The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Impaired Decision-Making, Higher Impulsivity, and Drug Severity in Substance Dependence and Pathological Gambling
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: Substance use disorder is characterized by impaired decision making, impulsivity, and risk taking. Pathological gambling shares many of these characteristics, and having both diagnoses may be associated with greater problems than either diagnosis alone. We investigated whether among substance-dependent individuals, comorbid pathological gambling would be associated with worse decision making, greater impulsivity, risk taking, and drug severity. METHODS: Ninety-six substance-dependent individuals were recruited from a residential treatment program and divided into 1 of the 2 groups depending on whether they met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, criteria for pathological gambling (SDPG, n = 26) or not (SD, n = 70). Ninety-two controls were recruited from the community. Participants completed a decision-making task (modified Iowa Gambling Task), measures of impulsivity (Barratt Impulsivity Scale and Delay Discounting), and risk taking (Balloon Analog Risk Task). Decision making was analyzed using a computational model. We tested for group differences using analysis of covariance or Kruskal-Wallis and appropriate post-hoc tests. RESULTS: The groups differed in decision-making parameters (P < 0.001) and self-reported impulsivity (P < 0.001). All post-hoc comparisons were significant on these measures, and indicated stepwise changes in controls, followed by SD, followed by SDPG, with SDPG performing worse on decision making and being more impulsive. Compared with SD, SDPG had greater drug severity (P < 0.001). No group differences were observed in delay discounting or risk taking. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with individuals with substance dependence without pathological gambling, those with both disorders demonstrated worse decision making and significantly more drug-related symptoms. When evaluating patients with substance dependence, clinicians should consider diagnostic assessments for gambling, as the co-occurrence of both disorders may impact clinical characteristics.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Similarly, individuals with nicotine or alcohol related substance use disorders are also more likely to meet the diagnostic criteria for GD compared to the general population (Krmpotich et al., 2015; Petry et al., 2005; Rennert et al., 2014).”
From Cued for Risk: Evidence for an Incentive Sensitization Framework to Explain the Interplay between Stress and Anxiety, Substance Abuse, and Reward Uncertainty in Disordered Gambling Behavior (2019) · cites this paper as Krmpotich et al., 2015
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety
Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., Houts, R., Poulton, R., Roberts, B. W., Ross, S., et al. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1010076108 · Cited by 4,885
(1987) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/ajp.144.9.1184 · Cited by 2,948
Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: The balloon analogue risk task (BART)
Lejuez, C. W., Read, J. P., Kahler, C. W., Richards, J. B., Ramsey, S. E., Stuart, G. L., Strong, D. R., & Brown, R. A. (2002) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied · doi:10.1037/1076-898x.8.2.75 · Cited by 2,336
Fifty years of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale: an update and review
Stanford, M. S., Mathias, C. W., Dougherty, D. M., Lake, S. L., Anderson, N. E., & Patton, J. H. (2009) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.04.008 · Cited by 1,609
AREA UNDER THE CURVE AS A MEASURE OF DISCOUNTING
Myerson, J., Green, L., & Warusawitharana, M. (2001) · Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior · doi:10.1901/jeab.2001.76-235 · Cited by 1,545
Anthony, J. C., Warner, L. A., & Kessler, R. C. (1994) · Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1037/1064-1297.2.3.244 · Cited by 1,341
Petry, N. M., Stinson, F. S., & Grant, B. F. (2005) · The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry · doi:10.4088/jcp.v66n0504 · Cited by 1,245
Rogers, R. (1999) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1016/s0893-133x(98)00091-8 · Cited by 1,101
Chi-squared and Fisher-Irwin tests of two-by-two tables with small sample recommendations
Campbell, I. (2007) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.2832 · Cited by 912
A review of delay-discounting research with humans: relations to drug use and gambling
Reynolds, B. (2006) · Behavioural Pharmacology · doi:10.1097/fbp.0b013e3280115f99 · Cited by 711
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Crone, E. A., van Duijvenvoorde, A. C. K., & Peper, J. S. (2016) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/jcpp.12502 · Cited by 174
Zeeb, F. D., Li, Z., Fisher, D. C., Zack, M. H., & Fletcher, P. J. (2017) · Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience · doi:10.1503/jpn.170003 · Cited by 85
Hellberg, S. N., Russell, T. I., & Robinson, M. J. F. (2019) · Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/s13415-018-00662-3 · Cited by 65
“Similarly, individuals with nicotine- or alcohol-related substance-use disorders are also more likely to meet the diagnostic criteria for GD compared to the general population (Krmpotich et al., 2015; Petry et al., 2005; Rennert et al., 2014).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Krmpotich, T., Mikulich-Gilbertson, S., Sakai, J., Thompson, L., Banich, M. T., & Tanabe, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Colorado Boulder (US)
- Corresponding author
- Tanabe, Jody
- Venue
- Journal of Addiction Medicine
- Published
- 2015-07
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 273-280
- ISSN
- 1932-0620 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4523448
- OpenAlex
- W2320363169
- Cited by
- 61
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 10
- FWCI
- 8.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Journal of Addiction Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Colorado Denver
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (R21DA024104, DA02774, DA024104, R01DA027748)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Keywords
- substance dependence, gambling addiction, decision-making, impulsivity, risk-taking, comorbidities, Iowa Gambling Task, delay discounting, Balloon Analogue Risk Task, computational modeling of decision making, Barratt Impulsiveness Scale
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Decision Making, Female, Gambling, Humans, Impulsive Behavior, Male, Risk-Taking, Comorbidity, Substance-Related Disorders
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
