Reexamining the validity and reliability of the clinical version of the Iowa gambling task: Evidence from a normal subject group
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 f...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2013-05-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Psychology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00220/full |
| _version_ | 1828357514036510720 |
|---|---|
| author | Ching-Hung eLin Ching-Hung eLin Ching-Hung eLin Ching-Hung eLin Tzu-Jiun eSong Ying-Ying eChen Ying-Ying eChen We-Kang eLee Yaochu eChiu |
| author_facet | Ching-Hung eLin Ching-Hung eLin Ching-Hung eLin Ching-Hung eLin Tzu-Jiun eSong Ying-Ying eChen Ying-Ying eChen We-Kang eLee Yaochu eChiu |
| author_sort | Ching-Hung eLin |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-14T03:15:49Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-4ab6f4ad5c4349fb8da8e6b82ec1904f |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1664-1078 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-14T03:15:49Z |
| publishDate | 2013-05-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Psychology |
| spelling | doaj.art-4ab6f4ad5c4349fb8da8e6b82ec1904f2022-12-22T02:15:28ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Psychology1664-10782013-05-01410.3389/fpsyg.2013.0022037190Reexamining the validity and reliability of the clinical version of the Iowa gambling task: Evidence from a normal subject groupChing-Hung eLin0Ching-Hung eLin1Ching-Hung eLin2Ching-Hung eLin3Tzu-Jiun eSong4Ying-Ying eChen5Ying-Ying eChen6We-Kang eLee7Yaochu eChiu8Department of Psychology, Soochow UniversityBrain Research Center, National Yang-Ming UniversityBiomedical Electronics Translational Research Center, National Chiao Tung UniversityBiomedical Engineering R&D Center, China Medical UniversityDepartment of Psychology, Soochow UniversityDepartment of Psychology, Soochow UniversityDepartment of Art Psychotherapy, The School of Health and Social Sciences, Queen Margaret UniversityDepartment of Psychology, Soochow UniversityDepartment of Psychology, Soochow UniversityOver 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 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.http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00220/fullIowa Gambling TaskReliabilityvalidityExpected valueclinical version of Iowa gambling taskprominent deck B phenomenon |
| spellingShingle | Ching-Hung eLin Ching-Hung eLin Ching-Hung eLin Ching-Hung eLin Tzu-Jiun eSong Ying-Ying eChen Ying-Ying eChen We-Kang eLee Yaochu eChiu Reexamining the validity and reliability of the clinical version of the Iowa gambling task: Evidence from a normal subject group Frontiers in Psychology Iowa Gambling Task Reliability validity Expected value clinical version of Iowa gambling task prominent deck B phenomenon |
| title | Reexamining the validity and reliability of the clinical version of the Iowa gambling task: Evidence from a normal subject group |
| title_full | Reexamining the validity and reliability of the clinical version of the Iowa gambling task: Evidence from a normal subject group |
| title_fullStr | Reexamining the validity and reliability of the clinical version of the Iowa gambling task: Evidence from a normal subject group |
| title_full_unstemmed | Reexamining the validity and reliability of the clinical version of the Iowa gambling task: Evidence from a normal subject group |
| title_short | Reexamining the validity and reliability of the clinical version of the Iowa gambling task: Evidence from a normal subject group |
| title_sort | reexamining the validity and reliability of the clinical version of the iowa gambling task evidence from a normal subject group |
| topic | Iowa Gambling Task Reliability validity Expected value clinical version of Iowa gambling task prominent deck B phenomenon |
| url | http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00220/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT chinghungelin reexaminingthevalidityandreliabilityoftheclinicalversionoftheiowagamblingtaskevidencefromanormalsubjectgroup AT chinghungelin reexaminingthevalidityandreliabilityoftheclinicalversionoftheiowagamblingtaskevidencefromanormalsubjectgroup AT chinghungelin reexaminingthevalidityandreliabilityoftheclinicalversionoftheiowagamblingtaskevidencefromanormalsubjectgroup AT chinghungelin reexaminingthevalidityandreliabilityoftheclinicalversionoftheiowagamblingtaskevidencefromanormalsubjectgroup AT tzujiunesong reexaminingthevalidityandreliabilityoftheclinicalversionoftheiowagamblingtaskevidencefromanormalsubjectgroup AT yingyingechen reexaminingthevalidityandreliabilityoftheclinicalversionoftheiowagamblingtaskevidencefromanormalsubjectgroup AT yingyingechen reexaminingthevalidityandreliabilityoftheclinicalversionoftheiowagamblingtaskevidencefromanormalsubjectgroup AT wekangelee reexaminingthevalidityandreliabilityoftheclinicalversionoftheiowagamblingtaskevidencefromanormalsubjectgroup AT yaochuechiu reexaminingthevalidityandreliabilityoftheclinicalversionoftheiowagamblingtaskevidencefromanormalsubjectgroup |