Are effort-based decision-making tasks worth the effort?—A study on the associations between effort-based decision-making tasks and self-report measures
Katharina E. Renz, Björn Schlier, Tania M. Lincoln
{"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":"Katharina E. Renz, Björn Schlier, Tania M. Lincoln","doi":"10.1002/mpr.1943","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>In a representative community sample (<i>N</i> = 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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Correlations between tasks were low to moderate (0.198 ≤ <i>r</i> ≤ 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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50310,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/6e/05/MPR-32-e1943.PMC9976602.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mpr.1943","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research (MPR) publishes high-standard original research of a technical, methodological, experimental and clinical nature, contributing to the theory, methodology, practice and evaluation of mental and behavioural disorders. The journal targets in particular detailed methodological and design papers from major national and international multicentre studies. There is a close working relationship with the US National Institute of Mental Health, the World Health Organisation (WHO) Diagnostic Instruments Committees, as well as several other European and international organisations.
MPR aims to publish rapidly articles of highest methodological quality in such areas as epidemiology, biostatistics, generics, psychopharmacology, psychology and the neurosciences. Articles informing about innovative and critical methodological, statistical and clinical issues, including nosology, can be submitted as regular papers and brief reports. Reviews are only occasionally accepted.
MPR seeks to monitor, discuss, influence and improve the standards of mental health and behavioral neuroscience research by providing a platform for rapid publication of outstanding contributions. As a quarterly journal MPR is a major source of information and ideas and is an important medium for students, clinicians and researchers in psychiatry, clinical psychology, epidemiology and the allied disciplines in the mental health field.