Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists · 2018
An Initial Examination of Performance on Two Versions of the Iowa Gambling Task.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Buelow Melissa T, Barnhart Wesley R
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To examine differences between two versions of the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT).
METHOD: A total of 282 undergraduate students completed one of two versions of the IGT: the original version from 1994 (n = 132), or the 2007 version available through Psychological Assessment Resources (PAR) (n = 150).
RESULTS: PAR (2007 version) IGT participants decided more advantageously (i.e., selected more from the small immediate reward but long-term positive/gain decks than the large immediate reward but long-term negative/loss decks) than original IGT participants during Trials 21-60. This difference was likely due to fewer Deck B selections by the PAR IGT participants during the early (Trials 1-40) and later (Trials 41-100) trials.
CONCLUSIONS: The PAR IGT may result in a greater ability to make future-oriented, advantageous decisions more quickly than on the original IGT. Implications for future assessment of decision-making impairments in clinical and research settings are discussed.
METHOD: A total of 282 undergraduate students completed one of two versions of the IGT: the original version from 1994 (n = 132), or the 2007 version available through Psychological Assessment Resources (PAR) (n = 150).
RESULTS: PAR (2007 version) IGT participants decided more advantageously (i.e., selected more from the small immediate reward but long-term positive/gain decks than the large immediate reward but long-term negative/loss decks) than original IGT participants during Trials 21-60. This difference was likely due to fewer Deck B selections by the PAR IGT participants during the early (Trials 1-40) and later (Trials 41-100) trials.
CONCLUSIONS: The PAR IGT may result in a greater ability to make future-oriented, advantageous decisions more quickly than on the original IGT. Implications for future assessment of decision-making impairments in clinical and research settings are discussed.