Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2015 Apr;6(2):182-98.
doi: 10.1037/per0000099.

Choice Impulsivity: Definitions, Measurement Issues, and Clinical Implications

Affiliations
Free PMC article
Review

Choice Impulsivity: Definitions, Measurement Issues, and Clinical Implications

Kristen R Hamilton et al. Personal Disord. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Impulsivity critically relates to many psychiatric disorders. Given the multifaceted construct that impulsivity represents, defining core aspects of impulsivity is vital for the assessment and understanding of clinical conditions. Choice impulsivity (CI), involving the preferential selection of smaller sooner rewards over larger later rewards, represents one important type of impulsivity. The International Society for Research on Impulsivity (InSRI) convened to discuss the definition and assessment of CI and provide recommendations regarding measurement across species. Commonly used preclinical and clinical CI behavioral tasks are described, and considerations for each task are provided to guide CI task selection. Differences in assessment of CI (self-report, behavioral) and calculating CI indices (e.g., area-under-the-curve, indifference point, and steepness of discounting curve) are discussed along with properties of specific behavioral tasks used in preclinical and clinical settings. The InSRI group recommends inclusion of measures of CI in human studies examining impulsivity. Animal studies examining impulsivity should also include assessments of CI and these measures should be harmonized in accordance with human studies of the disorders being modeled in the preclinical investigations. The choice of specific CI measures to be included should be based on the goals of the study and existing preclinical and clinical literature using established CI measures.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest and Disclosures: The authors report no conflicts of interest with respect to the content of this manuscript. Dr. Hamilton has received training and research support from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wing has received an investigator-initiated research grant from Pfizer. While Dr. Potenza reports that neither he nor any member of his immediate family have a significant financial arrangement or affiliation with any product or services used or discussed in the paper, nor any potential bias against another product or service, he lists the following disclosure. The authors report no conflicts of interest with respect to the content of this manuscript. Dr. Potenza has received financial support or compensation for the following: Dr. Potenza has consulted for and advised Somaxon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lundbeck, Ironwood, Shire and INSYS; has received research support from the National Institutes of Health, Veteran’s Administration, Mohegan Sun Casino, the National Center for Responsible Gaming, and Forest Laboratories, Ortho-McNeil, Oy-Control/Biotie, GlaxoSmithKline, and Psyadon pharmaceuticals; has participated in surveys, mailings or telephone consultations related to drug addiction, impulse control disorders or other health topics; has consulted for law offices and the federal public defender’s office in issues related to impulse control disorders; provides clinical care in the Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services Problem Gambling Services Program; has performed grant reviews for the 34 National Institutes of Health and other agencies; has guest-edited journal sections and journals; has given academic lectures in grand rounds, CME events and other clinical or scientific venues; and has generated books or book chapters for publishers of mental health texts. Dr. Bickel is a principal of HealthSim LLC, has received support from the National Institutes of Health, and consulted with AstraZeneca and Prophase. Dr. Napier has received research support from the National Institutes of Health, the Michael J. Fox Foundation and the National Center for Responsible Gaming. Dr. Napier has received compensation for the following: consulting for a not-for-profit health education center and for law offices on issues related to addictions and impulse control disorders; speaking on addictions at community town hall meetings, public high schools, community-based not-for-profits, and professional meetings of drug courts; providing grant reviews for the National Institutes of Health and other agencies; and academic lectures and grand rounds. Dr. Napier is a member of the Illinois Alliance on Problem Gambling, and she provides expert advice on medication development to the Cures Within Research Foundation. Ms. Tedford has received support for training and research from the National Institutes of Health and from Rush University Graduate School. Dr. Mathias has no conflicts of interest to declare. Dr. Moeller is a consultant for Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Winstanley has sat on an Advisory Board for Shire and received due compensation.

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 52 articles

See all "Cited by" articles
Feedback