PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF AN ITALIAN VERSION OF THE BARRATT

IMPULSIVENESS SCALE-11 (BIS-11) IN NON CLINICAL SUBJECTS.

Authors: Andrea Fossati, M.D., Ph.D.1,3, Antonella Di Ceglie, Ph.D.1, Elena Acquarini,

Ph.D.1, Ernest S. Barratt, Ph.D2.

1: Insitute of Psychology, University of Urbino, Urbino, Italy

2: Psychodiagnostic Service and Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory, Department of

Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston,

Galveston, Texas, U.S.A

3: Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy Unit, Faculty of Psychology, «Vita Salute» San

Raffaele University, Milan, Italy

Short title: Standardization of the BIS-11 Italian Version

Key words: Impulsiveness – Personality - Assessment - Reliability – Validity

The study was carried out at the University of Urbino, Urbino, Italy

For citation: Journal of Clinical Psychology, 2001, 57, 815-828.

Correspondence should be addressed to:

Andrea Fossati, M.D, Ph.D.

Servizio di Psicologia Clinica e Psicoterapia

Istituto Scientifico H San Raffaele-DSNP

v. Stamira D’Ancona, 20

20127 Milano, Italy

Fax: ++39 02 2643-3408

Telephone: ++39 02 2643-3241

e-mail: fossati.andrea@hsr.it

1
Abstract.

To assess the psychometric properties of the Italian translation of the Barratt Impulsiveness

Scale-11 (BIS-11), the scale was administered to 763 college undergraduates. Based on

analyses using item-total correlations and t-tests for differences between the top and the

bottom total score quartiles, all items from the English version of the BIS-11 were retained in

the Italian version. Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency was .79 and two month test-

retest reliability was .89. An exploratory principal components analysis replicated the six

first-order factors and three oblique second-order factors, consistent with the number

identified in the English version. However, subfactor item loadings differed between the

English and Italian versions.

The overall item pool was consistent in being a homogeneous measure of impulsiveness. The

BIS-11 total score was significantly correlated with aggression and ADHD measures. The

BIS-11 also significantly differentiated between high and low levels of binge eating, alcohol

consumption, and cigarette smoking.

2
Introduction.

Impulsiveness is a clinically relevant personality trait in both selected dimensional

personality models (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1977; Zuckerman, 1979; Costa & McRae, 1985;

Cloninger, 1987) as well as in categorical models of psychopathology. For example, in

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(DSM-IV) (American Psychiatric

Association, 1994), impulsivity is implicated in ADHD, conduct and antisocial personality

disorders, borderline personality disorder, and intermittent explosive disorder among others.

Monahan noted recently that «as the century draws to a close, ‘impulsivity’ is emerging as a

master construct in many areas of behavioral sciences…the general impulsivity construct is

becoming a key in that it directs our attention to the whole area of decision making»

(Monahan, 1997, p. ix). Why would this be? One answer is that «impulsiveness, however

defined, is essentially related to the control of thoughts and behavior» (Barratt, 1994, 1972).

Thus, impulsiveness in addition to being related to psychiatric disorders, as noted above, and

daily coping (O’Boyle & Barratt, 1993; Stanford & Barratt, 1992), is also related to the ability

to observe and conform to social norms in society (Barratt, 1993; Patton, Stanford, & Barratt,

1995; Barratt, Stanford, Kent, & Felthous, 1997).

The theoretical context for measuring impulsivity has been broadly based (L’Abate,

1993; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1977; Dickman, 1993; Wallace & Newman, 1990; Barratt, 1972;

Barratt, 1991). Barratt and Stanford (1995) proposed a discipline neutral model for

synthesizing data from different disciplines into a convergent construct of impulsiveness. A

key to interrelating data from different disciplines was the dimensional model of

impulsiveness which emerged from the ongoing analyses of BIS-1 (Barratt, 1959), the first

self-report measure of impulsiveness which was not part of an omnibus personality inventory.

A number of investigators (Linnoila et al., 1983; Apter et al., 1990) proposed different

approaches to defining impulsiveness involving primarily biological models. The Barratt and

3
Stanford (1995) approach involved biological, social, cognitive, and behavioral measures

which converged to provide a broad basis for the construct validity of impulsiveness.

During the last four decades, the BIS as noted has gone through a number of revisions

aimed at accomplishing two general psychometric goals: 1) to establish an item pool to

measure impulsiveness which was as independent as possible of trait anxiety and other

neurotic personality dimensions or what Barratt and Patton (1983) called the «feeling

dimensions»; 2) to arrive at a set of items which were as independent as possible from other

«action oriented» dimensions (e.g., sensation-seeking) (Barratt & Patton, 1983). The latest

version of the BIS is the BIS-11 (Patton et al. 1995). The current study was aimed generally at

standardizing the Italian version of the BIS-11. More specifically, the reliability, external

validity and factor structure of the Italian translation was broached using college

undergraduates from Italian universities as subjects.

Method.

The BIS-11 was administered to 763 college undergraduates, studying at the

University of Urbino and living at the university campus. 490 subjects (64.2%) were female

and 273 subjects (35.8%) were male. The mean age was 22.96 years (SD=2.63) and the

average level of University education was 3.89 years (SD=1.97). One hundred and fourty-one

subjects (18.5%) came from Northern Italy, 379 (49.7%) from Central Italy, 208 (27.3%)

from Southern Italy, and 28 (3.6%) from the Islands (i.e., Sicily and Sardenia). Seven subjects

(0.9%) did not indentify the geographical area which they were from. All subjects signed

consent forms approved by the University of Urbino Board for Human Research. A smaller

subsample of these subjects (n=83) agreed to participate in a 2-month retest study of the BIS-

11.

The BIS-11, as noted, is a 30-item self-report questionnaire designed to measure

impulsiveness (Patton et al. 1995). All items are measured on a 4-point scale

4
(1=Rarely/Never, 2=Occasionally, 3=Often, 4=Almost Always/Always). Four generally

indicates the most impulsive response, but some items are scored in reverse order to avoid a

response bias. The items are summed and the higher the BIS-11 total score, the higher the

impulsiveness level.

The BIS-11 was translated into Italian by one of the authors (A.F.) and two

independent clinical psychologists fluent in both English and Italian. A consensus translation

was obtained and iteratively controlled through backversion by an English mother-tongue

professional translator.

Aggression and ADHD.

Together with the BIS-11, subjects were also administered two measures of

personality traits that are often significantly correlated with impulsiveness, the Buss-Durkee

Hostility Inventory (BDHI; Buss & Durkee, 1957) and the Wender Utah Rating Scale

(WURS; Ward, Wender, & Reimherr, 1993). Both the BDHI and the WURS were

administered in their Italian version. They were translated into Italian by one of the authors

(A.F.); the adequacy of the translations to the original versions was controlled through

backversion by a professional English mother-tongue translator.

The BDHI is a popular (Bushman, Cooper, & Lemke, 1991) self-report measure of

aggressive and hostile behaviors and is divided into seven subscales: Assault, Indirect

Aggression, Irritability, Negativism, Resentment, Suspicion, and Verbal Aggression. A factor

analysis of these subscales yielded two factors (Buss & Durkee, 1957), one factor containing

assault, indirect aggression, irritability, and verbal aggression subtests was labeled

Aggressiveness. It was thought to represent the «motor» component of hostility (Buss &

Durkee, 1957). The other factor was defined by resentment and suspicion subtests and was

labeled hostility and represented the «emotional» component of hostile attitudes.

5
 Since these factors were not consistent across studies (Buss & Perry, 1992), a principal

component analysis based on a parallel analysis of the BDHI subscales was performed in this

study. The VARIMAX procedure was used to rotate the extracted factors. The internal

consistency reliabilities for the BDHI scales were computed using Cronbach’s alpha.

The WURS is a self-report retrospective measure of attention deficit/hyperactivity

symptoms during childhood. The reliability of the WURS was established by Ward, Wender,

and Reimherr (1993). The internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of the WURS

was also computed in this study.

Alcohol, Binge Eating, Smoking.

Subjects were asked to report on a 4-point scale (0=Never, 1=Occasionally, 2=Often,

3=Almost Always) the frequency of intake of alcohol and binge-eating episodes to relieve

tension. Subjects also reported their frequency of cigarette smoking on a 5 point ordinal scale

(0=No cigarette smoking, 1=less than 10 cigarettes/day, 2=10-20 cigarettes/day, 3=21-30

cigarettes/day, 4=31 or more cigarettes/day). For each of these three variables, the two most

extreme scalar categories were collapsed into a single «high frequency» class, and the

remaining categories were collapsed into a «low frequency» class. This dichotomization was

performed because impulsiveness is expected to play a role in situations of behavioral

discontrol (e.g., heavy drinking or smoking), rather than showing a monotonic relationship

with the increased frequency of drinking or smoking. That is, it is not reasonable to

hypothesize that subjects who smoke moderately are more impulsive than non smoking

subjects or subjects who smoke very few cigarettes. It seems more reasonable to hypothesize

that people who smoke excessively should be more impulsive than people who smoke

moderately and people who do not smoke at all.

Social Desirability.

6
 To assess the effects of social desirability on BIS-11 responses, subjects were

administered the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory(MMPI) K scale (Hathaway &

McKinley, 1989).

Procedures and Analyses.

All questionnaires were administered and scored anonymously.

The BIS-11 item analyses included computing Pearson’s product-moment item-total

correlations, corrected for item-total overlap (Nunnally & Berstein, 1994) and t-test

comparisons between item scores in the top and bottom quartiles for the total score. The

internal consistency reliability of the BIS-11 was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha and the

decrease of the BIS-11 Cronbach’s alpha value at item deletion was computed. An item was

considered problematic if it showed weak (i.e., <.20) item-total correlations and in addition no

decrease of Cronbach’s alpha value was observed when it was excluded from the scale. The

BIS-11 2-month retest reliability was evaluated computing the Pearson product-moment

correlation between the scores obtained in the two administrations.

As in the original study of BIS-11 factor structure (Patton et al.1995), an exploratory

principal components analysis of the BIS-11 Italian translation items was performed. The

number of factors to be rotated was determined by a parallel analysis (Horn, 1969) based on

factoring 50 correlation matrices of randomly generated data using the same number of

subjects and variables as in the real study. The PROMAX procedure was used to obtain an

oblique factor solution with the elements in the varimax target matrix raised to the third

power. The resulting factor loading matrix was formally compared with the factor structure

reported by Barratt in the original study (Patton et al. 1995) by computing congruence

coefficients (CC) and root mean square measures (RMS) (Levene, 1990). CCs range from -

1.0 to 1.0, with 0.0 indicating complete independence. The greater and more positive the CC

7
values, the more accurate is the factor structure reproducibility. RMS measures range from

0.0 for complete reproducibility to 2.0 for complete unreproducibility.

Although multigroup confirmatory analysis (Bollen, 1989) is a powerful approach to

testing factor invariance across different samples, several problems precluded the use of this

technique in this study. Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (as well as simple

confirmatory factor analysis) requires model identification; i.e., the solution for each

parameter should be unique. The factor loading matrix of the BIS-11 items published in

Patton et al. (1995) showed that several BIS-11 items were factorially complex (i.e., they had

positive or negative loadings on more than one factor). This would be expected since the BIS

subfactors have low order correlations with each other. If a confirmatory factor analysis

model takes into account item factorial complexity, allowing selected items to load on more

than one factor, it results in a lack of identification of the model itself (Bollen, 1989). In

contrast, if a confirmatory factor analysis model does not reflect factorial complexity, it

would not adequately fit the data. Thus, in the current research a correctly specified (i.e.,

identified) confirmatory factor analysis model would not adequately fit the data.

Further, multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (as well as simple confirmatory

factor analysis) goodness-of-fit statistics requires that observed variables follow a

multivariate normal distribution and the computation of variance-covariance matrix (Bollen,

1989). Since BIS-11 items are measured on a four-point ordinal scale, the computation of an

item variance-covariance matrix is meaningless and the assumption of item normal

distribution could hardly be met.

The intercorrelation matrix of the first-order factors was factor analyzed to obtain

higher order factors. The associations between the BIS-11 total score and BDHI and WURS

scores was assessed using Pearson’s product moment correlation. The polyserial correlation

coefficient, an extension of the biserial correlation coefficient to the case of polythomous

8
ordinal variables (Bollen, 1989), was used to assess the associations between the BIS-11 total

score and the frequency of alcohol intake, binge-eating episodes, and cigarette smoking,

respectively. The significance of differences in BIS-11 total score between subjects in the

high and low categories of alcohol intake, binge-eating episodes, and cigarette smoking were

tested using t-tests. All statistical tests were considered significant if p. < .05.

Results.

Italian vs. U.S. samples.

The Italian sample did not differ in male/female ratio from the college undergraduate

sample (n=412) used in the original BIS-11 factor structure study (Patton et al. 1995) (Yates-

corrected chi-square=1.71 df 1 p. > .15). As shown in Table 1, no significant difference in

BIS-11 total score was observed between Italian and U.S. samples.

Also, no significant differences in mean BIS-11 total score were observed between male and

female subjects. In this study, the BIS-11 total score was not affected by subjects’ age

(Pearson’s r=-.011 p. > .75) and geographic areas (i.e., Northern Italy , Central Italy, Southern

Italy, or Islands) of provenience (F=1.92 df 3, 752 p. > .10). However, a significant negative

correlation was observed between BIS-11 and MMPI scale K total score: Pearson’s r=-.323 p.

<.001.

Item Analyses.

Item analyses (see Table 2) of the Italian translation of the BIS-11 showed that all

item-total correlations were significant (average r=.307; min.=.074, item 23; max.=.544, item

2; all p. <.05). Likewise, all t-tests computed between item scores in the top and bottom

quartiles for the total score were significant (min. t=4.45, item 23; max. t=17.77, item 2; all p.

<.001). However, as shown in Table 2, three items (15,23,29) were problematic showing low

item-total correlations and no decrease of Cronbach’s alpha at item deletion.

9
 The BIS-11 internal consistency for the Italian translation was satisfactory

(Cronbach’s alpha=.79). The 2-month retest reliability of BIS-11 total score was also

acceptable (r=.889 p. <.001).

Factor Analyses.

According to parallel analyses, six first-order factors were retained for PROMAX

rotation. As shown in Figure 1, the curve of the average eigenvalues obtained from random

data crossed the curve of the corresponding eigenvalues obtained from real data just before

the seventh eigenvalue. Thus, the first six eigenvalues of the BIS-11 item correlation matrix

were not randomly obtained.

The factor loading matrix is shown in Table 3. According to Patton et al. (1995)

original definitions of BIS-11 first-order factors, the first factor could be labeled as «motor

impulsiveness» (i.e., «acting on the spur of the moment»), the second as «cognitive

complexity» (i.e., «enjoy challenging mental tasks»), the third as «self-control» (i.e.,

«planning and thinking carefully»), the fifth as «attention» (i.e., «focusing on the task at

hand»), and the sixth as «perseverance» (i.e., «a consistent life style»). Factor 4 was mainly

composed by items originally loading on the motor impulsiveness factor, and seemed to

indicate an impulsivity dimension related to the lack of delay in obtaining immediate

gratification with an urge to buy things. The «cognitive instability» dimension was not

reproduced in the present study, with the «cognitive» items loading on all factors. When

more formal comparisons between the English and Italian factor structures were performed, a

moderate-to-good correspondence was observed between factor 5 loading and the structured

of the original «attention» factor (CC=.71, RMS=.22). A moderate correspondence was

observed between the original «motor impulsiveness» factor and, respectively, Factor 1

(CC=.65, RMS=.26) and Factor 4 (CC=.68, RMS=.23). This result could be expected since

several factor 4 items originally loaded on the «motor impulsiveness» principal component.

10
The «self-control» factor was weakly, but acceptably replicated by factor 3 (CC=.53,

RMS=.27). Acceptable, but weak, reproducibility was observed also for the original

«cognitive complexity» (factor 2: CC=.52, RMS=.26) and «perseverance» (factor 6: CC=.53,

RMS=.23) original factors.

The internal consistency and 2-month retest reliability coefficients for the Italian

version BIS-11 factor-derived scales were as follows: 1. factor 1: alpha=.72, r=.82 p. <.001; 2.

factor 2: alpha=.74, r=.79 p. <.001; factor 3: alpha=.64, r=.82 p. <.001; factor 4: alpha=.53,

r=.77 p. <.001; factor 5: alpha=.60, r=.73 p. <.001; factor 6: alpha=.43, r=.62 p. <.001. With

the exception of the correlation between factor 2 and factor 4 (r=.07 p. >.05), all of the other

derived first order factor intercorrelations were significant (p. <.05).

The second-order factor loading matrix is shown in Table 4. In agreement with

previous findings (Patton et al. 1995), three second-order factors were identified. Each

second-order factor in the Italian version combined two first-order factors as in the English

version. However, compared to the English version, the first second-order factor extracted in

this study combined attention and motor impulsiveness. Factor II was defined by

perseverance and lack of delay in obtaining gratification (first-order factor 4). Factor III

(Nonplanning Impulsiveness) was the only second-order factor in the Italian version which

fully reproduced an English factor combining cognitive complexity and self-control.

The internal consitency and 2-month retest reliability coefficients of the BIS-11 scales

derived from second-order factors were as follows: 1. factor I: alpha=.75, r=.82 p. <.001; 2.

factor II: alpha=.62, r=.82 p. <.001; 3. factor III: alpha=.67, r=.88 p. <.001.

The intercorrelations among second-order factors were all in the moderate-to-large

range (average r=.41, min.=.28 - max.=.68) and highly significant (all p. <.001).

11
 A comparison of item location on first- and second-order factors for the Italian and

U.S. version of the BIS-11 is presented in Table 5. Item loadings are for the first-order

factors.

External Validity.

The factor structure of BDHI was largely replicated in this study(Table 6). Two factors

were identified, a motor component (factor 1) and an emotional component of hostility (factor

2). Since the BDHI Negativism subscale showed a moderately high loading (.39) on factor 1,

its item were included in the BDHI scale derived from this factor. Following Buss (Buss &

Perry, 1992), these factors were labelled Aggressiveness (factor 1) and Hostility (factor 2).

In this study, both BDHI Aggressiveness (alpha=.83) and Hostility (alpha=.73) scales

showed adequate internal consistency reliability. Although Aggressiveness and Hostility

scales were derived from theoretically orthogonal domains, their total scores were correlated:

r=.48 p. <.001.

BIS-11 total score showed significant, positive correlations with both Aggressiveness

(r=.360 p. <.001) and Hostility (r=.220 p. <.001) total scores. However, when the correlation

between BIS-11 and Hostility was controlled for the effect of Aggressiveness, the partial

correlation became nonsignificant(partial r=.054 p. >.10). In contrast, the correlation between

BIS-11 and Aggressiveness remained significant after partialling out the effect of

Hostility(partial r=.298 p. <.001). As expected, the BIS-11 total score had a significant,

positive, moderate correlation with WURS(alpha=.88) total score: r=.357 p. <.001.

The BIS-11 showed weak, but significant correlations with frequency of cigarette

smoking (polyserial r=.238 p. <.05), alcohol intake (polyserial r=.185 p. <.05), getting drunk

to cope with emotional problems (polyserial r=.216 p. <.05), and binge-eating episodes

(polyserial r=.204 p. <.05). When these variables were dichotomized in a «high frequency»

12
class and in a «low frequency» class, the discriminatory power of the BIS-11 became even

more evident.

One hundred and nine subjects (14.3%) reported a high frequency («often» or

«always») of alcohol intake. These subjects had a BIS-11 total score (mean=67.32,

SD=11.42) significantly higher than subjects who reported a low frequency of alcohol intake

(mean=63.58, SD=9.73): t=3.62 df 761 p. <.001. Thirty-nine subjects (5.1%) reported getting

drunk with high frequency to cope with their emotional problems; the BIS-11 total score

observed in this group (mean=68.85, SD=12.36) was significantly higher than the BIS-11

total score observed in the «low frequency» group (mean=63.86, SD=9.87): t=3.03 df 761 p.

<.005).

One hundred and fifty-three subjects (20.1%) reported a high frequency of binge-

eating episodes to cope with emotional tension; these subjects showed a BIS-11 total score

(mean=67.72, SD=9.99) significantly higher than subjects in the low frequency group

(mean=63.21, SD=9.89): t=5.03 df 761 p. <.001.

Finally, 32 subjects (4.2%) reported a high frequency of cigarette smoking; the BIS-11

total score observed in this group (mean=70.28, SD=12.45) was significantly higher than the

BIS-11 total score observed in the «low frequency» group (mean=63.84, SD=9.87): t=3.57 df

761 p. <.001.

Discussion.

The BIS-11 proved to be an internally consistent psychometric instrument in the

Italian translation. The internal consistency reliability observed in this study was not

significantly lower than the one reported (.82) by Barratt (Patton et al. 1995). However, some

items showed low item-total correlations and should probably be reworded in the Italian

version of the BIS-11. The differences in the cultural meaning of words between the U.S. and

Italy have resulted in these items showing low item-total correlations.

13
 The previously reported structure of the BIS-11 (Patton et al. 1995), composed by six

oblique first-order factors, and three intercorrelated second-order factors was replicated in this

study. With the exception of the fourth and sixth first-order factors, all other first- and second-

order factors showed adequate internal consistency coefficients.

Five first-order factors and one second-order factor were adequately replicated,

although there were some differences in the pattern and magnitude of selected BIS-11 item

factor loadings on comparably labeled factors. Interestingly, the first first-order factor (motor

impulsiveness) and the third second-order factor (nonplanning impulsiveness) were similar to

the Eysencks’ (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1977) impulsiveness subtraits of impulsiveness narrow

and nonplanning, respectively.

As noted above, the differences observed between the factor analyses of the Italian and

English versions can in part be attributed in words to cultural differences rather than to

sampling differences or low reliability of the subfactors. As noted, the two samples were

similar for academic level and male/female ratio. With the exception of the sixth first-order

factor, none of the first-and second-order factors obtained for the BIS-11 Italian version

showed internal consistency coefficients low enough to suggest severe limitations in factor

reproducibility.

It is also possible that the translation into Italian could have modified the response

profile of several items. For instance, the BIS-11 item «I am a steady thinker» seems to stress

the «steadiness» component (i.e., a component closely related to focusing attention on the task

at hand) in English. When translated into Italian, the same item stresses the «thinking»

component. As shown in Table 4, this item clusters with attentional items in the U.S. version

of the BIS-11 and with «thinking» items in the Italian version. The same considerations hold

also for item 2 («I do things without thinking») and item 14 («I say things without thinking»).

These items actually involve both behavior («I do things» or «I say things») and cognition

14
(«without thinking»), which culturally may represent differences in the way subjects

interpreted the items. Different from English the Italian version emphasizes more the motor

than the cognitive component of the item. In fact, this emphasis on the behavioral component

of the item is likely to have influenced the clustering of these items with the other items of

motor impulsiveness in the Italian version.

The design of the present study does not provide a basis for testing why differences in

item characteristics were present in the English and Italian versions of the BIS. The variability

in results from the English and Italian versions may be due to language differences, cultural

differences, or both. One way to address this problem would be to administer the Italian

version to Italian speaking subjects in the United States and compare the data with a sample

of subjects in Italy. However, that was beyond the scope of this study but can be addressed in

the future.

In agreement with the English version, the first- and second-order factors in this study

were intercorrelated significantly with the total score, which along with the item-total

analyses suggests that the total item pool measures one construct, the construct of

impulsiveness. The lack of significant differences in the BIS-11 total score between the Italian

sample and the original English sample indicates that BIS-11 item pool as a measure of

impulsiveness is consistent between the two cultures.

In agreement with previously reported data (Patton et al. 1995), no significant sex

differences were observed in this study. Moreover, the BIS-11 total score was independent of

age.

The negative correlation observed between MMPI scale K and BIS-11 total scores can

be related to several underlying causes. On the one hand, it is likely that social desirability

plays a suppressor role on the BIS-11 total score. Self-control is a basic social phenomenon.

Further, several items included in the scale K measure attitudes related to self-control (eg.,

15
never getting angry or always reading the newspaper). Probably both possible causes are

responsible for the significant negative correlation. Impulsiveness, as measured by the BIS-

11, is not a socially desirable personality trait which would explain in part the negative

relationship with scale K.

The BIS-11 total score as well as the factorially derived subscale scores had good

retest reliability, even higher than the internal consistency reliability. The large retest

reliability coefficient indicates that, independently from the subjects’ specific patterns of

impulsiveness, the intensity of impulsiveness (i.e., the BIS-11 total score) is stable over a 2-

month period.

As expected in terms of construct validity, the BIS-11 correlated significantly with

two measures of impulsiveness-related personality traits, ADHD and aggression. Considering

the latter, it was noteworthy that the correlation between the BIS-11 and the Aggressiveness

subscale of the BDHI (i.e., the motor component of hostility) remained significant when the

emotional component of hostility (i.e., the BDHI Hostility scale) was partialled out. In

contrast, the correlation between the BIS-11 and the Hostility scale became nonsignificant

after controlling for the Aggression scale. This data seemed to support Barratt’s hypothesis

(Barratt, 1993) that impulsiveness is a first-order personality trait related to other «action-

oriented» personality traits and is independent from the «feeling» personality constructs.

The fact that the BIS-11 total score significantly discriminated between «high

frequency» and «low frequency» subjects in terms of alcohol intake, getting drunk to cope

with emotional problems, binge-eating episodes to relieve from emotional tension, and

cigarette smoking was not only evidence of criterion-related validity but also indicated the

potential clinical usefulness of the BIS. These results suggest that the BIS-11 total score could

be used to screen for subjects with maladaptive styles of everyday life coping or for being at

risk for substance abuse in nonclinical samples.

16
 In summary, the BIS-11 total score proved to be a reliable psychometric instrument for

measuring impulsiveness. The factor structure for the Italian version varied somewhat from

the English version but the general item pool was shown to be composed of impulsivity items.

It was proposed that where there were discrepancies, they were primarily related to cultural

differences and bises. The data on concurrent validity supported the potential clinical

usefulness of the BIS-11 for measuring impulsiveness in nonclinical samples.

17
Aknowledgments.

The Authors want to thank D. Donati, M.D., Ph.D., M. Donini, Ph.D., and G. Taglialatela,

Ph.D. for their assistence in translating the BIS-11.

18
References.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental

disorders (4th ed.) Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Apter, A., Van Praag, H.M., Plutchik, R., Seavy, S., Korn, M., & Brown, S.L. (1990).

Interrelationships among anxiety, aggression, impulsivity, and mood: A serotonergically

linked cluster? Psychiatry Research, 32, 191-199.

Barratt, E.S. (1959). Anxiety and impulsiveness related to psychomotor efficiency.

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 9, 191-198.

Barratt, E.S. (1972). Anxiety and impulsiveness: Toward a neuropsychological model.

In C. Spielberg (Ed.), Anxiety: Current Trends in Theory and Research New York, NY:

Academic Press.

Barratt, E.S. (1991). Measuring and predicting aggression within the context of a

personality theory. Journal of Neuropsyhciatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 3, S35-S39.

Barratt, E.S. (1993). Impulsivity: Integrating, cognitive, behavioral, biological, and

environmental data. In W. McCowan and M. Shure (Eds.), The Impulsive Client: Theory,

Research, and Treatment (pp. 39-56). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Barratt, E.S. (1994). Impulsiveness and aggression. In J. Monahan and H.J. Steadman

(Eds.), Violence and Mental Disorder Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press.

Barratt, E.S., & Patton, J.H. (1983). Impulsivity: Cognitive, behavioral and

psychophysiological correlates. In M. Zuckerman (Ed.), Biological Bases of Sensation

Seeking, Impulsivity and Anxiety Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

19
 Barratt, E.S., & Stanford, M.S. (1995). Impulsiveness. In C.G. Costello (Ed.)

Personality characteristics of the personality disordered (pp. 91-119). New York, NY: John

Wiley & Sons.

Barratt, E.S., Stanford, M.S., Kent, M.A., & Felthous, A. (1997). Neuropsychological

and cognitive psychophysiological substrates of impulsive aggression. Biological Psychiatry,

41, 1045-1061.

Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York, NY: John

Wiley & Sons.

Bushman, B.J., Cooper, H.M., & Lemke, K.M. (1991). Meta-analysis of factor

analysis: An illustration using the Buss-Durkee hostility inventory. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 17, 344-349.

Buss, A.H., & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of

hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 343-349.

Buss, A.H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 63, 452-459.

Cloninger, C.R. (1987). A systematic method for clinical description and classification

of personality variants. Archives of General Psychiatry, 44, 573-588.

Costa, P.T., Jr., & McRae, R.R. (1985). The NEO personality inventory manual.

Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Dickman, S.J. (1993). Impulsivity and information processing. In W. McCowan and

M. Shure (Eds.), The Impulsive Client: Theory, Research, and Treatment (pp. 151-184).

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Eysenck, S.B.G., & Eysenck, H.J. (1977). The place of impulsiveness in a dimensional

system of personality. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 16, 57-68.

20
 Horn, J.L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis.

Psychometrika, 30, 179-185.

L’Abate, L. (1993). A family theory of impulsivity. In W. McCowan and M. Shure

(Eds.), The Impulsive Client: Theory, Research, and Treatment (pp. 93-118). Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association.

Levene, M.S. (1990). Canonical analysis and factor comparison. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage Publications.

Linnoila, M., Virkkunen, M., Scheinin, M., Nuutila, A., Rimon, R., & Goodwin, F.K.

(1983). Low cerebrospinal fluid 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid concentration differentiates

impulsive from nonimpulsive violent behavior. Life Sciences, 33, 2609-2614.

Monahan, J. (1997). Forward. In C.D. Webster and M. Jackson (Eds.), Impulsivity:

Theory, Assessment and Treatment. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory. (3rd ed.). New York,

NY: McGraw-Hill.

O’Boyle, M., & Barratt, E.S. (1993). Impulsivity and DSM-III personality disorders.

Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 609-611.

Patton, J.H., Stanford, M.S., & Barratt, E.S. (1995). Factor structure of the Barratt

Impulsiveness Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 768-774.

Stanford, M.S., & Barratt, E.S. (1992). Impulsivity and the multi-impulsive

personality disorder. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 831-834.

Wallace, J.F., & Newman, J.P. (1990). Differential effects of reward and punishment

cues on response speed in anxious and impulsive individuals. Personality and Individual

Differences, 11, 999-1009.

21
 Ward, M.F., Wender, P.H., & Reimherr, F.W. (1993). The Wender Utah Rating Scale:

An aid in the retrospective diagnosis of childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

American Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 885-890.

Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation-seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal.

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

22
Table 1 – Italian vs. U.S. Samples: BIS-11 Total Score

Italian Sample U.S. Sample t (p.)

Mean±SD (N) Mean±SD (N)
Total 64.11±10.07 (763) 63.82±10.17 (409) 0.47 df 1170 (NS)
Male Subjects 63.64±10.08 (273) 64.94±10.19 (130) -1.21 df 401 (NS)
Female Subjects 64.37±10.05 (490) 63.32±10.17 (279) 1.39 df 767 (NS)

23
Table 2 – BIS-11 Item Analysis

BIS-11 Items Item-total r Alpha if item

corrected for deleted
overlap
1. I plan tasks carefully .419 .77
2. I do things without thinking .544 .77
3. I make-up my mind quickly .214 .78
4. I am happy-go-lucky .289 .78
5. I don’t «pay attention» .374 .78
6. I have «racing» thoughts .188 .78
7. I plan trips well ahead of time .264 .78
8. I am self-controlled .327 .78
9. I concentrate easily .340 .78
10. I save regularly .304 .78
11. I «squirm» at plays or lectures .298 .78
12. I am a careful thinker .327 .78
13. I plan for job security .394 .78
14. I say things without thinking .415 .78
15. I like to think about complex problems .164 .79
16. I change jobs .226 .78
17. I act «on impulse» .521 .77
18. I get easily bored when solving thought problems .289 .78
19. I act on the spur of the moment .455 .77
20. I am a steady thinker .192 .78
21. I change residences .207 .78
22. I buy things on impulse .383 .78
23. I can only think about one problem at a time .074 .79
24. I change hobbies .208 .78
25. I spend or charge more than I earn .322 .78
26. I often have extraneous thoughts when thinking .229 .78
27. I am more interested in the present than the future .185 .78
28. I am restless at the theatre or lectures .349 .78
29. I like puzzles .128 .79
30. I am future oriented .352 .78
Bold highlights problematic items (i.e., items with item-total r<.20 and causing no decrease of
alpha value at their deletion).

24
 Figure 1 - First-order Pricipal Components A nalysis: Parallel Analysis

4.5

3.5

3
Real Data
2.5
Monte C arlo Data
2

1.5

0.5

0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
Eigenvalues

25
Table 3 -Principal Components Analysis of BIS items: Factor Loadings

Factor Loadings
BIS-11 Items F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 h2
11. I «squirm» at plays or lectures -.13 -.05 -.02 .23 .85 -.01 .64
28. I am restless at the theatre or -.07 -.03 -.05 .21 .80 .09 .61
lectures
5. I don’t «pay attention» .27 .09 .09 -.18 .35 .13 .40
9. I concentrate easily .22 .19 .24 -.09 .25 -.19 .36
20. I am a steady thinker .03 .81 .00 .05 -.09 -.01 .67
17. I act «on impulse» .78 .01 -.04 .22 -.11 .02 .62
19. I act on the spur of the moment .76 .02 -.07 .10 -.15 .12 .56
22. I buy things on impulse .23 .06 -.17 .63 .32 -.03 .46
3. I make-up my mind quickly .28 .02 -.10 .41 -.19 .20 .34
2. I do things without thinking .60 .06 .20 .10 -.04 .05 .50
25. I spend or charge more than I .06 -.03 .00 .58 .30 .04 .58
earn
4. I am happy-go-lucky .29 .02 .20 -.07 -.12 .31 .26
12. I am a careful thinker .15 .75 .01 .06 .00 -.02 .62
1. I plan tasks carefully .25 .09 .56 .03 -.09 -.06 .46
8. I am self-controlled .63 -.06 .10 -.11 .09 -.38 .55
7. I plan trips well ahead of time .07 .05 .40 .28 -.08 -.12 .30
13. I plan for job security .08 -.11 .76 -.05 -.03 .06 .59
14. I say things without thinking .59 .15 -.11 -.01 .16 -.06 .45
15. I like to think about complex -.03 .72 -.01 -.04 .02 .05 .48
problems
29. I like puzzles .13 .10 -.02 .24 -.14 .10 .12
10. I save regularly .01 .04 .22 .61 .14 -.21 .48
27. I am more interested in the -.35 .07 .50 .19 .01 .40 .47
present than the future
18. I get easily bored when solving .18 .36 -.14 -.07 .17 .37 .38
thought problems
21. I change residences .17 -.08 .14 -.01 .00 .44 .25
16. I change jobs .25 -.09 .00 -.02 -.06 .45 .31
30. I am future oriented -.10 .02 .79 -.02 .00 .08 .60
23. I can only think about one -.23 .22 .08 -.16 .15 .43 .27
problem at a time
26. I often have extraneous thoughts .13 -.27 .11 -.15 .24 .45 .42
when thinking
6. I have «racing» thoughts .33 -.46 .05 .05 .12 .09 .36
24. I change hobbies .01 -.05 .05 .32 .23 .04 .16
h2 = Communalities – Bold highlights the item largest positive loadings.

26
Table 4 - Second-order Factor Structure of BIS-11

Factor Loadings
Factor I Factor II Factor III h2
Factor 1 .52 .15 .03 .68
Factor 2 -.08 -.07 .67 .60
Factor 3 .15 .14 .54 .60
Factor 4 -.09 .70 .11 .73
Factor 5 .52 -.21 -.03 .71
Factor 6 .29 .51 -.32 .58
2
h = Communalities – Highest loadings of each factor are in bold print

27
Table 5 – Italian vs. U.S. Version of the BIS-11: Comparison of Item Location on Second-
order Factors

BIS-11 Items Italian Version U.S. Version

F1 F2 F3 F1 F2 F3
11. I «squirm» at plays or lectures .85 (5) .84 (1)
28. I am restless at the theatre or .80 (5) .84 (1)
lectures
5. I don’t «pay attention» .35 (5) .57 (1)
9. I concentrate easily .25 (5) .55 (1)
20. I am a steady thinker .81 (2) .45 (1)
17. I act «on impulse» .78 (1) .74 (2)
19. I act on the spur of the moment .76 (1) .72 (2)
22. I buy things on impulse .63 (4) .59 (2)
3. I make-up my mind quickly .41 (4) .48 (2)
2. I do things without thinking .60 (1) .42 (2)
25. I spend or charge more than I earn .58 (4) .37 (2)
4. I am happy-go-lucky .31 (6) .32 (2)
12. I am a careful thinker .75 (2) .64 (3)
1. I plan tasks carefully .56 (3) .64 (3)
8. I am self-controlled .63 (1) .63 (3)
7. I plan trips well ahead of time .40 (3) .57 (3)
13. I plan for job security .76 (3) .49 (3)
14. I say things without thinking .59 (1) .45 (3)
15. I like to think about complex .72 (2)
problems
29. I like puzzles .24 (4) .68 (4)
10. I save regularly .61 (4) .46 (4)
27. I am more interested in the present .50 (3) .36 (4)
than the future
18. I get easily bored when solving .37 (6) .34 (4)
thought problems
21. I change residences .44 (6) .69 (5)
16. I change jobs .45 (6) .54 (5)
30. I am future oriented .79 (3) .53 (5)
23. I can only think about one problem .43 (6) .38 (5)
at a time
26. I often have extraneous thoughts .45 (6) .77 (6)
when thinking
6. I have «racing» thoughts .33 (1) .58 (6)
24. I change hobbies .32 (4) .35 (6)
The item locations on first-order factors are listed between brackets

28
Table 6 - BDHI Factor Structure (VARIMAX rotation)

Factor Loadings
BDHI Scales Factor 1 Factor 2 h2
Assault .57 .26 .39
Indirect Hostility .56 .26 .38
Irritability .56 .46 .52
Negativism .39 .27 .23
Resentment .21 .73 .57
Suspicion .20 .66 .47
Verbal Hostility .72 .07 .53
2
h = Communalities – Highest loadings on each factor are in bold print

29