Ed the Object Two-Back, an alternative and more difficult form of

Ed the Object Two-Back, an alternative and more difficult form of the Two-Back. For statistical analyses, a WorkingJ Gambl Stud. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 June 01.Betancourt et al.PageMemory composite score was created using the mean of the z-scores for each task which were computed using winsorized raw scores from all assessments. We did not compute composite scores for the Cognitive Control or Reward Processing tasks because the component tasks were not correlated. Impulsivity As described previously in Romer et al. (2009), two dimensions of impulsivity were measured: Acting without Thinking and Sensation Seeking. Acting without Thinking, which is characterized by quick cognitive decisions and lack of planning, was assessed using 13 yes/no Naramycin AMedChemExpress Naramycin A Questions from the Eysenck I7 Junior Impulsivity Subscale. Sensation Seeking, which is the desire for novel, complex, and intense experiences and willingness to take risks for the sake of such experiences, was measured on a 4-point scale with items ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly GGTI298 chemical information disagree” using the 4 questions of the Reduced Brief Sensation Seeking Scale. Parental Monitoring/Mentoring Parental monitoring and mentoring were assessed using a twenty-item questionnaire tapping behaviors such as: 1) “Do your parents or the adults who take care of you expect you to call them if you are going to be late?” (rated on a 4-point scale with items responses ranging from “all of the time” to “never”); and 2) “How often do you talk with your parents or the adults who take care of you about the use of drugs?” (rated on a 3-point scale, “never”, “sometimes”, or “often”) (Griffiths 2003). Items were coded so that higher scores indicate more parental monitoring/mentoring. Peer Influences Questions derived from the Annenberg National Survey of Youth (Griffiths 2003) inquired about peer involvement in and approval of risk behaviors, such as: 1) “Of your friends and people your age that you spend time with, how many gamble for money such as playing the lottery, or betting on sports, or a card game?”, with a 5-point response ranging from “none” to “all”; and 2) “How do your friends feel about gambling for money such as playing the lottery or betting on sports or a card game?”, with a 4-point response ranging from “mostly disapprove” to “mostly approve”. For each annual assessment, ratings for the peer involvement and approval questions were summed, and the mean of these sums over the 3 assessments was used as a covariate in the main analysis. These peer influence scores were categorized as Low (bottom 25 ), Moderate (middle 50 ), or High (top 75 ). CopingNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptEight questions adapted from Compas et al. assessed participant coping strategies (Compas et al. 2001). Frequency of five active coping strategies (e.g., “When people make you upset, how often do you try to get support from a friend or a family member?”) and three nonactive coping strategies (e.g., “When people make you upset, how often do you just take things as they are and go with the flow?”) were assessed. Participants responded using a 4point scale with response ranging from “all of the time” to “never”. Sums for active and non-active coping were computed and used as covariates in analysis. Drug Use Drug use behaviors were assessed using questions derived from the CDC’s State and Local Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2003).Ed the Object Two-Back, an alternative and more difficult form of the Two-Back. For statistical analyses, a WorkingJ Gambl Stud. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 June 01.Betancourt et al.PageMemory composite score was created using the mean of the z-scores for each task which were computed using winsorized raw scores from all assessments. We did not compute composite scores for the Cognitive Control or Reward Processing tasks because the component tasks were not correlated. Impulsivity As described previously in Romer et al. (2009), two dimensions of impulsivity were measured: Acting without Thinking and Sensation Seeking. Acting without Thinking, which is characterized by quick cognitive decisions and lack of planning, was assessed using 13 yes/no questions from the Eysenck I7 Junior Impulsivity Subscale. Sensation Seeking, which is the desire for novel, complex, and intense experiences and willingness to take risks for the sake of such experiences, was measured on a 4-point scale with items ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” using the 4 questions of the Reduced Brief Sensation Seeking Scale. Parental Monitoring/Mentoring Parental monitoring and mentoring were assessed using a twenty-item questionnaire tapping behaviors such as: 1) “Do your parents or the adults who take care of you expect you to call them if you are going to be late?” (rated on a 4-point scale with items responses ranging from “all of the time” to “never”); and 2) “How often do you talk with your parents or the adults who take care of you about the use of drugs?” (rated on a 3-point scale, “never”, “sometimes”, or “often”) (Griffiths 2003). Items were coded so that higher scores indicate more parental monitoring/mentoring. Peer Influences Questions derived from the Annenberg National Survey of Youth (Griffiths 2003) inquired about peer involvement in and approval of risk behaviors, such as: 1) “Of your friends and people your age that you spend time with, how many gamble for money such as playing the lottery, or betting on sports, or a card game?”, with a 5-point response ranging from “none” to “all”; and 2) “How do your friends feel about gambling for money such as playing the lottery or betting on sports or a card game?”, with a 4-point response ranging from “mostly disapprove” to “mostly approve”. For each annual assessment, ratings for the peer involvement and approval questions were summed, and the mean of these sums over the 3 assessments was used as a covariate in the main analysis. These peer influence scores were categorized as Low (bottom 25 ), Moderate (middle 50 ), or High (top 75 ). CopingNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptEight questions adapted from Compas et al. assessed participant coping strategies (Compas et al. 2001). Frequency of five active coping strategies (e.g., “When people make you upset, how often do you try to get support from a friend or a family member?”) and three nonactive coping strategies (e.g., “When people make you upset, how often do you just take things as they are and go with the flow?”) were assessed. Participants responded using a 4point scale with response ranging from “all of the time” to “never”. Sums for active and non-active coping were computed and used as covariates in analysis. Drug Use Drug use behaviors were assessed using questions derived from the CDC’s State and Local Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2003).