Does the Iowa Gambling Task Measure Executive Function?

Abstract

The Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) is assumed to measure executive functioning, but this has not been empirically tested by means of both convergent and discriminant validity. We used structural equation modeling (SEM) to test whether the IGT is an executive function (EF) task (convergent validity) and whether it is not related to other neuropsychological domains (discriminant validity). Healthy community-dwelling participants (N = 214) completed a comprehensive neuropsychological battery. We analyzed the conventional IGT metric and three alternative metrics based on the overall difference of advantageous minus disadvantageous choices made during the last 60 IGT responses and advantageous minus disadvantageous choices based on two specific decks of cards (D minus A). An a priori six-factor hierarchical model of neuropsychological functioning was confirmed with SEM. Attention and processing speed were grouped as "non-associative" factors. Fluency, executive functioning, visual learning/memory, and verbal learning/memory were grouped as higher-level "associative" factors. Of the non-associative factors, attention, but not speed, predicted IGT performance. When each associative factor was entered along with attention, only EF improved the model fit and that was only for metrics based on trials 41-100. SEM indicates metrics based on trails 1-100 are influenced by attention, and metrics based on trails 41-100 are influenced by attention and EF. Its associative strength with attention is twice that of EF. Conceptually, the IGT is a multi-trait task involving novel problem-solving and attentional domains to a greater extent, and executive functioning to a lesser extent.

Impaired decision making under ambiguity but not under risk in individuals with pathological buying–behavioral and psychophysiological evidence

“…This would be consistent with observations of unimpaired neurocognitive performance in PB-samples of previous studies (Black et al, 2012;Voth et al, 2014). Furthermore, within the current study, we revealed some correlations between decision-making performance and the neuropsychological tasks as well as intelligence, which were partly consistent with previous studies (Brand et al, 2008;Gansler et al, 2011;Schiebener et al, 2011;Webb et al, 2014). However, the validity of the correlations is limited due to small sample sizes.…”

Effects of Acute Stress on Decision Making

“…Collectively, this research suggests that latter trials, particularly after trial 40, provide a better index of adaptive decision making. In support of this, one study found that better criterion and construct validity were achieved when the last 60 trials of the IGT were used (Gansler, Jerram, Vannorsdall, & Schretlen, 2011). We therefore disregarded the first 40 acquisition trials and evaluated the number of choices from advantageous decks during the last 60 trials.…”

The Role of HIV Infection, Cognition, and Depression in Risky Decision-Making

“…Thus, participants must discriminate between short-term and long-term consequences. The Gambling Task has been used in a variety of populations, including the HIV population 5,8 and has demonstrated convergent validity with attention and executive functions 31 and ecological validity among drug-abusers. 32 To examine whether participants were able to learn to discriminate between short-term and long-term consequences, a learning index was created by subtracting the average number of advantageous cards (i.e., decks A and B) selected from the first two blocks of 20 cards from the average of advantageous cards for the last three blocks.…”