Table 5.
Test re-test reliability.
| Domain and task (N = 200) | Test score used | Intraclass correlation coefficient | 
|---|---|---|
| EMOTION | ||
| Facial recognition | Face: affective bias | 0.86 | 
| Eyes: affective bias | 0.74 | |
| Emotional Intensity | Increasing affective bias | 0.80 | 
| Decreasing affective bias | 0.73 | |
| Face affective go/no-go | Affective bias (RT) | 0.34 | 
| Word affective go/no-go | Affective bias (RT) | 0.44 | 
| Emotional memory | Retrieval affective bias | 0.41 | 
| Average retrieval accuracy | 0.64 | |
| REWARD/MOTIVATION | ||
| Reinforcement learning | Win learning rate | 0.15 | 
| Loss learning rate | −0.27 | |
| Monetary incentive reward | Win—neutral RT | 0.37 | 
| Loss—neutral RT | 0.31 | |
| Adapted Cambridge gambling | Win risk adjustment | 0.75 | 
| Loss risk adjustment | 0.75 | |
| IMPULSIVITY | ||
| 4CSRTTa | Motivational index | 0.54 | 
| Delay discounting | Delay discounting | 0.70 | 
| Probability discounting | 0.58 | |
| SOCIAL COGNITION | ||
| Moral emotions | Agent guilt ratings | 0.94 | 
| Feeling bad ratings | 0.87 | |
| Information preference | Proportion thoughts | 0.62 | 
| Affective bias in outcome | 0.66 | |
| Prisoners' dilemma | Average steal rate | 0.64 | 
| Ultimatum game | Risk adjustment | 0.58 | 
| Value of offers proposed | 0.71 | |
| Inference task | Effect of probability | 0.65 | 
| Effect of computer choice | 0.77 | |
Only 32 participants were included into the reliability analyses for the 4CSRTT.