The Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) is one of the most common behavioral decision-making tasks used in clinical and research settings. Less-than-expected performance among healthy adults generates concerns about the validity of this task, and it is possible the particular scoring approach utilized could impact interpretation. We examined how performance patterns changed across several scoring approaches, utilizing a large, college student sample, both with (n = 406) and without (n = 1,547) a self-reported history of psychiatric or other diagnosis. Higher net scores were seen when participants selected decks with a low loss frequency than decks with high long-term outcomes; however, participants overall underperformed the IGT normative data sample. Receiver operating characteristic curves examining multiple scoring approaches revealed no threshold of impaired performance that both maximized sensitivity and minimized false positive rate on the IGT. Scoring approach matters in the determination of impaired decision making via the IGT in adults.

爱荷华州赌博任务 (IGT) 是临床和研究环境中最常见的行为决策任务之一。健康成年人的表现低于预期会引发对该任务有效性的担忧，并且使用的特定评分方法可能会影响解释。我们研究了几种评分方法的表现模式如何变化，利用一个大的大学生样本，有（n = 406）和没有（n= 1,547) 自我报告的精神病或其他诊断病史。当参与者选择损失频率低的牌组时，与长期结果高的牌组相比，净得分更高；然而，参与者整体表现不如 IGT 规范数据样本。检查多种评分方法的接受者操作特征曲线显示，在 IGT 上没有最大程度提高灵敏度和最小化假阳性率的性能受损阈值。评分方法在通过成人 IGT 确定受损决策时很重要。