↓ Skip to main content

Reexamining the Validity and Reliability of the Clinical Version of the Iowa Gambling Task: Evidence from a Normal Subject Group

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Reexamining the Validity and Reliability of the Clinical Version of the Iowa Gambling Task: Evidence from a Normal Subject Group
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00220
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ching-Hung Lin, Tzu-Jiun Song, Ying-Ying Chen, We-Kang Lee, Yao-Chu Chiu

Abstract

Over past decade, the Iowa gambling task (IGT) has been utilized to test various decision deficits induced by neurological damage or psychiatric disorders. The IGT has recently been standardized for identifying 13 different neuropsychological disorders. Neuropsychological patients choose bad decks frequently, and normal subjects prefer good expected value (EV) decks. However, the IGT has several validity and reliability problems. Some research groups have pointed out that the validity of IGT is influenced by the personality and emotional state of subjects. Additionally, several other studies have proposed that the "prominent deck B phenomenon" (PDB phenomenon) - that is, normal subjects preferring bad deck B - may be the most serious problem confronting IGT validity. Specifically, deck B offers a high frequency of gains but negative EV. In the standard IGT administration, choice behavior can be understood with reference to gain-loss frequency (GLF) rather than inferred future consequences (EV, the basic assumption of IGT). Furthermore, using two different criteria (basic assumption vs. professional norm) results in significantly different classification results. Therefore, we recruited 72 normal subjects to test the validity and reliability of IGT. Each subject performed three runs of the computer-based clinical IGT version. The PDB phenomenon has been observed to a significant degree in the first and second stages of the clinical IGT version. Obviously, validity, reliability, and the practice effect were unstable between two given stages. The present form of the clinical IGT version has only one stage, so its use should be reconsidered for examining normal decision makers; results from patient groups must also be interpreted with great care. GLF could be the main factor to be considered in establishing the constructional validity and reliability of the clinical IGT version.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 98 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 23%
Researcher 16 16%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Student > Master 12 12%
Professor 5 5%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 17 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 59 58%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 3%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 22 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 29 May 2013.
All research outputs
#8,185,918
of 25,243,120 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,691
of 34,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,353
of 293,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#447
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,243,120 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,104 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
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 293,210 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.