Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24099351›Full record

Trial reportExperimental and clinical psychopharmacology2013

Test-retest reliability of behavioral measures of impulsive choice, impulsive action, and inattention.

Jessica Weafer, Matthew J Baggott, Harriet de Wit

Abstract readClinical Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 104 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
104citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

104 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Impulsivity and compulsivity in binge eating disorder: A systematic review of behavioral studies.Progress in neuro-psychopharmacology & biological psychiatry · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Delay discounting of different outcomes: Review and theory.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior · 2020
    Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Test-retest reliability for a social discounting of personal information task.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior · 2026
    Article
  16. Inhibitory control tests in non-human animals: validity, reliability, and perspectives.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

44 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jessica WeaferDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Chicago.
Matthew J BaggottDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Chicago.
Harriet de WitDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Chicago.

Funding

Determinants of Drug Preference in Humans--Administrative SupplementR01DA002812 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI DE WIT, HARRIET · 1985 to 2024
$10.6M
The genetic basis of impulsive behavior in humansR01DA032015 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI DE WIT, HARRIET · 2011 to 2015
$2.4M
Impulsivity and Stimulant Drug RewardF32DA033756 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI WEAFER, JESSICA J · 2012 to 2014
$130k
NIDA NIH HHS DA002812NIDA NIH HHS DA032015NIDA NIH HHS DA033756NIDA NIH HHS F32 DA033756NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA002812NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA032015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Behavioral measures of impulsivity are widely used in substance abuse research, yet relatively little attention has been devoted to establishing their psychometric properties, especially their reliability over repeated administration. The current study examined the test-retest reliability of a battery of standardized behavioral impulsivity tasks, including measures of impulsive choice (i.e., delay discounting, probability discounting, and the Balloon Analogue Risk Task), impulsive action (i.e., the stop signal task, the go/no-go task, and commission errors on the continuous performance task), and inattention (i.e., attention lapses on a simple reaction time task and omission errors on the continuous performance task). Healthy adults (n = 128) performed the battery on two separate occasions. Reliability estimates for the individual tasks ranged from moderate to high, with Pearson correlations within the specific impulsivity domains as follows: impulsive choice (r range: .76-.89, ps < .001); impulsive action (r range: .65-.73, ps < .001); and inattention (r range: .38-.42, ps < .001). Additionally, the influence of day-to-day fluctuations in mood, as measured by the Profile of Mood States, was assessed in relation to variability in performance on each of the behavioral tasks. Change in performance on the delay discounting task was significantly associated with change in positive mood and arousal. No other behavioral measures were significantly associated with mood. In sum, the current analysis demonstrates that behavioral measures of impulsivity are reliable measures and thus can be confidently used to assess various facets of impulsivity as intermediate phenotypes for drug abuse.

Indexed as

AttentionTask Performance and AnalysisAdultChoice BehaviorFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansImpulsive BehaviorMaleReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignRisk-TakingYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID24099351
PMCPMC4266373

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.