Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Oct 27.
Published in final edited form as: J Psychiatr Res. 2018 Dec 1;109:202–213. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2018.11.029

Table 2.

Key concepts and measures.

Concept Measure Definition/Description References
Sensitivity to rewards
Steepness of SV Expresses relationship between objective payoff and subjective assessment this payoff. Flatter subjective value function reflects reduced subjective sensitivity to objective rewards, may imply reduced incentive motivation. Hsee et al. (2005); McClure et al. (2003).
Severity of Clinical Symptoms
Anhedonia and depression BDI-II Well-validated self-report measure of depression, including both anhedonia (3 items) and other aspects of depression (18 items). Confirmatory factor analysis of this scale has shown that a two-factor CFA model separating anhedonia from other items outperforms a one-factor model. Joiner et al. (2003); Leventhal et al. (2006); Kashdan et al. (2006).
aBDI Anhedonia Subscale of BDI-II, consisting of the 3 anhedonia-related items. It has been shown to correlate with individual hedonic capacity.
gBDI Non-anhedonic (general) subscale of BDI-II, consisting of the other 18 items that capture other symptoms of depression.
Disorder-specific symptom severity Y-BOCS Well-validated clinician-administered measure of OCD severity; includes obsession and compulsion subscales. Goodman et al. (1989)a, b
SIR Well-validated self-report measure of hoarding symptomatology. Can be used to access hoarding tendencies in general population; includes 3 validated subscales: Clutter, Difficulty Discarding, Excessive Acquisition Frost et al. (2004); Tolin et al. (2011)
CAPS Well-validated clinician-administered measure of PTSD symptomatology. CAPS assesses Cluster B re-experiencing symptoms, Cluster C avoidance symptoms, Cluster C emotional numbing symptoms, and Cluster D hyperarousal symptoms. Aker et al. (1999).
Risk Attitudes
Self-Reported DOSPERT Well-validated and broadly used by behavioral economics studies self-reported measure of risk attitudes in five domains: during ethical, financial, health/safety, social, and recreational decisions. The factor structure replicated in a wide range of settings and populations. Risk perception and risk taking measure different constructs; they are negatively correlated in the general population. Weber et al. (2002); Blais and Weber (2006); Wu and Cheung (2014); Figner and Weber (2011)
RiskT Self-reported Risk Taking, assessed by DOSPERT scale. Evaluates level of risk taking. E.g. evaluate “How likely you are to invest 10% of your income in a new business venture,” using a 7-point rating scale ranging from 1 (Extremely Unlikely) to 7 (Extremely Likely).
RiskP Self-reported Risk Perception, assessed using the DOSPERT scale. Evaluates willingness to engage in a risky activity as a function of its perceived riskiness. E.g. indicate “How risky you think it is to invest 10% of your income in a new business venture,” using a 7-point rating scale ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 7 (Extremely Risky).
Behavior based RiskB Choice based measure of risk averse behavior during a laboratory gambling task. This task includes choices under risk and ambiguity, between gains and between losses separately (Risk and Ambiguity task). The measure of risk aversion is derived using choices during risk trials under gains only. During these trials, participants make 80 choices between a sure payoff of $5 and a lottery that offers a nonzero chance of a positive payoff. Both probabilities (0.13, 0.25, 0.38, 0.5, 0.75) and payoff amounts ($8, $20, $50, $125) vary systematically; each trial repeated 4 times. Choices of each participant are compared to choices of a hypothetical risk-neutral decision maker, which in this task would choose risky lotteries over the sure payoff 72.5% of the time. RiskB=0.725−# of risky lotteries chosentotal # of risky lotteries; it is positive for a risk-averse participant, and negative for a risk-seeking participant. Levy et al. (2010); Tymula et al. (2013); Pushkarskaya et al. (2015); Pushkarskaya et al. (2017).
Task Difficulty
RT Response time during risky choices under gains of the Risk and Ambiguity task. Response time during each of these choices, excluding omissions, was log-transformed and averaged across trials. Response time has been demonstrated to increase with task difficulty in general population. Wright and Ayton (1988); Konovalov and Krajbich (2017)
Noise in Valuation γ Inverse temperature parameter, from the model used in the analysis of choice data Pv=11+eγ(SVF−SVV); where Pv is the probability that the participant chose a lottery, SVF and SVV are the SVs of the fixed sure payoff and a variable options (lottery), respectively, and γ is the slope of the logistic function, or equivalently a noise parameter. Along with steepness of a subjective value function, it has been shown to correlate with proportion of risky choices of a participant. Gilboa and Schmeidler (1989); Levy et al. (2010).