Abstract

The UPPS-P measures impulsivity as a five-factor construct (lack of premeditation, lack of perseverance, positive urgency, negative urgency and sensation seeking). Drawing on a number of theoretical considerations and alternative conceptions of impulsivity, the current study used confirmatory factor analysis (N = 1635) and multiple regression to evaluate and test alternative models comprising three, five, and a hierarchical model containing latent factors. The five factor and hierarchical models were shown to be valid and of near identical fit, whereas the three-factor model fit the data poorly. The current findings suggest that both the five factor and hierarchical models are useful applications of the UPPS-P. Depending on the purpose of future research, both models demonstrate utility in both risk assessment and treatment development. Multiple regression analysis revealed that positive urgency predicted problem gambling, which supports the predictive utility of impulsivity as a five-factor construct. While the latent factors of the hierarchical model are consistent with emerging theory, those using the UPPS-P should not overlook the unique contributions of the five factors. As the current study found meaningful predictive distinctions between positive and negative urgency, utilizing all five factors may increase measurement sensitivity and predictive utility.

摘要

UPPS-P将冲动性作为五要素构成进行衡量（缺乏前瞻性，缺乏毅力，正向紧迫感，负向紧迫感和寻求感觉）。基于许多理论考虑和冲动的替代概念，当前的研究使用验证性因子分析（N = 1635）和多元回归来评估和测试包括三个，五个和一个包含潜在因子的分层模型的替代模型。五因素模型和层次模型被证明是有效的，并且具有几乎相同的拟合度，而三因素模型对数据的拟合性很差。当前的发现表明，五个因素模型和层次模型都是UPPS-P的有用应用程序。取决于未来研究的目的，这两种模型都证明了其在风险评估和治疗开发中的效用。多元回归分析显示，积极的紧迫感可以预测问题的赌博，这支持了冲动作为五因素构造的预测效用。尽管层次模型的潜在因素与新兴理论相一致，但是使用UPPS-P的潜在因素不应忽视这五个因素的独特贡献。由于当前的研究发现了正面和负面紧迫性之间有意义的预测区别，因此利用所有五个因素可能会增加测量灵敏度和预测效用。使用UPPS-P的用户不应忽视这五个因素的独特贡献。由于当前的研究发现了正面和负面紧迫性之间有意义的预测区别，因此利用所有五个因素可能会增加测量灵敏度和预测效用。使用UPPS-P的用户不应忽视这五个因素的独特贡献。由于当前的研究发现了正面和负面紧迫性之间有意义的预测区别，因此利用所有五个因素可能会增加测量灵敏度和预测效用。