In 3 studies, the authors developed and began to validate a measure of the propensity to act rashly in response to positive affective states (positive urgency). In Study 1, they developed a content-valid 14-item scale, showed that the measure was unidimensional, and showed that positive urgency was distinct from impulsivity-like constructs identified in 2 models of impulsive behavior. In Study 2, they showed that positive urgency explained variance in risky behavior not explained by measures of other impulsivity-like constructs, differentially explained positive mood-based risky behavior, differentiated individuals at risk for problem gambling from those not at risk, and interacted with drinking motives and expectancies as predicted to explain problem drinking behavior. In Study 3, they confirmed the hypothesis that positive urgency differentiated alcoholics from both eating-disordered and control individuals.

The ability to make precise distinctions among related personality constructs helps clarify theory and increases the utility of clinical assessment. In three studies, the authors evaluated the validity of distinctions among four impulsivity-like traits: sensation seeking, lack of planning, lack of persistence, and urgency (acting rashly when distressed). Factor analyses indicated that lack of planning and lack of persistence are two distinct facets of one broader trait, whereas urgency and sensation seeking are both very modestly related to each other and to the planning/persistence measures. The authors developed interview assessments of each, and multitrait, multimethod matrix results indicated clear convergent and discriminant validity among the constructs. The distinctions among them were useful: The traits accounted for different aspects of risky behaviors. Sensation seeking appeared to relate to the frequency of engaging in risky behaviors, and urgency appeared to relate to problem levels of involvement in those behaviors.

No abstract

The authors articulate 5 basic principles for enhancing incremental validity, both among elements within a test and between tests, during test construction: (a) careful, precise articulation of each element or facet within the content domain; (b) reliable measurement of each facet through use of multiple, alternate-form items; (c) examination of incremental validity at the facet level rather than the broad construct level; (d) use of items that represent single facets rather than combinations of facets; and (e) empirical examination of whether there is a broad construct or a combination of separate constructs. Using these principles, the authors offer specific suggestions for modifications in 3 classic test construction approaches; (a) criterion keying, (b) inductive test construction, and (c) deductive test construction. Implementation of these suggestions is likely to provide theoretical clarification and improved prediction.

No abstract