22 016 Povazanova FINAL
22 016 Povazanova FINAL
22 016 Povazanova FINAL
eu ADDICTOLOGY 194
ADIKTOLOGIE
Test of Impulsivity
in Adolescence
POVAŽANOVÁ, B., DOLEJŠ, M., PETR, K., SUCHÁ, J., PIPOVÁ, H.
Palacký University Olomouc, Department of Psychology, Olomouc, Citation | Považanová, B., Dolejš, M., Petr, K., Suchá, J., & Pipová, H.
Czech Republic (2022). Test of impulsivity in adolescence. Adiktologie, 22 (3), 194–203.
https://doi.org/10.35198/01-2022-003-0005
BACKGROUND: Adolescence is one of the most linear models. CONCLUSION: This research can help
important stages in a human life. This period is full of to understand the importance of research in the field
different stimuli and types of influence – from parents, of impulsivity. It introduces the new shorter version of
peers, and society. It is related to greater susceptibility the questionnaire of the Scale of Impulsivity Dolejš &
to problematic behaviour and to impulsivity. Because Skopal (SIDS). A better understanding of this topic can
of that it is important to explore the topic of impulsivity help with the prevention of impulsive behaviour.
and impulsive behaviour. METHODS: This study
addresses impulsivity in adolescents using a Czech
questionnaire survey method, the Scale of Impulsivity
Dolejš & Skopal (SIDS). It also empirically verifies
the functionality of the scale and points out its
psychometric qualities. The research involved 13,676
adolescent participants aged 11–19. The sample
consisted of schoolchildren attending years 6–9 (ISCED
2) of what is called in Czech ‘basic school’ a term
that will be used throughout the text and students of
general and specialized secondary schools (ISCED 3).
RESULTS: The SIDS questionnaire data collected was
subsequently subjected to statistical processing. We
used Item Response Theory analysis, which depicted
items that did not function correctly, and method
revision was suggested. Confirmatory factor analysis
demonstrated that the shorter version has a good factor
structure and reliability. The raw score differences
between age, sex, and schools were assessed with
Grant affiliation | This research has received support from a grant provided by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic
to Palacký University within IGA_FF_2020_002.
Corresponding author | Barbora Považanová, Palacký University Olomouc, Department of Psychology, barbora.povazanova01@upol.cz
Křížkovského 10, 779 00 Olomouc, Czech Republic
195 ADDICTOLOGY ORIGINAL PAPER
ADIKTOLOGIE
A common feature in individual definitions of impulsivity is the On the basis of previous knowledge and a literature search, we
idea that impulsivity is a personality trait included in various created one general hypothesis:
personality theories that may be summed up as a propensity
to act without thinking (Dolejš & Skopal, 2016). Impulsive indi- Hypothesis 1: the effect of independent variables (age, gender,
viduals tend to conduct various activities that are not planned and type of school) on a dependent variable (impulsivity).
or premeditated and at the same time are risky either for the
individual himself/herself or for others.
B 2 METHODS
Impulsivity is also a contributory factor to certain mental dis-
eases. In DSM-5 and ICD-11 (APA, 2013), impulsivity is listed as 2.1 Participants and research procedure
a separate category of control disorders that includes disorders
such as kleptomania, pyromania, addiction to playing games, The research sample comprised pupils and students of Czech
and gambling. Apart from this taxonomy, a link has been found basic (ISCED 2) and secondary (ISCED 3) schools (N = 13,676).
between impulsivity and a propensity for risky behaviour or a The research involved 7,344 girls (54%) and 6,332 boys (46%).
tendency to indulge in risky activities such as the abuse of ad- The mean age of the participants was 15.40 years, with a stand-
dictive substances and vandalism (Dolejš & Orel, 2017). ard deviation of 2.18 years, a median of 16, and the age range
being 11–19. Data was collected in basic schools and general
and specialized secondary schools around the Czech Republic,
1.2 Measuring impulsivity specifically from each region. As to the individual types of
schools, 5,031 students (37%) attended general secondary
Impulsivity is a factor that may be efficiently measured espe- schools (ISCED 3), lower general secondary schools (ISCED 2)
cially through long-established single-factor quantitatively- were attended by 2,225 students (16%), secondary schools with
oriented measurement tools. Impulsivity is also included as a the ‘maturita’ school-leaving exam (ISCED 3) by 2,397 students
constituent part of multi-factor methods. In this form, as part (18%), secondary schools without the ‘maturita’ exam (ISCED
of a comprehensive scale for the measurement of personality 3) by 681 students (5%), and 3,342 pupils (24%) attended basic
schools (ISCED 2).
Test of Impulsivity in Adolescence ADDICTOLOGY 196
ADIKTOLOGIE
Table 1 | Means, standard deviations, kurtosis, and skewness for the total score and for the final proposal of the shortened version of the SIDS method
The selection of schools participating in the research was ran- lish population norms. It has also been used in several research
dom, stratified according to the type of institution. As part of projects in the Czech Republic (Dolejš et al., 2014, Dolejš & Orel,
this procedure, schools were chosen from lists provided by the 2017), as well as in Slovakia (Čerešník & Gatial, 2014; Tomšik
Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic et al., 2018). The internal consistency of SIDS expressed by the
by random choice. Prior to the data collection, the individual Cronbach’s alpha ranges from .83 to .87 (Dolejš & Orel, 2017).
schools were contacted and their agreement with involve- SIDS correlates with many other questionnaires. It has a mod-
ment in the study was acquired. The legal representatives of erately strong correlation with impulsivity and sensation seek-
the research participants were required to provide written ing in the Substance Use Risk Profile Scale (Woicik et al., 2009),
agreement to their participation. The collection of data was with the present hedonic in the Zimbardo Time Perspective
conducted by trained researchers who visited each school. The Inventory (Zimbardo & Boyd, 2009), and with urgency in the
research participants were given a set of questionnaires in pa- Impulsive Behaviour Scale (Whiteside at al., 2005). Impulsivity
per form. The questionnaires were administered to individual in SIDS also has a connection with anxiety (Dolejš et al., 2014).
students in groups in the respective classes. This connection can be seen, for example, with the Scale of
Anxiety Dolejš & Skopal (SADS or SUDS) or with the Buss-Perry
Aggression Questionnaire (Dolejš & Skopal, 2016).
2.2 Measures
All the participants answered basic sociodemographic ques- After the data collection, the questionnaire sets were trans-
tions. These were related to their age, sex, and the type of formed from paper to electronic form using Microsoft Excel. The
school they attended (basic (ISCED 2) or secondary (ISCED 3)). data was subsequently cleaned in this program. Data analysis
was performed in R, version 4.0.4 (R Core Team, 2020). Table 1
The Scale of Impulsivity Dolejš & Skopal (SIDS) provides means, standard deviations, kurtosis, and skewness
for the entire sample set as well as for the subsets of girls and
This questionnaire method, designed by Dolejš and Skopal boys for the total score in the full SIDS method and for the pro-
(2016), is intended for individual and group testing. It is a posed shortened version.
single-factor scale. It contains 24 questions focused on behav-
iour in various situations (Dolejš & Skopal, 2016). It consists of The first step was the analysis of items with Item Response
two pages. The first page has three sections. The first section is Theory (IRT) and assessment of reliability. The quality assess-
the name of the questionnaire and the authors and instructions ment of the properties of individual SIDS questionnaire items
on how to fill out the questionnaire. The second section is re- was performed using IRT, in particular the unidimensional
served for sociodemographic information about the respond- Graded Response Model (GRM) for polytomous items that de-
ents. The third section is for the administrator (for calculating termine item difficulty (b) for every item and slope parameter
the score, for describing the situation, and for agreement to be a (a) (Samejima, 1969; Toland, 2014). In order to determine the
participant). The second page is the questionnaire itself, which local dependency (LD) index, the G2 statistical method was used
contains 24 questions. The questionnaire provides a four-point (Chen & Thissen, 1997). Non-conforming items were proposed
response scale – “definitely disagree”, “disagree”, “agree”, and for exclusion from the questionnaire. The GRM calculation was
“definitely agree”. The time allowed for answering is not limited, performed using the mirt package version 1.33.2 (Chalmers,
but the majority of respondents are able to complete it in within 2012). Since a congeneric model was expected, the assessment
ten minutes. The questionnaire method is standardized for the of the internal consistency of the method was performed using
population of Czech adolescents which has been used to estab- the omega total coefficient. Unlike the Cronbach’s alpha, this in-
197 ADDICTOLOGY ORIGINAL PAPER
ADIKTOLOGIE
Note. Confirmatory factor analysis was used. CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index;
RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation, SRMR = standardized root mean residual
dicator of reliability does not presume tau-equivalence of items, from 0.01 (item 23) to 1.61 (item 9). The values of parame-
i.e. it does not presume that individual items have identical fac- ter b1 (i.e. the probability that a participant would choose the
tor loading (Dunn et al., 2014; Hayes & Coutts, 2020; McNeish, second or higher answer option for a particular item) ranged
2018). The indicator was calculated using the MBESS package from -0.29 (item 5) to -16.01 (item 23); values for b2 ranged
version 4.8.0. (Kelley, 2020). from -1.56 (item 21) to 13.44 (item 23), and values of b3 ranged
from 1.56 (item 24) to 31.27 (item 23). This data and the item
The second step was factor analysis. In order to verify the characteristic curve of the graphs demonstrated that items 21
single-factor structure of the questionnaire, confirmatory fac- and 23 do not work well and, according to the item information
tor analysis (CFA) was conducted using the lavaan package function, do not provide sufficient information input into the
version 0.6-7 (Rosseel, 2012). Since the individual answers in whole method; these items were subsequently proposed for
the SIDS questionnaire are ordinal variables, the method of un- exclusion. This procedure resulted in the final 19-item version.
weighted least squares (ULS) was used as a robust estimation According to the test information function, this version has the
method (Forero et al., 2009) and the calculation was performed greatest information value for participants, with a standard
using the polychoric correlation. We created multiple models deviation from the mean between -2 and +2. The estimated
with various adjustments so that they corresponded to the the- reliability of the SIDS questionnaire using the omega total coef-
ory. In order to assess the fit of theoretical models with data, the ficient was 0.86 for the whole original scale; after exclusion of
following indicators were used: chi-squared, comparative fit the items its value did not change significantly.
index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error
of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean resid-
ual (SRMR). The following values of goodness of fit indicators 3.2 Confirmatory factor analysis
were chosen: CFI and TLI > 0.95, RMSEA < 0.08, SRMR < 0.07
(Hu & Bentler, 1999). CFA was performed for the entire set. Table 2 provides an over-
view of all the models and results. The single-factor congeneric
In the last part, to understand how different variables have an model for the whole scale was calculated using ULS on poly-
impact on impulsivity, an analysis of group differences was choric correlations. The fit measures, mainly CFI and TLI, did
performed using a general linear model with interactions. The not indicate a good fit with the data. This was expectable, as five
total score of the revised SIDS was used as a dependent varia- items did not function well for the scale. Since a revised version
ble and the sociodemographic variables sex, school, and age was suggested, the second CFA was performed with only 19
were predictors. items and the same estimation technique. This improved the fit
and all the fit measures are in the acceptable range. Since χ² is
dependent on the sample size, this indicator has a higher value
B 3 RESULTS for both models.
Note. CI = confidence interval; the variable of age was centred for the analysis
To observe the differences between the sexes at lower general sec- The first step of the research was verification of the SIDS meth-
ondary schools (ISCED 2), we created a new model with the lower od from the perspective of psychometrics. The original 24-item
general secondary school as a reference group: here, the average version was tested with the aim of verifying its reliability and
girl reaches 0.95 points less than the average boy, with a 95% CI possibly revising it. This step employed the IRT model and fac-
[-1.6, -0.3]. This effect is statistically significant: t(13,665) = -2.66, tor analysis. On the basis of these statistical procedures, it was
p = .007. At general secondary schools (ISCED 3), the average girl possible to exclude five items from the original 24-item version
reached 0.37 points less than the average boy, with a 95% CI (items nos. 7, 15, 21, 23, and 24). These items did not saturate
[-0.8, 0.1], and this effect is not statistically significant: t(13,665)= the factor of impulsivity sufficiently – it was proved that they
1.556, p = .119. At secondary schools without the ‘maturita’ exam are similar to other items and do not provide the expected ro-
(ISCED 3), the average girl reaches 1.44 points more than the av- bust data for the psychometric method. The similarity of the
erage boy, with a 95% CI [0.1, 2.8], and this effect was statistically individual items was identified for the following ones: items 7
significant: t(13,665) = 2.147, p = .031. At secondary schools with (“I like to take risks.”) and 16 (“I seek an experience as such
the ‘maturita’ exam (ISCED 3), there is no difference between the even if it is illegal.”); items 15 (“I focus easily.”) and 13 (“I can-
sexes: (< 0.01 point), t(13,665) = -0.02, p = 0.983. The general ef- not focus my attention on one thing for a longer time.”), and
fect of sex across the individual types of schools may be obtained items 24 (“I often say something without thinking it through.”)
from the test of the sub-model while omitting all predictors with and 9 (“I often do not think through the consequences of my be-
sex; the values achieved are as follows: t(13,670) = 2.11, p < .001, haviour.”). The full wording of all the items of the psychometric
i.e. there is a statistically significant difference between the sexes method is provided in Appendix 2; excluded items are marked
(Mboys = 44.84, SDboys = 8.47, Mgirls = 44.42, SDgirls = 8.26); Cohen’s d to allow for comparison. A revised version of the SIDS method
= 0.05. Age is also a statistically significant predictor of the SIDS was designed, resulting in the 19-item form with increased in-
score: B = 0.2, 95% CI [0.1, 0.3], t(13,665) = 3.27, p = .001. ternal consistency for measurement of the factor of impulsivity.
a higher propensity to seek and abuse addictive substances of B 5 CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
various kinds and forms, and also as a higher tendency to risky
behaviour (Smith et al., 2013; Vavrysová, 2018). The article describes the phenomenon of impulsivity from both
the theoretical and the practical perspective. The research fo-
As is obvious from the linear model, it was found that girls at- cused on impulsivity in the period of adolescence and differ-
tain a lower score for the impulsivity factor compared to boys. ences in its rate between girls and boys at different types of sec-
This reflects the expected results based on the theories of im- ondary schools. The research results demonstrated that there
pulsivity presented in the first part of this article. The results is a difference in impulsivity between the girls and boys at the
were also confirmed for its combination with certain types of various types of schools they attend. The research also analysed
schools. At basic schools, lower general secondary schools, and the psychodiagnostic method SIDS, i.e. the Scale of Impulsivity
secondary schools, the boys achieved a higher impulsivity fac- Dolejš & Skopal, which was transformed from the original
tor score than the girls; at secondary schools without the ‘ma- 24-item version to a 19-item version.
turita’ exam, however, the girls achieved a higher impulsivity
score than the boys. It may be presumed that at these types of The present research may serve as an example of the utiliza-
schools, girls need to be more vigorous and therefore also more tion of an efficient psychodiagnostic method for single-factor
impulsive to maintain their position within their class and their measurement of impulsivity. It demonstrates the importance
social group. Secondary schools with the ‘maturita’ exam did of research into impulsivity in adolescents and suggests further
not show a statistically significant difference between the sex- options for investigation in this important and topical matter.
es; the impulsivity rate did not therefore differ significantly be- The SIDS psychodiagnostic method may be used by psycholo-
tween the sexes. gists at schools and in educational-psychological counselling
and prevention centres, as well as for the prevention and di-
Impulsivity may also be influenced by the particular school agnosis of, and interventions in, impulsive behaviour by the
and its organization. Schools with lower internal coherence are professional public.
linked to a higher impulsivity rate among their students, which
may even result in delinquent behaviour. If a school manifests
higher coherence, the higher impulsivity rate is associated with
a lower probability of delinquent behaviour (Liu et al., 2016).
Authors’ contributions: The author BP designed the initial form of the Ethics statement: The entire course of data collection was carried
article and conducted the literature review and summary of related work out in accordance with the ethical code of the European Federation of
and participated in the preparation of all the theoretical parts of the Psychologists’ Associations (European Federation of Psychologists’
article. The author MD designed the study, proposed the study design, Associations, 2005) and the General Data Protection Regulation
and supervised the preparation of the article. The author KP performed legislation (General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), 2018). All
the statistical analysis and participated in the data interpretation. The research participants were notified of the possibility of withdrawing from
authors MD, JS, and HP collected the data. All authors contributed to the the research at any time and of the fact that the data collected was to be
emergence of the article and approved the final version of the article. used anonymously and only for the purpose of this research.
Declaration of interest: The authors hereby declare that no conflict
of interest occurred in the research, authorship, and publication
of this article.
Test of Impulsivity in Adolescence ADDICTOLOGY 200
ADIKTOLOGIE
Appendix 1 | Descriptive characteristics of items including GRM parameters for the whole scale
1 I like winning over others, although I do not always play according to the agreed rules.
2 I do not like tasks that require carefulness and persistence.
3 School requirements are beyond my capabilities.
4 I often do not finish the work that I start.
5 I often violate the school rules and regulations.
6 I sometimes throw myself into something without thinking.
7 I like to take risks.*
8 I find it difficult to control myself.
9 I often do not think through the consequences of my behaviour.
10 My attitude to responsibilities can often be described as “I don’t care”.
11 It is difficult for me to adapt to the rules that others require me to follow.
12 Any difficulties in achieving given goals annoy me.
13 I cannot focus my attention on one thing for a longer time.
14 Before I say anything, I think it through carefully.
15 I focus easily.*
16 I seek an experience as such even if it is illegal.
17 I am impatient.
18 I follow the rule “business before pleasure”.
19 A stroke of luck often brings better results than hard work.
20 Thanks to systematic work, I finish tasks on time.
21 I am annoyed when I do not get recognition for a job well done.*
22 When my plans collapse, I want to hit someone.
23 I try to avoid crises and difficulties.*
24 I often say something without thinking it through.*
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical Eysenck, S. B. G., Pearson, P. R., Easting, G., & Allsopp, J. F. (1985).
manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Age norms for impulsivity, venturesomeness, and empathy in adults.
Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 613–619.
Bos, J., Hayden, M. J., Lum, J. A., & Staiger, P. K. (2019). UPPS-P
impulsive personality traits and adolescent cigarette smoking: A meta- Forero, C. G., Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Gallardo-Pujol, D. (2009). Factor
analysis. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 197, 335–343. Analysis with Ordinal Indicators: A Monte Carlo Study Comparing DWLS
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.01.018 and ULS Estimation. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 16 (4), 625–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903203573
Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1975). A temperament theory of personality
development. John Wiley & Sons. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). (2018). General Data
Protection Regulation (GDPR). https://gdpr-info.eu/
Chalmers, R. P. (2012). mirt: A Multidimensional Item Response Theory
package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48 (6), Hayes, A. F., & Coutts, J. J. (2020). Use Omega rather than Cronbach’s Alpha
1–29. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i06 for Estimating Reliability. But… Communication Methods and Measures,
14 (1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629
Chapple, C. L., & Johnson, K. A. (2007). Gender differences in impulsivity.
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 5 (3), 221–234. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204007301286 structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6 (1), 1–55.
Chen, W. H., & Thissen, D. (1997). Local dependence indexes
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
for item pairs using item response theory. Journal of Educational
and Behavioral Statistics, 22 (3), 265–289. Jackson, D. N. (1984). Personality Research Form Manual. Research
https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986022003265 Psychologists Press.
Chen, Y., Zhu, J., Ye, Y., Huang, L., Yang, J., Chen, L., & Zhang, W. (2019). Kalina, K. (Ed.). (2015). Klinická adiktologie. Grada Publishing.
Parental rejection and adolescent problematic mobile phone use:
Kelley, K. (2020). MBESS: The MBESS R Package. R package version
Mediating and moderating roles of school engagement and impulsivity.
4.8.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MBESS
Current Psychology, 40, 5166–5174.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00458-9 Kong, G., Smith, A. E., McMahon, T. J., Cavallo, D. A., Schepis, T. S.,
Desai, R. A., Potenza, M. N., & Krishnan-Sarin, S. (2013). Pubertal status,
Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A
sensation-seeking, impulsivity, and substance use in high school-aged
psychobiological model of temperament and character. Archives
boys and girls. Journal of Addiction Medicine, 7 (2), 116–121.
of General Psychiatry, 50, 975–990. https://doi.org/10.1001/
https://doi.org/10.1097/adm.0b013e31828230ca
archpsyc.1993.01820240059008
Kozak, K., Lucatch, A. M., Lowe, D., Balodis, I. M., MacKillop, J., &
Cross, C. P., Copping, L. T., & Campbell, A. (2011). Sex differences in
George, T. P. (2019). The neurobiology of impulsivity and substance use
impulsivity: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 137 (1), 97–130.
disorders: implications for treatment. Annals of the New York Academy of
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021591
Sciences, 1451 (1), 71–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13977
Čerešník, M., & Gatial, V. (2014). Rizikové správanie dospievajúcich
Leshem, R., & King, R. (2020). Trait impulsivity and callous‐unemotional
a vybrané osobnostné premenné dospievajúcich v systéme nižšieho
traits as predictors of inhibitory control and risky choices among high‐
sekundárneho vzdelávania. Univerzita Konštantína Filozofa v Nitre.
risk adolescents. International Journal of Psychology, 56 (2), 314-321.
D’Acremont, M., & Linden, M. V. (2005). Adolescent impulsivity: Findings https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12710
from a community sample. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34 (5),
Liu, S., Yu, C., Zhen, S., Zhang, W., Su, P., & Xu, Y. (2016). Influence
427–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-7260-1
of inter-parental conflict on adolescent delinquency via school
Di Nicola, M., Ferri, V. R., Moccia, L., Panaccione, I., Strangio, A. M., connectedness: Is impulsivity a vulnerability or plasticity factor?
Tedeschi, D., Grandinetti, P., Callea, A., De-Giorgio, F., Martinotti, G., & Journal of Adolescence, 52, 12–21.
Janiri, L. (2017). Gender differences and psychopathological features https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.07.001
associated with addictive behaviors in adolescents. Frontiers in
Marvin, C. B., Tedeschi, E., & Shohamy, D. (2020). Curiosity as the
Psychiatry, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00256
impulse to know: Common behavioral and neural mechanisms
Dolejš, M., & Orel, M. (2017). Rizikové chování u adolescentů a impulzivita underlying curiosity and impulsivity. Current Opinion in Behavioral
jako prediktor tohoto chování. Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci. Sciences, 35, 92–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.08.003
Dolejš, M., & Skopal, O. (2016). Škála impulzivity Dolejš a Skopal (SIDS): McCoy, S. S., Dimler, L. M., Samuels, D. V., & Natsuaki, M. N. (2019).
Príručka pro praxi. Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci. Adolescent susceptibility to deviant peer pressure: Does gender matter?
Adolescent Research Review, 4, 59–71.
Dolejš, M., Skopal, O., Suchá, J., Cakirpaloglu, P., & Vavrysová, L. (2014).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-017-0071-2
Protektivní a rizikové osobnosní rysy u adolescentů. Univerzita Palackého
v Olomouci. McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here.
Psychological Methods, 23 (3), 412–433.
Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega:
https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144
A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency
estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105 (3), 399–412. Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S., & Barratt, E. S. (1995). Factor structure
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046 of the Barratt Impulsivity Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51,
768–774.
European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations. (2005). Meta-code
of ethics. http://ethics.efpa.eu/metaand-model-code/meta-code/ Pfeifer, J. H., & Allen, N. B. (2019). Puberty initiates cascading
relationships between neurodevelopmental, social, and internalizing
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual
processes across adolescence. Biological Psychiatry, 89 (2), 99–108.
differences: A natural science approach. Plenum Press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.09.002
203 ADDICTOLOGY ORIGINAL PAPER
ADIKTOLOGIE