The addicted brain: cognitive biases in problematic drinkers with mild to borderline intellectual disability.
Reaction-time bias tasks give garbage data with mild-borderline ID adults—use other tools.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team gave two quick computer games to the adults who drink too much. Half had mild-borderline ID; half had average IQ.
One game flashed alcohol or neutral photos. Players hit a key when a dot appeared. Fast times would show an attention bias.
The second game pushed or pulled a joystick when pictures tilted. Speed would show an approach bias.
What they found
No group showed faster times for alcohol cues. The ID group had very slow, jumpy reaction times.
The authors say the tasks simply do not work for people with mild-borderline ID. The scores are noise, not bias.
How this fits with other research
Kaufman et al. (2010) also ran bias tasks with ID participants. They found clear errors: kids read hostile intent where none existed. Together the papers show some cognitive biases show up in ID and some do not.
Matson et al. (2009) used questionnaires, not reaction time, and found strong links between negative thoughts and depression in adults with mild ID. Their method worked because it removed the speed requirement.
Rojahn et al. (2012) lists substance use as a top risk factor in juvenile offenders with ID. If we cannot measure alcohol attention bias reliably, we may miss a real treatment target.
Why it matters
If you assess adults with mild-borderline ID, skip reaction-time bias tasks. The scores look scientific but are mostly random. Use interview or picture-choice tools instead. Target alcohol refusal skills directly rather than chasing hidden attention biases.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Swap the dot-probe laptop task for a picture card sort that asks, 'Which photo would you walk toward? Let’s practice saying no.'
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Substance use disorders (SUD) are associated with several neurobiological disruptions, including biases in attention and approach/avoidance behaviour. The aims of this study were to compare the strength of cognitive biases between light and problematic drinkers, to explore the role of IQ on the cognitive biases and to study the psychometric qualities of the measures. METHOD: Participants (N = 130) were divided into four groups based on IQ and severity of alcohol use-related problems: light (n = 28) and problematic drinkers (n = 25) with (sub)average IQ and light (n = 33) and problematic drinkers (n = 44) with mild to borderline intellectual disability (MBID). All participants performed the visual dot probe task and the approach avoidance task to measure the strength of cognitive biases. RESULTS: In contrast with the hypothesis, no cognitive biases were found in problematic drinkers. Full scale IQ nor level of craving influenced the strength of the cognitive biases in light and problematic drinkers, although IQ did influence task performance (i.e. large intra-individual, trial-to-trial variation in reaction time). The internal consistency of the visual dot probe task was good, whereas the internal consistency of the approach avoidance task was poor. CONCLUSION: Cognitive biases seem to vary within the group of problematic drinkers as a whole. The psychometric qualities of the measures are problematic, especially in relation to the intra-individual variability in reaction time found in participants with MBID. Until the implications of this variability on the validity of implicit measures and establishing bias scores are more clear, the use of these measures in individuals with MBID calls for scrutiny.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2016 · doi:10.1111/jir.12244