| Title |
Construct Validity of the Iowa Gambling Task
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neuropsychology Review, February 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11065-009-9083-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Melissa T. Buelow, Julie A. Suhr |
| Abstract |
The Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) was created to assess real-world decision making in a laboratory setting and has been applied to various clinical populations (i.e., substance abuse, schizophrenia, pathological gamblers) outside those with orbitofrontal cortex damage, for whom it was originally developed. The current review provides a critical examination of lesion, functional neuroimaging, developmental, and clinical studies in order to examine the construct validity of the IGT. The preponderance of evidence provides support for the use of the IGT to detect decision making deficits in clinical populations, in the context of a more comprehensive evaluation. The review includes a discussion of three critical issues affecting the validity of the IGT, as it has recently become available as a clinical instrument: the lack of a concise definition as to what aspect of decision making the IGT measures, the lack of data regarding reliability of the IGT, and the influence of personality and state mood on IGT performance. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 622 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 9 | 1% |
| United States | 9 | 1% |
| Germany | 4 | <1% |
| Italy | 3 | <1% |
| Canada | 3 | <1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | <1% |
| Unknown | 585 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 143 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 99 | 16% |
| Researcher | 75 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 74 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 41 | 7% |
| Other | 105 | 17% |
| Unknown | 85 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 322 | 52% |
| Neuroscience | 50 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 26 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 2% |
| Other | 52 | 8% |
| Unknown | 119 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 June 2013.
All research outputs
#7,454,298
of 22,789,076 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychology Review
#229
of 454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,580
of 170,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychology Review
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,789,076 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 454 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 170,233 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.