Psychometric evaluation shows reliable sensitivity to reward but not punishment, linking to alcohol involvement.
The Point-Scoring Reaction-Time Task (PSRTT) is designed to measure sensitivity to reward and punishment; the task has empirically demonstrated associations with substance use and related variables. However, like most performance-based paradigms, applications of the PSRTT have not usually applied falsifiable tests of reliability of measurement in the samples used to make inferences. Participants were (n = 150) 18- to 20-year-olds, recruited via social media advertisements and required to report drinking on average on 2+ occasions per month. We apply psychometric tests of reliability of measurement (e.g., confirmatory factor analysis) to the PSRTT and evaluate links with alcohol consumption (past 6-month average frequency, quantity, and maximum drinking) and problem alcohol use via the Brief Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire. The task yields an internally consistent sensitivity to reward factor. However, there was no evidence for reliable measurement of sensitivity to punishment. Sensitivity to reward was associated with frequency of drinking (β = .24, p < .01) and quantity of drinking (β = .21, p < .05), but not maximum number of drinks consumed (β = .09, p > .05). Sensitivity to reward was significantly associated with alcohol-related problems (β = .21, p < .05). Integrating modern measurement theories with performance-based methodologies has the potential to improve the precision of science by providing falsifiable estimates of the quality of measurement. The PSRTT provides reliable scores to index individual differences in reward sensitivity but may not be a reliable measure of punishment sensitivity. Sensitivity to reward may be involved in the etiology of alcohol use and problem use during young adulthood. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lopez-Vergara et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: