ArticlePsychological assessment2026
Measuring impulsivity in daily life: A systematic review and recommendations for future research.
Article in Psychological assessment, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A pilot study of impulsivity and subjective alcohol response in the lab and moment.Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · 2025Article
- Stressed! Grab a bite? Stress eating in adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: An Ecological Momentary Assessment study.Neuroscience applied · 2025Article
- The Co-occurrence of Personality Disorders and Substance Use Disorders.Current psychiatry reports · 2023Review
- Daily impulsivity and alcohol expectancies: A multilevel examination of the acquired preparedness model.Alcohol, clinical & experimental research · 2023Article
- Emotional response inhibition to self-harm stimuli interacts with momentary negative affect to predict nonsuicidal self-injury urges.Behaviour research and therapy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Impulsivity is a multidimensional construct that has shown utility in relation to important occupational, functional, and clinical outcomes (e.g., substance use and social functioning) in cross-sectional studies. However, trait assessments of impulsivity have shown less utility in prospectively predicting state instances of such outcomes. Proliferation of mobile technology allows for investigation into psychological phenomena in participants' daily lives, clarifying many momentary and prospective relationships. Studying impulsivity using daily-life methods offers promise in understanding impulsive processes and proximal influences on behavior. We conducted a systematic review of 89 studies, comprising 75 separate samples using 46 different state impulsivity measures, to evaluate the conceptualization and measurement of state impulsivity, as well as the evidence for the reliability and validity of scores on state impulsivity measures. Samples included community, clinical, and student populations, though most participants were young adults, female, and White. Overall, scores on state impulsivity measures demonstrated acceptable reliability and evidence of construct and criterion-related validity, though some facets and measures showed weaker or less consistent associations across outcomes. The findings also call attention to the substantial heterogeneity in measurement approaches, reporting practices, influential study characteristics, and relevant associations, indicating multiple areas for improvement in the measurement of state impulsivity. We make recommendations for future research based on the evidence presented, such as standardizing conventions for reporting psychometric evidence and effect sizes, as well as careful selection of measures and sampling procedures most suited to detecting the specific associations at the timescales those associations are expected to unfold. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.