Structure and Correlates of the German Version of the Brief UPPS Impulsive Behavior Scales
Abstract
The article proposes a shortened German version of the UPPS impulsive behavior scales. In Study 1, 149 high-school students completed the UPPS questionnaire, a Big-Five questionnaire, additional established self-report scales to measure conscientiousness and impulsivity, as well as tests of working memory capacity, reasoning, and clerical speed. Measurement models were applied to the full translated UPPS scales using confirmatory factor analysis. A satisfactory measurement model could be established only by removing many of the initial items. The remaining items correlated as expected with other self-report and ability measures: Substantial correlations with impulsivity and conscientiousness contrasted with zero correlations with working memory and reasoning ability. The association between impulsivity factors and perceptual speed was primarily a result of the number of solved items rather than the number of mistakes in the speed tasks. In Study 2 the reduced item set from Study 1 was administered to 246 participants to replicate the model. The fit of this model supports the construct validity of the final item set. The generally low correlations of the UPPS with cognitive variables questions interpretations of self-reported impulsivity that are overly focused on cognition. More appropriate cognitive criteria for impulsivity constructs should be established.
References
2005). Working memory, psychiatric symptoms, and academic performance at school. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 83, 33–42.
(2001). Personality and inhibitory deficits in the stop-signal task: The mediating role of Gray’s anxiety and impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 975–986.
(2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108, 625–652.
(2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 769–786.
(1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
(2005). Factor structure and validity of paper-and-pencil measures of mental speed: Evidence for a higher-order model? Intelligence, 33, 491–514.
(1988). Impulsivity and speed-accuracy tradeoffs in information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 274–290.
(2006). Associations between laboratory measures of executive inhibitory control and self-reported impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 285–294.
(1997). The effects of impulsivity on the perceptual and decision stages in a choice reaction-time task. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 693–697.
(1985). Methodology review: Assessing unidimensionality of tests and items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 139–164.
(1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.
(1965). Reflection-impulsivity and reading ability in primary grade children. Child Development, 36, 609–628.
(2000). Stepwise variable selection in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 65, 7–22.
(2005). Impulsive behavior and stimulus-response variability in choice reaction time. Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 263–277.
(2005). Attentional blink in adolescents with varying levels of impulsivity. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 39, 197–205.
(1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 1198–1202.
(1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
(2003). A test of the four-factor model of impulsivity-related traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1403–1418.
(2000). Working memory capacity – Facets of a cognitive ability construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 1017–1045.
(2004). NEO-Persönlichkeitsinventar nach Costa und McCrae, revidierte Fassung (NEO-PI-R) [
(Revised NEO Personality Inventory according to Costa and McCrae, NEO-PI-R ]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.1995). Impulsivity and speed-accuracy strategies in intelligence test performance. Intelligence, 21, 13–29.
(1958). Standard progressive matrices. London: H.K. Lewis.
(2007). Functional impulsivity and speeded ability test performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 56–62.
(2001). Omnibus screening protocol. Sydney: E-ntelligent Testing Products.
(2008). A German adaption of the UPPS Impulsive Behavior Scale: Psychometric properties and factor structure. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 67, 107–112.
(2002). Does impulsivity influence performance in reasoning? Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 1031–1043.
(1996). The separability of working memory resources for spatial thinking and language processing: An individual differences approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 4–27.
(1965). Neurotic styles. New York: Basic Books.
(1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (ASD-TR-61–97). Lackland Air Force Base, TX: Aeronautical Systems Division, Personnel Laboratory.
(2006). A French adaptation of the UPPS impulsive behavior scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22, 38–42.
(2001). The five-factor model and impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 669–689.
(2003). Understanding the role of impulsivity and externalizing psychopathology in alcohol abuse: Application of the UPPS impulsive behavior scale. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 11, 210–217.
(2005). Validation of the UPPS impulsive behavior scale: A four-factor model of impulsivity. European Journal of Personality, 19, 559–574.
(2004). Impulsiveness and executive control of working memory. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 417–428.
(2005). Measuring reasoning ability. In , Understanding and measuring intelligence (pp. 373–392). London: Sage.
(2006). Why are reasoning ability and working memory capacity related to mental speed? An investigation of stimulus-response compatibility in choice reaction time tasks. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18, 18–50.
(