I.
OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF THE CONSTRUCT
IMPULSIVITY - Impulsivity is a kind of behaviour in which a person makes decisions
immediately without giving much thought to the consequences that he/she might face. It is when
a person engages in such impulsive, spur of the moment activities and take actions without
premeditation.
II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Dickman and Meyer (1988) described a form of impulsivity characterized whereby actions
are frequently carried out with little planning and forethought and have a relatively high likelihood
of producing inaccurate, harmful outcomes (e.g. A teenager who’s already intoxicated and
engages herself in unplanned and risky sexual behaviour with an unknown partner). This theory is
somewhat related to Logue’s theory which states that poor self-control is sometimes suggested
when behaviour is strongly influenced by immediate environmental rewards. When these rewards
exert a strong influence, and when there is an absence of rules for behaviour, actions may appear
to be random, erratic, stimulus driven, and variable across situational contexts, resulting in variable
and ineffective responding (Barkley, 1997) This theory resembles the theory of Dickman and
Meyer which portrays the behaviour of a person that takes action with little forethought about the
consequences that might happen.
Another instance where impulsive behaviour can be seen is when an individual exhibits
experiential avoidance. Experiential avoidance has two components: an unwillingness to remain
in contact with private events such as emotions, thoughts, or physiological sensations, and the
taking of actions to alter the frequency, intensity, or duration of these events or the contents that
occasion them (Hayes, Wilson, Gifford, Follette, and Strosahl, 1996)
These theories can be applied in the construction of our test because it demonstrates the
concept of impulsivity and it can be related to our prospective examinees. Some of the theories
that we found are not applicable to our examinees because the said theories are intended to help in
diagnosing individuals with ADHD and ASPD, and we cannot be certain if our examinees have
these kinds of mental disorders.
III. LITERATURE REVIEW
Many scholars have already had constructed their own definitions of impulsivity. Among
them all, there are two researchers who defined impulsivity as “An increased risk-seeking, acting
without forethought, and decreased anticipation of the consequences of one’s behaviour.” (Taylor
2008, Summerfeldt 2004.)
According to Anestis, Selby and Joiner (2007), one of the most frequently risk factors for
engaging in maladjustive behaviours is impulsivity. And based from the study of Maser and
colleagues (2002) who compared three (3) groups of patients with affective disorders for 14 years,
impulsivity was common to both suicide attempters and completers.
Early stressors such as physical and emotional abuse, emotional neglect and parental abuse
have huge impact in adolescents. According to Romer (2010), they are more likely to get involved
in drug use, addiction, and suicide. In female youth, experience of sexual abuse might experience
their first intercourse at an earlier age, and unintended pregnancy. (Romer 2010)
More than 90% of all American high-school students have had sex, drug, and driver
education in their schools, and yet, majority of them still engaging in unsafe sex, binge drinking,
smoke cigarettes, and drive recklessly (Steinberg, 2004).
Steinberg (2004) stated that adolescents and college-age individuals take more risks than
children or adults do. He also stated that reckless driving, binge drinking, contraceptive use and
crime occur within the group. Meaning to say, risk taking are very prone to teenagers because they
spend so much time with their influential peers.
Similar with the latter statement, Daniel Romer (2010) also claimed that another important
characteristic of adolescent risk taking is the influence of peers. Sensation seekers also seek out
peers who have the same interests. It is the social environment that encourages them to become
risk takers.
Under the issue of risk-taking, making decisions without giving much thought to the
consequences they might face, majority of the adolescents tend to choose smaller, immediate
rewards rather than larger rewards but delayed ones (Steinberg 2004). However, adolescents may
tend to become more sensitive than adults when it comes to rewards but comparably sensitive (or
perhaps even less sensitive) to charges (Ernst, et.al 2005). Showing lack of patience, there was
also a research indicated that impatient adolescents are also more likely to experiment with drugs.
(Reynolds, 2006; Romer, Duckworth, Sznitman, & Park).
Therefore, if majority of the adolescents who have lack of patience and prefer smaller
rewards than larger ones, there’s also a tendency of the child to experiment to do such exciting
activities despite the risks associated with them. (Zuckerman, 1994)
Jumping to another instance of impulsivity, Baumeister, (2002) and Stern (1962) described
impulse buying as an emotional rather than rational. It is an exciting, an intense desire to buy
something regardless of the costs after the purchase decision. It usually happens when there’s new
well-established products at unexpected low price and the consumer has this powerful urge, not
reflecting much on the consequences of buying a certain product. (Beatty and Ferrell, 1998)
Despite of the fact that adolescents are being generalized as impulsive and lacking
cognitive control, there was an evidence that suggests more nuanced picture. With the example of
binge drinking, representatives of Seattle Social Development Project (Hill, White, Chung,
Hawkins, & Catalano, 2000) made an assessment which are the Binge Drinking Trajectories.
About 70% of the youth ages 13 to 18 reported no binge drinking. On the other hand, there was a
small group of youth (3%) who exhibited high rates of binge drinking at age 13 and who continued
until age 18. A third group of youth (4%) began to engage in binge drinking during adolescence
and a fourth much larger group (23%) began later at age 18. In short, Age trends suggest that
adolescents do not uniformly engage in high-risk behaviours.
Hence, these articles served as the researchers’ basis in constructing their own personality
scale which aims to measure the level of impulsivity of an individual.
IV. SCALING
In order to measure the Impulsiveness of a Student, the researchers constructed a set of
questionnaire by using the 4-point Likert Scale where the respondents can answer how frequently
they exhibit certain behaviours.
The verbal interpretations for this Likert Scale are displayed in the table below:
Table 4.1 4-Point Likert Scale
SCALE VERBAL INTERPRETATION
4 Always Exhibiting Behaviour
3 Often Exhibiting Behaviour
2 Seldom Exhibiting Behaviour
1 Never Exhibiting Behaviour
V. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
In the First Trial Run of the study, forty (40) students from the Bachelor of Science in Hotel
and Restaurant Management (BSHRM) were selected as the respondents. The respondents’
demographic profile according to age, sex, and year level are as follows:
Figure 5.1. Respondents’ Demographic Profile According to Sex
Respondents’ Demographic Profile According to Sex
Male
32%
Female
68%
It is shown in the graph (figure 5.1) that thirteen (13) or thirty two percent (32%) of the
respondents were male and twenty seven (27) or sixty eight percent (68%) were female.
Figure 5.2. Respondents’ Demographic Profile According to Age
Respondents' Demographic Profile According to Age
5% 2%
5% 10% 25%
15%
38%
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
It is shown in the graph (figure 5.2) that ten (10) or twenty five percent (25%) of the
respondents were aged eighteen (18); fifteen (15) or thirty eight percent (38%) were aged nineteen
(19); six (6) or fifteen percent (15%) were aged twenty (20); two (2) or five percent (5%) were
aged twenty one (21); four (4) or ten percent (10%) were aged twenty two (22); two (2) or five
percent (5%) were aged twenty three (23); and one (1) or two percent (2%) was aged twenty four
(24).
Figure 5.3. Respondents’ Demographic Profile According to Course and Year Level
Respondents' Demographic Profile According to Course and Year
Level
5%
22%
73%
2nd Year BSHRM 3rd Year BSHRM 4th Year BSHRM
It is shown in the graph (figure 5.3) that twenty nine (29) or seventy three percent (73%)
of the respondents were second year BSHRM students; nine (9) or twenty two percent (22%) were
third year BSHRM students; and two (2) or five percent (5%) were fourth year BSHRM students.
VI. TABLE OF SPECIFICATIONS OF PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Table 6.1. Table of Specifications
Construct f %
Impulsivity Scale 90 100%
It is shown in the table that ninety (90) questions have been generated by the researchers
and prepared for the face and content validity to be done by licensed psychometricians: Ms. Chin
Chin Diaz, Ms. Ma. Rustia Ramos, and Ms. Lois Faye Taguibao
VII. CONTENT VALIDATION RESULT
Table 7.1 Content Validation Results
Construct Accepted Items Rejected Items Revised Items
Impulsivity Scale 15 61 13
It is shown in the table that fifteen (15) items have been accepted; sixty one (61) items have
been rejected; and thirteen (13) items have been revised and accepted.
VIII. TABLE OF SPECIFICATION OF FIRST DRAFT
Table 8.1. Table of Specification of First Draft
Construct f %
Impulsivity Scale 28 100%
It is shown in the table (table 8.1) that twenty eight (28) items were used for the preliminary
run after the revision of selected items decided by the validators.
IX. ITEM ANALYSIS RESULTS
Table 9.1. Item Analysis Results
Construct Retained Items Rejected Items
Impulsivity Scale 14 14
To be able to verify which items should be retained or rejected, the researchers used SPSS
for statistical analysis and used the cut-off point of α=.40 as the basis. Fourteen (14) items were
retained and fourteen (14) were rejected.
X. RELIABILITY ANALYSIS OF FIRST DRAFT
Table 10.1. Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid 40 100.0
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 40 100.0
a. List-wise deletion based on all variables in the procedure
Table 10.2. Reliability Statistics
Construct Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items
Impulsivity Scale .873 14
It is shown in the table above (table 10.2) that fourteen (14) items in the first draft were
deemed reliable according to its Cronbach’s Alpha of α=.80 with a cut-off point of α=.70. An item
is considered reliable if it reaches the reliability score of α=.70 to α=.80 required for research
purposes.
Bayaborda-Manalo-Novero
Impulsivity Scale
Submitted as a partial fulfilment of requirement in
PSY 111 – Psychometrics 1
Submitted to:
Ms. Chin Chin H. Diaz, RPm
Submitted by:
Bayaborda, Rhea Claire B.
Manalo, Sean Daniel M.
Novero, Alyssa Mae D.
December 2017
References
Steinberg, L. (2007). Risk Taking in Adolescence. New Perspectives From Brain and
Behavioral Science
Romer, D. (2010). Adolescent Risk Taking, Impulsivity, and Brain Development: Implications
for Preventions.
Mahajan, U. (2011). Literature Review for Impulse Buying
