Are effort‐based decision‐making tasks worth the effort?—A study on the associations between effort‐based decision‐making tasks and self‐report measures.
Saved in:
| Title: | Are effort‐based decision‐making tasks worth the effort?—A study on the associations between effort‐based decision‐making tasks and self‐report measures. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Renz, Katharina E. (AUTHOR), Schlier, Björn (AUTHOR), Lincoln, Tania M. (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research. Mar2023, Vol. 32 Issue 1, p1-9. 9p. 2 Charts, 1 Graph. |
| Subjects: | Self-evaluation, Psychotic depression, Decision making, Apathy, Psychoses, Task performance, Mental depression |
| Abstract: | Objectives: Amotivation is a common symptom in various mental disorders, including psychotic or depressive disorders. Effort‐based decision‐making (EBDM)‐tasks quantifying amotivation at a behavioral level have been on the rise. Task performance has been shown to differentiate patient groups from healthy controls. However, findings on indicators of construct validity, such as the correlations between different tasks and between tasks and self‐reported/observer‐rated amotivation in clinical and healthy samples have been inconclusive. Methods: In a representative community sample (N = 90), we tested the construct validity of the Deck Choice Task, the Expenditure for Rewards Task and the Balloon Task. We calculated correlations between the EBDM‐tasks and between the EBDM‐tasks and self‐reported amotivation, apathy, anticipatory pleasure, and BIS/BAS. Results: Correlations between tasks were low to moderate (0.198 ≤ r ≤ 0.358), with the Balloon Task showing the largest correlations with the other tasks, but no significant correlations between any EBDM‐task and the self‐report measures. Conclusion: Although different EBDM‐tasks are conceptualized to measure the same construct, a large part of what each task measures could not be accounted for by the other tasks. Moreover, the tasks did not appear to substantially capture what was measured in established self‐report instruments for amotivation in our sample, which could be interpreted as questioning the construct validity of EBDM‐tasks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Objectives: Amotivation is a common symptom in various mental disorders, including psychotic or depressive disorders. Effort‐based decision‐making (EBDM)‐tasks quantifying amotivation at a behavioral level have been on the rise. Task performance has been shown to differentiate patient groups from healthy controls. However, findings on indicators of construct validity, such as the correlations between different tasks and between tasks and self‐reported/observer‐rated amotivation in clinical and healthy samples have been inconclusive. Methods: In a representative community sample (N = 90), we tested the construct validity of the Deck Choice Task, the Expenditure for Rewards Task and the Balloon Task. We calculated correlations between the EBDM‐tasks and between the EBDM‐tasks and self‐reported amotivation, apathy, anticipatory pleasure, and BIS/BAS. Results: Correlations between tasks were low to moderate (0.198 ≤ r ≤ 0.358), with the Balloon Task showing the largest correlations with the other tasks, but no significant correlations between any EBDM‐task and the self‐report measures. Conclusion: Although different EBDM‐tasks are conceptualized to measure the same construct, a large part of what each task measures could not be accounted for by the other tasks. Moreover, the tasks did not appear to substantially capture what was measured in established self‐report instruments for amotivation in our sample, which could be interpreted as questioning the construct validity of EBDM‐tasks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 10498931 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/mpr.1943 |
