Search

Objective: Impulsive behavior occurs in many patients with different mental disorders, substantially complicates patient's everyday functioning and can have serious consequences. Impulsivity is a multidimensional construct, however, it has not been entirely cleared yet which specific dimensions it includes. Moreover, there is lack of studies regarding impulsivity in the Czech literature. The present article deals with personality models of impulsivity, specifically with the two currently most influential models, the Barratt Scale and the UPPS-P Scale. Method: According to its authors, the Barratt Scale consists of Attentional, Motor and Non-Planning Impulsivity which together create one global impulsivity factor. However, the factor structure of the scale has been repeatedly questioned. The UPPS-P Scale consists of five subscales. Dimensions Positive and Negative Urgency constitute a common factor of tendency to act impulsively under influence of emotions (Urgency). Dimensions Lack of Premeditation and Lack of Perseverance constitute another common factor of Deficits in Conscientiousness. The fifth dimension represents Sensation Seeking. Both scales were translated into Czech language. In total, 577 healthy participants and 14 patients with borderline personality disorder took part in the study. The content validity of the models was studied through confirmatory factor analysis (Maximum Likelihood method) and the criterion validity through the comparison between healthy people and patients with borderline personality disorder. Results: The proposed three factor structure of the Barratt Scale was not confirmed (Chi2 = 2250.82; df = 402; Chi2/df = 5.60; CFI = 0.58; TLI = 0.54; RMSEA = 0.09; SRMR = 0.09), neither was the model of single common factor (Chi2 = 2551.90; df = 405; Chi2/df = 6.30; CFI = 0.51; TLI = 0.47; RMSEA = 0.10; SRMR = 0.09). On the other hand, the factor structure of the UPPS-P Scale was confirmed (Chi2 = 160.00; df = 85; Chi2/ df = 1.85; CFI = 0.94; TLI = 0.93; RMSEA = 0.10; SRMR = 0.09) and all subscales have high internal consistency (α = 0.89-0.94). We found difference between healthy people and patients with borderline personality disorder in the subscales of Lack of Perseverance (p < 0.05; d = 0.6), Positive Urgency (p < 0.01; d = 0.8) and Negative Urgency (p < 0.001; d = 1.8) and further in the total UPPS-P score (p < 0.01; d = 1) and the total Barratt Scale score (p < 0.001; d = 1.5). Conclusions: The Barratt Scale in its current form lacks content validity, thus its use is rather problematic. Moreover, summing scores into the subscales proposed by the authors is entirely inadequate. Nevertheless, the scale contains items, which represent the global impulsivity factor well. Because of these items, the total Barratt Scale score discriminates between healthy people and patients. It is possible to consider removing the inappropriate items and using a shortened version of the scale. The UPPS-P Scale has shown good content and discriminant validity, the internal consistency of all subscales is high. Following research should verify the factor structure in patients with other mental disorders and compare the subscales scores between different clinical groups. The scale is ready to be used in both research and clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides a review of current dominant view on impulsivity which distinguishes personality and behavioral models. In the context of personality models, impulsivity is measured by self-report questionnaires. Behavioral models further divide impulsivity into impulsive action and impulsive choice. Both impulsivity subtypes are measured by different behavioral tests. The present article focuses in detail on the most frequently used tests in the individual categories (Barratt Scale, UPPS-P Scale, Go/NoGo Task, Stop Signal Task and Delay Discounting Task) and on selected methodological aspects of impulsivity measuring which can contribute to heterogeneous results in the current literature (especially high test parameters variability and the lack of studies comparing different tests in different populations). The review also discusses the relations between different impulsivity dimensions and specific impulsivity types, such as emotional impulsivity or impulsivity targeted on specific stimuli (e.g. food or alcohol). The existence of such impulsivity subtypes can explain why impulsivity tests sometimes won't detect impulsivity in people who clearly suffer from poor self-control. The article suggests future directions of impulsivity research with emphasis on specific impulsivity types detection and risky behaviour prediction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]