12 .10 0.45 379 * * Faith in Intuition 0.02 0.05 0.18 0.16 0.01 0.01 379 a * * *a Behavioral Approach System—Drive .02 0.05 0.17 0.16 0.11 0.06 1,167 * * †* * *a * Behavioral Approach System—Fun-Seeking 0.23 0.23 0.50 0.43 0.28 0.23 1,167 a * *a * Behavioral Approach System—Reward Responsiveness .04 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.12 0.07 1,167 * * * * *a Behavioral Inhibition System 0.11 0.13 0.08 0.12 0.13 0.01 1,167 * * * * * UPPS—Premeditation 0.38 0.18 0.49 0.42 0.59 0.57 49 UPPS—Urgency 0.21 0.27 0.42 0.25 0.09 0.17 49 * * * * * * UPPS—Perseverance 0.53 0.51 0.32 0.44 0.55 0.40 49 UPPS—Sensation-Seeking 0.05 0.12 0.15 0.06 0.03 0.16 49 * * Brief Sensation-Seeking Scale 0.15 0.17 0.30 0.21 0.33 0.21 49 * * *a Impulsive Sensation-Seeking 0.27 0.27 0.37 0.33 0.50 0.28 49 * * * Average number of alcoholic drinks per week 0.06 0.10 0.44 0.32 0.20 0.31 48 Delay Discounting—Proportion Impatient Choice 0.04 0.03 0.28 0.14 0.23 0.28 49 Scale difference (ABIS vs. BIS-11, 2-tailed) p  .05. p  .05. although this comparison was likely underpowered (Sample 4, N  We initially set out to reevaluate the factor structure of the BIS-11 48). Definitive conclusions regarding the relative size of these effects using large samples, modern factor analytic methods (exploratory and across scales will require further analysis in larger samples, although confirmatory), and replication in independent samples. Despite dem- the results for motor impulsiveness and alcohol consumption are onstrating poor model fit for the BIS-11’s particular factor structure, consistent with the overall trend toward strengthened relationships our final model corroborates its general structure in that our atten- when using the ABIS scales. There were no significant relationships tional, motor, and nonplanning scales resemble the core impulsiveness with ABIS attentional or nonplanning impulsiveness in this sample subtraits identified by Patton et al. (1995). However, we argue that our (r  .06, 95% CI [–.23, .34] and r  .20, 95% CI [–.10, .45]). systematic removal of extraneous factors and unreliable items allows We also examined the relationship between the ABIS scales and the ABIS to measure these preserved core subtraits with enhanced delay discounting, a laboratory-based measure of impulsive decision- efficiency and clarity. making. Decisions reflecting delay discounting (willingness to accept The ABIS motor impulsiveness scale, anchored by items 2 and 19, a smaller reward that can be obtained sooner) are commonly described “I do things without thinking” and “I act on the spur of the moment,” in terms of self-control and impulsiveness (Coutlee & Huettel, 2012; reflects spontaneous, reactive, and uninhibited action. ABIS motor Madden & Bickel, 2010), although studies have not found a consistent impulsiveness relates strongly to BIS-11 first- and second-order motor relationship between delay-discounting behavior and self-reported impulsiveness and moderately to UPPS Urgent impulsiveness (ten- impulsiveness (Reynolds, Ortengren, Richards, & de Wit, 2006; Stan- dency for uninhibited emotional acts), intuitive decision-making style, ford et al., 2009). Consistent with these latter findings, we failed to BAS Fun Seeking, and sensation-seeking. ABIS motor impulsiveness identify any significant relationship between impulsiveness (measured also showed a significant association with alcohol consumption, and with either the ABIS or BIS-11) and individual differences in impa- that association was at least as large as that from the full BIS-11 using tient decision-making in a delay-discounting task (r  .04 to .28, 95% far fewer items. CIs from .24 to .52), although ABIS motor and BIS-11 nonplanning The ABIS nonplanning impulsiveness scale, anchored by items 1 impulsiveness showed trend-level relationships (p  .10). Because statistical power was relatively low for this sample (N  49), the and 7, “I plan tasks carefully” and “I plan trips well ahead of time” extent of any relationship between impulsiveness and delay discount- (both reverse scored), reflects a tendency to forego premeditation, ing remains unclear. forethought, and preparation. It encompasses lack of planning for shorter-term, concrete aims, such as tasks and trips, as well as longer- term and more abstract aims, such as job security and the future more Discussion generally. It is strongly related to the BIS-11 second-order nonplan- We describe the creation of the ABIS, a brief scale that measures ning and first-order self-control subscales as well as the UPPS pre- attentional, motor, and nonplanning impulsiveness with better than meditation scale. It also shows moderate relationships with an ana- twice the efficiency of the BIS-11 while maintaining similar, if not lytical decision-making style and sensation-seeking. better, score reliability. It is critical to note that we demonstrated The ABIS attentional impulsiveness scale, anchored by items 12 through CFA in two independent replication samples that, in contrast and 9, “I am a careful thinker” and “I concentrate easily,” (both with the BIS-11, the model underlying the ABIS generalizes to reverse scored), reflects inconsistency in controlling thought and independent samples drawn from separate respondent populations. focusing attention. ABIS attentional impulsiveness relates strongly to Finally, we show evidence that links impulsiveness measured by the the BIS-11 first-order attention and self-control subscales as well as to ABIS to other relevant personality measures and alcohol consump- UPPS perseverant impulsiveness (lack of focus and self-discipline). tion. These findings support the use of the ABIS in basic, clinical, and applied research as either a brief alternative to the BIS-11 or a model ABIS attention also showed moderate negative relationships with for reanalyzing previously collected BIS-11 questionnaire responses. analytical decision-making style and need for cognition. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. ABBREVIATED IMPULSIVENESS SCALE 9 Our results indicate that the ABIS scales are best considered mea- attempts to investigate specific impulsiveness traits in isolation should sures of separate but correlated components of impulsiveness. The control for correlated impulsiveness constructs using standard meth- scales show moderate intercorrelation (rs from .40 to .50, 95% CIs  ods (CFA/structural equation modeling, multiple and hierarchical .04). Each scale taken alone is acceptably unidimensional after ac- regression) as opposed to more speculative bifactor models. However, counting for the specified correlated uniquenesses (Table 6). By more generally, questions regarding the higher-order structure of contrast, a single-factor model, reflecting a total score computed by impulsiveness require further investigation and are likely to be in- summing across all items, showed unacceptable fit, reflecting a lack formed by emerging bifactor modeling techniques, including explor- of unidimensionality across all items (Table 6). Despite cautions from atory bifactor analysis (Jennrich & Bentler, 2011; Muthén & Muthén, the scale authors (International Society for Research on Impulsivity, 2012). 2013), the BIS-11 subscales are commonly summed to produce a total To the best of our knowledge, our study reflects the first attempt to scale, a practice which ours and others results fail to support (Ireland independently reexamine and abbreviate the BIS-11 using EFA and & Archer, 2008; Steinberg et al., 2013). We hope to avoid this CFA methods in replication samples. The ABIS scales, which are the misunderstanding with the ABIS scales and emphasize that ignoring result of this analysis, are supported by findings from two previous the multidimensional nature of the ABIS or BIS-11 items undermines studies that sought to produce reduced scales on the basis of BIS-11 the validity of inferences made using those items. Inappropriate use of items. Spinella (2004) produced a 15-item scale with three subscales summary scores in such cases introduces additional measurement by selecting the five items with the highest loadings on each factor error (Fava & Velicer, 1996; Wood, Tataryn, & Gorsuch, 1996) and from a three-factor orthogonal principal components analysis of can distort the nature of the measured construct (Cattell, 1958). This BIS-11 data. This method, although straightforward to implement and can lead to problems identifying true relationships between impul- useful for eliminating some of the weaker-loading and unreliable siveness traits and other constructs, particularly in cases in which BIS-11 items, fails to identify the strong minor factors present in the those relationships differ among motor, attentional, and nonplanning data, such as the restlessness doublet removed in Stage III of our impulsiveness. We reiterate that it is psychometrically inappropriate analysis. Unextracted minor or methodological factors can distort the to combine the ABIS scales, and that they should not be summed or nature of major factors and the patterns of item loadings (Wood et al., averaged to calculate a total score. (Note that, according to our 1996). This may be the case for the Spinella attentional impulsiveness analyses, this admonition also holds equally for the original BIS-11 factor, which is dominated by the restlessness doublet. However, aside subscales.) from the attention scale, the Spinella results show consistency with the Although evidence from our study clearly supports the multidimen- ABIS scales, although our model tends to show modestly better fit sionality of impulsiveness measured via BIS-11 items, we remain values and replicability (Table 6). agnostic regarding the potential existence or nature of a “general Another study (Steinberg et al., 2013) used unidimensional item impulsiveness” construct underlying attentional, motor, and nonplan- response theory models to produce an eight-item scale intended to ning impulsiveness. The correlated-factors model we describe does replace the problematic BIS-11 total score measure. The authors not specifically address this question because this model is statisti- initially applied a bifactor item response model that was based on the cally equivalent to a first-order factor model with a single general BIS-11 canonical three-factor model. As in our own analyses using (second-order) impulsiveness factor. Bifactor models (Holzinger & EFA/CFA (Table 1) and a bifactor model (Table 6), they found that Swineford, 1937), in which items simultaneously load on a general many of the BIS-11 items failed to load on the general impulsiveness factor and uncorrelated specific factors (e.g., attention, motor, non- factor and that many items were characterized by high correlations planning), suggest an alternative possible higher-order structure with only one or two other items, reflecting doublets or other minor (Yung, Thissen, & McLeod, 1999). Our own findings (Table 6) and factors (often because of methodological factors such as similarity of those of others (Steinberg et al., 2013) indicate that bifactor solutions item wording). The authors subsequently switched to fitting unidi- that are based on the canonical BIS-11 model and items provide a mensional models with the goal of producing a revised BIS total score poor fit overall, although including a general factor did improve scale by eliminating items not clearly related to the general impul- models that were based on the full 30-item set. Applied specifically to siveness factor (resulted in an eight-item scale). Although the primary the ABIS items, we found that a bifactor model produced fit some- goal and factor analysis technique used in this study are distinct from what inferior to our final three-factor model (Tables 1 and 6) with our own, their results, which revealed problematic doublet factors and moderate to strong loadings on the general factor across all items items poorly related to impulsiveness, are consistent with our own (covariance terms were dropped to allow model estimation). Practical findings. In addition, the items they selected for their alternative BIS Table 6 Alternative Model Analysis Results and Fit Statistics RMSEA Model description  df RMSEA Lower 90% CI Upper 90% CI CFI N Sample 1, ABIS attention unidimensional model 19.63 4 0.050 0.029 0.073 0.994 1,549 Sample 1, ABIS motor unidimensional model 7.01 1 0.062 0.025 0.109 0.999 1,549 Sample 1, ABIS nonplanning unidimensional model 0.50 1 0.000 0.000 0.059 1.000 1,549 ABIS unidimensional model (12  20; 13  30; 17  19 covariances) 1,170.53 62 0.107 0.102 0.113 0.901 1,549 Steinberg et al. (2013) eight-item unidimensional model (5  9 covariance) 424.46 19 0.117 0.108 0.127 0.900 1,549 Spinella (2004) 15-item three-factor model 1,614.48 87 0.106 0.102 0.111 0.871 1,549 Sample 1, Patton et al. (1995) three-factor bifactor model 3,798.43 375 0.077 0.075 0.079 0.825 1,549 Sample 1, ABIS three-factor bifactor model (no covariances) 515.25 52 0.076 0.070 0.082 0.958 1,549 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 10 COUTLEE, POLITZER, HOYLE, AND HUETTEL total-score scale represent a subset of the items that we independently Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Yielding to temptation: Self-control failure, impul- sive purchasing, and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, selected for the three scales of the ABIS. Given this convergence of 28, 670–676. doi:10.1086/338209 findings, we decided to test the unidimensionality of the Steinberg et Bechara, A., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. R. (2000). Emotion, decision al. (2013) scale items in our data. In contrast to their findings, but making and the orbitofrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 10, 295–307. doi: consistent with our own results that were based on the BIS-11 and 10.1093/cercor/10.3.295 ABIS models, we found that a unidimensional CFA model failed to Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psycho- acceptably fit the data (Table 6). In the case of the Steinberg et al. logical Bulletin, 107, 238–246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 (2013) scale and the ABIS items, the patterns of covariation between Bickel, W. K., Odum, A. L., & Madden, G. J. (1999). Impulsivity and cigarette scale items indicate the need for a more complex explanation of the smoking: Delay discounting in current, never, and ex-smokers. Psychophar- data (e.g., multiple latent factors). In fact, some form of general macology, 146, 447–454. doi:10.1007/PL00005490 impulsiveness may underlie responses to BIS-11 items. However, Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New neither our own findings nor the findings of Steinberg et al. (2013), York, NY: Guilford Press. Spinella (2004),or Patton et al. (1995) provide sufficient evidence to Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical justify measuring such a general impulsiveness factor using a total- Turk. A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980 score scale. Instead, the evidence supports the use of scales designed Buja, A., & Eyuboglu, N. (1992). Remarks on parallel analysis. Multivariate to measure separate impulsiveness subtraits, as with the ABIS atten- Behavioral Research, 27, 509–540. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2704_2 tional, motor, and nonplanning scales. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of A limitation of our analyses and the resulting ABIS scales is that Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131. doi:10.1037/0022-3514 they measure a relatively focused set of impulsive traits. This results .42.1.116 from our decisions to restrict our study to the 30 BIS-11 items and Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral acti- produce an abbreviated scale representing only the core factors re- vation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The flected by those items. Thus, the ABIS is less comprehensive than BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319– measures drawn from a broader set of items, such as the UPPS 313. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319 impulsiveness scale (Whiteside et al., 2005). Our analyses led us to Cattell, R. B. (1958). Extracting the correct number of factors in factor discard several peripheral factors reflecting financial impulsiveness, analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 18, 791–838. doi: restlessness, and cognitive instability, among others. Although these 10.1177/001316445801800412 constructs are poorly measured by the available set of BIS-11 items, Churchill, Jr., G. A., & Peter, J. P. (1984). Research design effects on the they represent potentially interesting aspects of impulsive personality reliability of rating scales: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, and behavior. For instance, impulsiveness in financial domains (e.g., 21, 360–375. doi:10.2307/3151463 Coutlee, C. G., & Huettel, S. A. (2012). The functional neuroanatomy of “I buy things on impulse”) predicted impatient economic decisions in decision making: Prefrontal control of thought and action. Brain Research, a delay-discounting task (r  .35, p  .05, 95% CI [.08, .57]). Such 1428, 3–12. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2011.05.053 minor factors hold promise as a possible basis for expanded or Critchfield, K. L., Levy, K. N., & Clarkin, J. F. (2004). The relationship alternative scales measuring the broader set of impulsive traits re- between impulsivity, aggression, and impulsive-aggression in borderline flected by the BIS-11 items. personality disorder: An empirical analysis of self-report measures. Journal We are optimistic that our findings will inform such a broader of Personality Disorders, 18, 555–570. doi:10.1521/pedi.18.6.555.54795 discussion and contribute to future attempts to revise the BIS scale. Dick, D. M., Smith, G., Olausson, P., Mitchell, S. H., Leeman, R. F., However, in the present, we argue that the ABIS scale scores provide O’Malley, S. S., & Sher, K. (2010). Review: Understanding the construct of the most efficient and reliable measures of core attentional, motor, and impulsivity and its relationship to alcohol use disorders. Addiction Biology, nonplanning impulsiveness currently available. The ABIS generalizes 15, 217–226. doi:10.1111/j.1369-1600.2009.00190.x well to independent samples, especially compared with the BIS-11. DiStefano, C. (2002). The impact of categorization with confirmatory factor However, an important direction for future research will be to exam- analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 327–346. doi:10.1207/ ine the properties of the ABIS in high-impulsiveness populations such S15328007SEM0903_2 as substance abusers, ADHD patients, and prison inmates. Edwards, M., Wirth, R., Houts, C., & Xi, N. (2012). Categorical data in the structural equation modeling framework. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling, 195–208. New York, NY: Guilford Press. References Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differ- ences in intuitive–experiential and analytical–rational thinking styles. Jour- Ainslie, G. (1975). Specious reward: A behavioral theory of impulsiveness and nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 390–405. doi:10.1037/0022- impulse control. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 463– 496. doi:10.1037/ 3514.71.2.390 h0076860 Fava, J. L., & Velicer, W. F. (1996). The effects of underextraction in factor American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual and component analyses. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, of mental disorders (text revision). Washington, DC: Author. 907–929. doi:10.1177/0013164496056006001 APA Publications and Communications Board Working Group on Journal Ferraz, L., Vállez, M., Navarro, J. B., Gelabert, E., Martín-Santos, R., & Article Reporting Standards. (2008). Reporting standards for research in Subira`, S. (2009). Dimensional assessment of personality and impulsiveness psychology: Why do we need them? What might they be? American Psy- in borderline personality disorder. Personality and Individual Differences, chologist, 63, 839–851. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.9.839 46, 140–146. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.09.017 Barratt, E. S. (1965). Factor analysis of some psychometric measures of Fossati, A., Barratt, E. S., Acquarini, E., & Ceglie, A. D. (2002). Psychometric impulsiveness and anxiety. Psychological Reports, 16, 547–554. doi: properties of an adolescent version of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11 for 10.2466/pr0.1965.16.2.547 a sample of Italian high school students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, Barratt, E. S. (1985). Impulsiveness subtraits: Arousal and information pro- 621–635. doi:10.2466/pms.2002.95.2.621 cessing. In J. T. Spence & C. E. Izard (Eds.), Motivation, emotion and personality, 137–146. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science. Fossati, A., Di Ceglie, A., Acquarini, E., & Barratt, E. S. (2001). Psychometric Barratt, E. S., & Patton, J. H. (1983). Impulsivity: Cognitive, behavioral, and properties of an Italian version of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11 (BIS- psychophysiological correlates. In M. Zuckerman (Ed.), Biological bases of 11) in nonclinical subjects. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57, 815–828. sensation-seeking, impulsivity, and anxiety, 77–122. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. doi:10.1002/jclp.1051 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. ABBREVIATED IMPULSIVENESS SCALE 11 Google Scholar. (2013). Factor structure of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis Retrieved August 13, 2013, from http://scholar.google.com/ and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psy- scholar?cluster9152786455601693619&hlen&as_sdt0,34&as_vis1. chological Methods, 1, 130–149. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130 Gorsuch, R. L. (1990). Common factor analysis versus component analysis: MacCallum, R. C., Roznowski, M., Mar, C. M., & Reith, J. V. (1994). Some well and little known facts. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, Alternative strategies for cross-validation of covariance structure models. 33–39. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2501_3 Multivariate Behavioral Research, 29, 1–32. doi:10.1207/ Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust s15327906mbr2901_1 web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about MacCallum, R. C., Roznowski, M., & Necowitz, L. B. (1992). Model modi- Internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59, 93–104. doi:10.1037/ fications in covariance structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on 0003-066X.59.2.93 chance. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 490–504. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.111 Granö, N., Virtanen, M., Vahtera, J., Elovainio, M., & Kivimäki, M. (2004). .3.490 Impulsivity as a predictor of smoking and alcohol consumption. Personality Madden, G. J., & Bickel, W. K. (2010). Impulsivity: The behavioral and and Individual Differences, 37, 1693–1700. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.03.004 neurological science of discounting. Washington, DC: American Psycho- Green, S. B., Akey, T. M., Fleming, K. K., Hershberger, S. L., & Marquis, J. G. logical Association. (1997). Effect of the number of scale points on chi-square fit indices in Malloy-Diniz, L., Fuentes, D., Leite, W. B., Correa, H., & Bechara, A. (2007). confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisci- Impulsive behavior in adults with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: plinary Journal, 4, 108–120. doi:10.1080/10705519709540064 Characterization of attentional, motor and cognitive impulsiveness. Journal Haden, S. C., & Shiva, A. (2008). Trait impulsivity in a forensic inpatient of the International Neuropsychological Society, 13, 693–698. doi:10.1017/ sample: An evaluation of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Behavioral Sci- S1355617707070889 ences & the Law, 26, 675–690. doi:10.1002/bsl.820 Moeller, F. G., Barratt, E. S., Dougherty, D. M., Schmitz, J. M., & Swann, Holzinger, K. J., & Swineford, F. (1937). The bi-factor method. Psy- A. C. (2001). Psychiatric aspects of impulsivity. The American Journal of chometrika, 2, 41–54. doi:10.1007/BF02287965 Psychiatry, 158, 1783–1793. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.158.11.1783 Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor Muthén, B. (1983). Latent variable structural equation modeling with categor- analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185. doi:10.1007/BF02289447 ical data. Journal of Econometrics, 22, 43– 65. doi:10.1016/0304- Hoyle, R. H., & Duvall, J. L. (2004). Determining the number of factors in 4076(83)90093-3 exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), The SAGE Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (2012). Mplus Version 7. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén Handbook of Quantitative Methodology for the Social Sciences (pp. 301– & Muthén. 315). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Neal, D. J., & Carey, K. B. (2005). A follow-up psychometric analysis of the Hoyle, R. H., & Isherwood, J. C. (2013). Reporting results from structural Self-Regulation Questionnaire. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 19, equation modeling analyses in Archives of Scientific Psychology. Archives of 414–422. Scientific Psychology, 1, 14–22. doi:10.1037/arc0000004 Nygren, T. E., & White, R. J. (2002, September). Assessing individual differ- Hoyle, R. H., Stephenson, M. T., Palmgreen, P., Lorch, E. P., & Donohew, ences in decision making styles: analytical vs. intuitive. In Proceedings of R. L. (2002). Reliability and validity of a brief measure of sensation seeking. the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 46, No. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 401–414. doi:10.1016/S0191- 12, pp. 953–957). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 8869(01)00032-0 Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S., & Barratt, E. S. (1995). Factor structure of the Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 768–774. structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural doi:10.1002/1097-4679(199511)51:6768::AID-JCLP22705106073.0 Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 .CO;2-1 Huettel, S. A., Stowe, C. J., Gordon, E. M., Warner, B. T., & Platt, M. L. Perry, J. L., & Carroll, M. E. (2008). The role of impulsive behavior in drug (2006). Neural signatures of economic preferences for risk and ambiguity. abuse. Psychopharmacology, 200, 1–26. doi:10.1007/s00213-008-1173-0 Neuron, 49, 765–775. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2006.01.024 Petry, N. M. (2001). Substance abuse, pathological gambling, and impulsive- Hutchinson, S. R., & Olmos, A. (1998). Behavior of descriptive fit indexes in ness. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 63, 29–38. doi:10.1016/S0376- confirmatory factor analysis using ordered categorical data. Structural 8716(00)00188-5 Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 5, 344–364. doi:10.1080/ Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the International Society for Research on Impulsivity. (2013). BIS 11measurement. literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, Retrieved August 13, 2013, from http://www.impulsivity.org/measurement/ 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 bis11. Reynolds, B., Ortengren, A., Richards, J. B., & de Wit, H. (2006). Dimensions Ireland, J. L., & Archer, J. (2008). Impulsivity among adult prisoners: A of impulsive behavior: Personality and behavioral measures. Personality confirmatory factor analysis study of the Barratt Impulsivity Scale. Person- and Individual Differences, 40, 305–315. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.03.024 ality and Individual Differences, 45, 286–292. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.04 Reynolds, B., Richards, J. B., Horn, K., & Karraker, K. (2004). Delay dis- counting and probability discounting as related to cigarette smoking status in Jennrich, R. I., & Bentler, P. M. (2011). Exploratory bi-factor analysis. adults. Behavioural Processes, 65, 35– 42. doi:10.1016/S0376- Psychometrika, 76, 537–549. doi:10.1007/s11336-011-9218-4 6357(03)00109-8 Jöreskog, K. G., Sörbom, D., Magidson, J., & Cooley, W. W. (1979). Advances Ruiz, M. A., Skeem, J. L., Poythress, N. G., Douglas, K. S., & Lilienfeld, S. O. in factor analysis and structural equation models. Cambridge, MA: Abt (2010). Structure and correlates of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11) Books. in offenders: Implications for psychopathy and externalizing pathology. The Kahn, J. A., Kaplowitz, R. A., Goodman, E., & Emans, S. J. (2002). The International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 9, 237–244. doi:10.1080/ association between impulsiveness and sexual risk behaviors in adolescent 14999013.2010.517258 and young adult women. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30, 229–232. Someya, T., Sakado, K., Seki, T., Kojima, M., Reist, C., Tang, S. W., & doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(01)00391-3 Takahashi, S. (2001). The Japanese version of the Barratt Impulsiveness Kollins, S. H. (2003). Delay discounting is associated with substance use in Scale, 11th version (BIS-11): Its reliability and validity. Psychiatry and college students. Addictive Behaviors, 28, 1167–1173. doi:10.1016/S0306- Clinical Neurosciences, 55, 111–114. doi:10.1046/j.1440-1819.2001 4603(02)00220-4 Luengo, M., Carrillo-De-La-Pena, M., & Otero, J. (1991). The components of .00796.x impulsiveness: A comparison of the I. 7 Impulsiveness Questionnaire and Spinella, M. (2004). Neurobehavioral correlates of impulsivity: Evidence of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, prefrontal involvement. International Journal of Neuroscience, 114, 95– 657–667. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(91)90220-6 104. doi:10.1080/00207450490249347 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 12 COUTLEE, POLITZER, HOYLE, AND HUETTEL Stanford, M. S., Greve, K. W., Boudreaux, J. K., Mathias, C. W., & Brum- Whiteside, S. P., Lynam, D. R., Miller, J. D., & Reynolds, S. K. (2005). below, J. L. (1996). Impulsiveness and risk-taking behavior: Comparison of Validation of the UPPS impulsive behaviour scale: A four-factor model of high-school and college students using the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. impulsivity. European Journal of Personality, 19, 559–574. doi:10.1002/ per.556 Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 1073–1075. doi:10.1016/S0191- Wirth, R. J., & Edwards, M. C. (2007). Item factor analysis: Current ap- 8869(96)00151-1 proaches and future directions. Psychological Methods, 12, 58–79. doi: Stanford, M. S., Mathias, C. W., Dougherty, D. M., Lake, S. L., Anderson, 10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.58 N. E., & Patton, J. H. (2009). Fifty years of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale: Wittmann, M., & Paulus, M. P. (2008). Decision making, impulsivity and time An update and review. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 385–395. perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 7–12. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007 doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.04.008 .10.004 Steel, Z., & Blaszczynski, A. (1998). Impulsivity, personality disorders and Wood, J. M., Tataryn, D. J., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1996). Effects of under-and pathological gambling severity. Addiction, 93, 895–905. doi:10.1046/j overextraction on principal axis factor analysis with varimax rotation. Psy- .1360-0443.1998.93689511.x chological Methods, 1, 354–365. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.4.354 Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An inter- Yen, W. M. (1993). Scaling performance assessments: Strategies for managing val estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180. local item dependence. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 187–213. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4 doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1993.tb00423.x Steinberg, L., Sharp, C., Stanford, M. S., & Tharp, A. T. (2013). New tricks for Yung, Y.-F., Thissen, D., & McLeod, L. D. (1999). On the relationship an old measure: The development of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale–Brief between the higher-order factor model and the hierarchical factor model. (BIS-Brief). Psychological Assessment, 25, 216 –226. doi:10.1037/ Psychometrika, 64, 113–128. doi:10.1007/BF02294531 a0030550 Zuckerman, M. (2002). Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire von Diemen, L., Szobot, C. M., Kessler, F., & Pechansky, F. (2007). Adap- (ZKPQ): An alternative five-factorial model. In B. de Raad & M. Perugini tation and construct validation of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS 11) (Eds.), Big Five Assessment, 377–396. Boston, MA: Hogrefe & Huber. to Brazilian Portuguese for use in adolescents. Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, 29, 153–156. doi:10.1590/S1516-44462006005000020 Received August 26, 2013 Voss, K. E., Stem, Jr., D. E., & Fotopoulos, S. (2000). A comment on the Revision received December 30, 2013 relationship between coefficient alpha and scale characteristics. Marketing Letters, 11, 177–191. doi:10.1023/A:1008146924781 Accepted January 13, 2014 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Journal

Archives of Scientific PsychologyAmerican Psychological Association

Published: Apr 14, 2014

There are no references for this article.