Impulsivity has been a focal construct in psychology, psychopathology and neuropsychology (Verdejo-Garcia, Lozano, Moya, Alcazar & Perez-Garcia, 2010), and by simple definition is behaviour that is “performed with little or inadequate forethought” (Evenden, 1999, as cited in Verdejo-Garcia et al., 2010, p. 70). Impulsivity appears in all “major models of personality” (Whiteside & Lynam, 2001, p. 669), and is common diagnostic criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association,1994, as cited in Verdejo-Garcia et al., 2010). High levels of impulsivity were found in psychiatric disorders such as attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), substance abuse, dementia, mania, and bulimia
…show more content…
The strengths of self-report measures lie in their ease and low costs in administering, situations whereby the issue is recognized, when the individual has a decent amount of insight into their own actions, emotions and thoughts, and the ability to analyse both the current and general states of an individual (Cyders & Coskunpinar, 2011). Furthermore, the efficiency of self-reports is the highest when used for a large group of participants, and are usually high in face validity, meaning that each construct assessed is clear to both participants and researchers involved (Cyders & Coskunpinar, 2011). However, it is important to note that there a few significant weaknesses of self-reports as well, with high face validity translating into inaccurate answers, a limited range of underlying cognitive processes that can analysed, being more geared towards assessing general behaviours over a period of time rather than predicting immediate impulsive actions, and having reduced usefulness in certain situations due to its reliance on self-awareness and insight of actions and emotions and reading levels of the participants (Cyders & Coskunpinar, 2011). It is also notable that some research has proposed that self-reports assess test taking styles than their intended topic (Mischel, 1968, as cited in Cyders & Coskunpinar, 2011). With these in mind, it is fair to say that self-reports should be used in scenarios with a huge group of participants, but not in scenarios with participants who have poor reading skills or have been unable to attain a certain standard of language
The strengths of self-report measures lie in their ease and low costs in administering, situations whereby the issue is recognized, when the individual has a decent amount of insight into their own actions, emotions and thoughts, and the ability to analyse both the current and general states of an individual (Cyders & Coskunpinar, 2011). Furthermore, the efficiency of self-reports is the highest when used for a large group of participants, and are usually high in face validity, meaning that each construct assessed is clear to both participants and researchers involved (Cyders & Coskunpinar, 2011). However, it is important to note that there a few significant weaknesses of self-reports as well, with high face validity translating into inaccurate answers, a limited range of underlying cognitive processes that can analysed, being more geared towards assessing general behaviours over a period of time rather than predicting immediate impulsive actions, and having reduced usefulness in certain situations due to its reliance on self-awareness and insight of actions and emotions and reading levels of the participants (Cyders & Coskunpinar, 2011). It is also notable that some research has proposed that self-reports assess test taking styles than their intended topic (Mischel, 1968, as cited in Cyders & Coskunpinar, 2011). With these in mind, it is fair to say that self-reports should be used in scenarios with a huge group of participants, but not in scenarios with participants who have poor reading skills or have been unable to attain a certain standard of language