Limits...
Multiple behavioural impulsivity tasks predict prospective alcohol involvement in adolescents.

Fernie G, Peeters M, Gullo MJ, Christiansen P, Cole JC, Sumnall H, Field M - Addiction (2013)

Bottom Line: All behavioural impulsivity tasks predicted a composite index of alcohol involvement 6 months later (all Ps < 0.01), and these prospective relationships were reliable across the majority of time-points.Importantly, we did not observe the converse relationship across time: alcohol involvement did not predict performance on behavioural impulsivity tasks at any subsequent time point.Several measures of impulsivity predict escalation in alcohol involvement in young adolescents, but alcohol use does not appear to alter impulsivity.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Cross-lagged models showing the reciprocal relationships between alcohol involvement (‘Alcohol’) and disinhibition as assessed with the Stop-Signal task (a), risk-taking as assessed with the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (b) and delay discounting (c). Values refer to standardized cross-loadings. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4230409&req=5

fig01: Cross-lagged models showing the reciprocal relationships between alcohol involvement (‘Alcohol’) and disinhibition as assessed with the Stop-Signal task (a), risk-taking as assessed with the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (b) and delay discounting (c). Values refer to standardized cross-loadings. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001

Mentions: In the first model, we investigated the bidirectional relationships between disinhibition (inferred from SSRT), and alcohol involvement. See Fig. 1a. The overall model fit was acceptable [CFI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.06, Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.91, χ2/d.f. = 1.96, P < 0.01], and the stability paths between the five waves for the latent alcohol involvement factor were high, indicating that alcohol involvement across the five measurements was very stable. Stability paths for disinhibition were significant across all waves, apart from between waves 3 and 4 (there was a trend towards significance, P = 0.07). Cross-sectional relationships between alcohol involvement and disinhibition were significant only at waves 1 and 5. Most importantly, cross-lagged paths from disinhibition to alcohol involvement 6 months later were all significant, with the exception of disinhibition at wave 2 and alcohol involvement at wave 3, where the relationship fell short of significance (β = 0.01, P = 0.06). However, cross-lagged paths from alcohol involvement to disinhibition 6 months later were all non-significant. This suggests no prospective effects of alcohol involvement on disinhibition: it did not worsen in relation to alcohol involvement 6 months previously.


Multiple behavioural impulsivity tasks predict prospective alcohol involvement in adolescents.

Fernie G, Peeters M, Gullo MJ, Christiansen P, Cole JC, Sumnall H, Field M - Addiction (2013)

Cross-lagged models showing the reciprocal relationships between alcohol involvement (‘Alcohol’) and disinhibition as assessed with the Stop-Signal task (a), risk-taking as assessed with the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (b) and delay discounting (c). Values refer to standardized cross-loadings. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4230409&req=5

fig01: Cross-lagged models showing the reciprocal relationships between alcohol involvement (‘Alcohol’) and disinhibition as assessed with the Stop-Signal task (a), risk-taking as assessed with the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (b) and delay discounting (c). Values refer to standardized cross-loadings. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001
Mentions: In the first model, we investigated the bidirectional relationships between disinhibition (inferred from SSRT), and alcohol involvement. See Fig. 1a. The overall model fit was acceptable [CFI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.06, Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.91, χ2/d.f. = 1.96, P < 0.01], and the stability paths between the five waves for the latent alcohol involvement factor were high, indicating that alcohol involvement across the five measurements was very stable. Stability paths for disinhibition were significant across all waves, apart from between waves 3 and 4 (there was a trend towards significance, P = 0.07). Cross-sectional relationships between alcohol involvement and disinhibition were significant only at waves 1 and 5. Most importantly, cross-lagged paths from disinhibition to alcohol involvement 6 months later were all significant, with the exception of disinhibition at wave 2 and alcohol involvement at wave 3, where the relationship fell short of significance (β = 0.01, P = 0.06). However, cross-lagged paths from alcohol involvement to disinhibition 6 months later were all non-significant. This suggests no prospective effects of alcohol involvement on disinhibition: it did not worsen in relation to alcohol involvement 6 months previously.

Bottom Line: All behavioural impulsivity tasks predicted a composite index of alcohol involvement 6 months later (all Ps < 0.01), and these prospective relationships were reliable across the majority of time-points.Importantly, we did not observe the converse relationship across time: alcohol involvement did not predict performance on behavioural impulsivity tasks at any subsequent time point.Several measures of impulsivity predict escalation in alcohol involvement in young adolescents, but alcohol use does not appear to alter impulsivity.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus