Show the full module text

Module 6 — BIS-11 — Impulsiveness, Measured Three Ways

What the thirty questions of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale actually ask, how six subscales fold into three families, why three of those six read backwards, where the cut-off of 72 came from, and what a high score does not tell you.

ADHD Self-Discovery · Part Three — How ADHD Actually Shows Up · 13 min read, about 26 min with the workbook

The big idea

If you have ever sent the message, bought the thing, quit the job or said the sentence before the part of you that would have objected got a word in — this module is about a thirty-item questionnaire that tries to put a shape on that. It is also about the three of its six subscales that read backwards, which is the single easiest way to draw the wrong conclusion about yourself in this course.

Read this before you read your subscales. On Self-Control, Cognitive Complexity and Perseverance, a higher number is the less desirable direction. A high Perseverance score does not mean you persevere. It means the opposite. The live screener says so, and it is the easiest mistake to make on this page.

Step 1 — The lesson

A. Thirty questions, six readings, three families

The BIS-11 is thirty statements about how you usually behave. You plan tasks carefully, or you do not. You say things without thinking, or you do not. You change jobs, homes, hobbies. Each one is answered on a four-point scale running from rarely or never, scored 1, to almost always or always, scored 4, which puts the total somewhere between 30 and 120.¹

What makes it worth a module is that it refuses to treat impulsiveness as one thing. When Patton, Stanford and Barratt reworked the scale in 1995 they pulled six first-order factors out of the items — attention, motor, self-control, cognitive complexity, perseverance and cognitive instability — and grouped those six into three second-order families they called Attentional Impulsiveness, Motor Impulsiveness and Nonplanning Impulsiveness.² Those three are the classic model, and they are the three ways in this module's title.

Diagram — A · Thirty questions, six readings, three families. The screener reports the six, not the three. The six pair up cleanly: attention with cognitive instability makes Attentional, motor with perseverance makes Motor, self-control with cognitive complexity makes Nonplanning. Eight items, eleven items, eleven items.

That pairing is worth doing by hand, because the three families describe recognisably different lives. Attentional is the mind that will not stay on one track: you are three sentences into an email and already answering a different one. Motor is the body that moves before the decision arrives: standing up mid-conversation, the card out of your pocket, the reply sent. Nonplanning is the quietest and often the most expensive: a present-tense way of living in which next Thursday is theoretical, so the deposit is not saved and the appointment is not made.

One honest detail from the original paper. Barratt's earlier model had proposed a cognitive impulsiveness component, and the 1995 analysis did not find one — the authors say plainly that no cognitive impulsiveness component was identified as such.² The structure everyone now quotes is what fell out of the data, not what was expected to.

B. Where the line at 72 came from

Most screening thresholds you meet in this course were set by testing a questionnaire against a diagnosis and choosing the point that separates the groups best. The BIS-11 line was not set that way.

The 1995 study administered the scale to 412 college undergraduates, 248 psychiatric inpatients and 73 male prison inmates, and reported that the total behaved as an internally consistent measure with potential clinical utility in those groups.² That is a statement about a scale, not about a cut-off.

Diagram — B · Where the line at 72 came from. Two of these five steps are the instrument being built. Three of them are other laboratories taking it apart again. Both halves of that history are ordinary, and only one of them makes it onto most quiz pages.

The threshold arrived fourteen years later. In 2009 Stanford and colleagues published a review of fifty years of work with the scale and set out the classification that is now standard: a total of 72 or above is treated as highly impulsive, 52 to 71 as within the normal range, and 51 or below as low in impulsiveness or highly controlled.³ If you take the screener attached to this module, those are exactly the three bands you will be given back.

So it is worth being precise about what 72 is. It is a convention drawn from how scores distribute in large normative samples — a description of where the top of the range starts, not a line calibrated against any diagnosis. Nobody has published a study showing how well 72 separates people who have a condition from people who do not, because that is not the question the number was built to answer. It tells you that you scored high compared with other people who have filled this in. It does not tell you why, and it was never designed to.

C. Three of the six run backwards

Here is why it happens, because the mechanism makes it stick. Some BIS-11 items are worded the wrong way round on purpose — I plan tasks carefully, I am a steady thinker — and those items are reverse-scored, so answering rarely or never earns the full four points.¹ Every subscale on this instrument counts impulsiveness. Three of them are simply named after the quality that the points are eating into.

Diagram — C · Three of the six run backwards. Left column: the number and the name point the same way. Right column: they point in opposite directions. Same instrument, same scoring rule, two different reading instructions.

Work it through on one subscale. Perseverance runs from 4 to 16. The live page labels 4 to 7 as High Perseverance, 8 to 11 as Moderate, and 12 to 16 as Low Perseverance. A score of 14 is not a lot of perseverance. It is very little. Self-Control runs 6 to 24 and does the same thing: 6 to 11 is High Self-Control, 18 to 24 is Low Self-Control. Cognitive Complexity runs 5 to 20, and a 17 means less of it, not more.

The other three behave the way you would expect. Attention Impulsiveness, Motor Impulsiveness and Cognitive Instability are all labelled Low, Moderate and High as the number climbs, and there a high score means exactly what it says.

We are labouring this because of what the mistake does. Somebody with a genuinely difficult Nonplanning profile reads two green-sounding subscale names, decides planning is a strength, and takes the wrong half of their result to the appointment. The score was accurate. The reading of it was upside down.

D. What the number does not mean

This is the section that will not appear on a free quiz page, and it is the reason to trust the rest of this one. The BIS-11 is a real instrument with a real research record, and that record contains a substantial amount of bad news about its own structure.

The six factors do not reliably reappear. When Reise and colleagues tested four published structural models in 691 community adults they found low item correlations, redundant content and cross-loadings, reported poor fit throughout, and concluded that the theoretical three-subdomain structure was not empirically supported. They offered a two-factor model instead.⁴ A bifactor analysis published the same year went further: half the items shared no relation with any other item and formed no factor at all, which is why that team built an eight-item BIS-Brief out of the eight that did.⁵

It is not a one-laboratory finding. In 397 outpatients with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders in Singapore, the structures proposed in the existing literature did not apply, and the authors published a 16-item three-factor alternative.⁶ In 580 euthymic bipolar patients, the original three-dimensional structure did not fit either, and that team produced a 12-item scale with two dimensions.⁷ Four independent samples, four different answers about what the thirty items are made of.

Diagram — D · What the BIS-11 reports. The top of this list is genuinely solid. The bottom half is not weakness in the reporting — it is information the instrument was never built to produce, and a screener that implies otherwise is overselling.

Trait impulsiveness and behavioural impulsivity are not the same measurement. There is a whole laboratory tradition that measures impulsivity by task: stop a response you have already started, choose between a small reward now and a larger one later. You would expect the questionnaire and the task to agree. A meta-analysis of 27 studies found the relationship between multidimensional self-report and lab-task impulsivity was statistically significant and practically small, at r = 0.097.⁸ Two things share that name and under one per cent of their variance. The BIS-11 measures how you describe yourself. It does not measure what you do in front of a stopwatch.

A high score is not specific to ADHD, or to anything else. When 700 non-treatment-seeking young adults aged 18 to 29 were screened and given the BIS, large effects on the total — d greater than 0.8 — showed up for eating disorders, personality disorders, addictive disorders, mood disorders and any ADHD. Bulimia nervosa produced the highest attentional scores, comorbid panic disorder with agoraphobia the highest motor scores, and borderline personality disorder the highest non-planning scores. The authors read impulsivity as a transdiagnostic factor rather than a marker of one condition.⁹

The same caution applies to the ADHD screeners this course covers elsewhere. In two general population samples, one in the UK with 642 people and one in the USA with 579, the most widely used brief ADHD screener flagged probable ADHD in 26.0 per cent and 17.3 per cent of participants against an expected prevalence of about 2.5 per cent, with an estimated positive predictive value of around 11.5 per cent — a seven to tenfold over-identification. Both samples had normal levels of trait impulsiveness on the Barratt scale, and the authors note that the screener captures impulsive symptoms rather than symptoms specific to ADHD.¹⁰

None of that makes your score meaningless. It makes it a description of one dimension of how you act, on the days you were thinking about when you answered, compared with everyone else who has filled the same form in.

INSIDE THE INSTRUMENT

BIS-11 — Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, Version 11

Where it came from

A 1995 revision of the BIS-10 by Patton, Stanford and Barratt. Exploratory principal components analysis of the items in 412 college undergraduates, 248 psychiatric inpatients and 73 male prison inmates produced six primary factors and three second-order factors, labelled Attentional, Motor and Nonplanning Impulsiveness. Two of the three matched Barratt's 1985 proposal; no cognitive impulsiveness component was identified as such.² The 2009 review that established current scoring practice was written to mark fifty years of work with the instrument.³

What it is made of

Thirty items, each rated 1 (rarely/never) to 4 (almost always/always), several reverse-scored, giving a total of 30 to 120. Six first-order factors — attention, cognitive instability, motor, perseverance, self-control, cognitive complexity — nest under three second-order factors.¹ Short forms exist because of the structural problems below: the BIS-15 (Spinella, community sample of 700)¹¹, which held an acceptable three-factor solution with a second-order impulsivity factor in 453 patients with mental disorders¹²; and the eight-item BIS-Brief⁵, which in 315 at-risk adolescents was two-dimensional and performed comparably to the full BIS-11 total against external measures.¹³

How well it performs

The total is the defensible unit. The 1995 paper reported it as internally consistent and of potential clinical utility in patient and inmate samples,² and it discriminates clinical groups from controls with large effects across several diagnoses.⁹ The subscales are the weak point. Four independent samples — 691 community adults, 397 psychiatric outpatients, 580 euthymic bipolar patients, and a bifactor analysis that found half the items unrelated to any other — each failed to recover the published structure and each proposed a different replacement.⁴⁵⁶⁷

Where it was validated

Original derivation in US undergraduates, psychiatric inpatients and male prison inmates. Subsequent psychometric work spans US community adults, Singaporean outpatients with psychotic disorders, European euthymic bipolar patients, mixed psychiatric inpatient and outpatient samples and at-risk adolescents. Translations are numerous. There is no single normative table that covers the general adult population of any one country in the way a test manual would provide, and the 72 threshold is applied across all of them.

What it cannot do

It cannot identify ADHD. We could find no published sensitivity, specificity or predictive value for the BIS-11 used as an ADHD screen. A study of parents grouped by ADHD status found that impulsivity tended to remit alongside ADHD symptoms and persist where symptoms persisted, that the remitted and control groups did not differ, and that only the attentional dimension was impaired — leading the authors to argue impulsivity should not be treated as an ADHD endophenotype.¹⁴

It cannot tell one diagnosis from another. Elevated totals are documented across eating, personality, addictive and mood disorders as well as ADHD, with the highest subscale peaks belonging to bulimia nervosa, comorbid panic with agoraphobia and borderline personality disorder rather than to ADHD.⁹ Treat a high total as transdiagnostic.

It cannot stand in for behavioural measurement. Self-report and laboratory task measures of impulsivity correlate at r = 0.097 across 27 studies.⁸ A patient can score in the normal range and fail a stop-signal task, or the reverse, and neither result invalidates the other.

Its subscale profile should not be interpreted at face value. Given the replication record, a six-point profile is a conversation structure, not six calibrated measurements. Where a subscale score is used clinically, the reverse-keyed direction of Self-Control, Cognitive Complexity and Perseverance needs saying out loud to the patient; misreading those three is common and reverses the clinical picture.

It cannot see state, context or the reason. There is no time frame in the instructions, no situational anchor, no validity or inconsistency scale, and nothing that distinguishes lifelong trait impulsiveness from six months of insufficient sleep, a manic episode, grief or a job that has become unsurvivable.

What a clinician does with it

Use the total as a severity index and the six subscales as an interview schedule. Ask for two concrete examples from the past month behind every elevated subscale, then take the differential seriously: mood, substance use, personality organisation, eating behaviour, sleep and current stressors all raise this score.⁹ Where impulse control is the presenting concern, pair the questionnaire with a behavioural measure rather than assuming they agree.⁸ If the BIS-11 is being used alongside a brief ADHD screener, treat both as reasons to assess rather than as findings.¹⁰

Validity tier: 1 — validated and published, calibrated by independent labs. The instrument is peer-reviewed, independently replicated in dozens of populations and has published normative work behind its cut-off; the tier describes its provenance, not its factor structure, which multiple independent groups have failed to reproduce.

Diagram — E · One reading, many roads. This is the most important caveat in the module. A high total is a real finding about how you act. It is not a signature, and it does not point at one explanation on its own.

STRENGTHS LENS

Speed is not the same thing as carelessness, and you have probably been treated as though it were.

A nervous system that acts before the committee has voted is expensive in the places this module has been honest about — money, messages, exits taken too fast. It is also the reason you are the person who moves in an emergency, who says the unsayable thing in the meeting that everybody was avoiding, who has already started while other people are still deciding whether to. Rapid, associative, present-tense thinking is a real cognitive style with real output. The BIS-11 was built to count its costs, so of course that is all it counts.

When 52 adults with ADHD or ADD took part in eight focus groups across five Dutch cities, what they asked for was two-sided: more recognition of the difficulties the condition causes, and acknowledgement of their distinctive capabilities and ways of thinking, particularly the creative and associative ones. The same study found that perceived powerlessness, failure and other people's reactions were what shaped a persistently low sense of self-worth.¹⁵ The trait did that damage through the response it got, not on its own.

F. What helps

Five things that follow from the six numbers rather than from the one, and one of them is just reading your own results the right way up.

1. Read the three reverse-scored subscales out loud before you interpret anything.

Self-Control, Cognitive Complexity, Perseverance. On all three, a higher number is the less desirable direction. Say "my Perseverance score is 14, which the page calls Low Perseverance" rather than "my perseverance is 14". Get that wrong and you will take the opposite of your own result to the person you are asking for help.

2. Add the six into three, and see which family is loudest.

Attention plus Cognitive Instability gives you Attentional. Motor plus Perseverance gives you Motor. Self-Control plus Cognitive Complexity gives you Nonplanning. The three families point at completely different practical work: a loud Attentional score is about tracking, a loud Motor score is about the gap between impulse and action, a loud Nonplanning score is about the future being theoretical.

3. Put friction where the money and the messages are, not where your willpower is.

Motor impulsiveness is a timing problem, so add time. Remove saved cards from the two apps that cost you most. Set the messaging app to send after a delay, or write the message in a notes file first. A twenty second gap between impulse and irreversible action does more than a year of intending to be more careful.

4. Make next Thursday physically visible.

Nonplanning impulsiveness is not laziness about the future, it is the future not being present in the room. Standing orders on the day you are paid, a calendar you can see from where you sit, one shared list rather than four. Externalise the plan and you stop needing to hold a week in mind that keeps sliding out of it.

5. Take the profile to a person, and take the alternatives with you.

A high total is elevated in ADHD and in several other conditions, and in people having a hard year. Write down the two or three explanations you have been avoiding — sleep, drinking, mood, what happened last spring — alongside your six scores. An assessor who is handed that has something to work with. A number on its own is a starting point that somebody still has to interpret.

Step 2 — Take the screener

Thirty questions, about seven to ten minutes, free and confidential. You get a total between 30 and 120 with three bands, plus six subscale scores that are the more useful part of the output. One steer before you start: on Self-Control, Cognitive Complexity and Perseverance a higher number is the less desirable direction, so read section C before you interpret those three.

Take the BIS-11

Before you start

The BIS-11 is a published, peer-reviewed questionnaire that measures self-reported trait impulsiveness, and its cut-off of 72 is a convention drawn from the distribution of normative scores rather than a threshold calibrated against any diagnosis. Its six-factor structure has repeatedly failed to replicate in independent samples, so the subscale profile is best read as a set of topics rather than six precise measurements. High scores occur in ADHD and also in eating disorders, personality disorders, substance use, mood disorders and in people simply having a hard year, so no result here indicates that you do or do not have ADHD. This is a screening questionnaire and a conversation starter, not an assessment. Only a clinician can diagnose.

Step 3 — Your workbook

Your answers save to this device only — we cannot see a word of what you write. This module's workbook records all six subscale scores with the three reversed ones clearly marked, folds them into the three families, and turns whichever family is loudest into one piece of friction and one visible plan.

Your BIS-11 results

Took the screener? Put your numbers in below. Read section C before you interpret the last three subscales — on Self-Control, Cognitive Complexity and Perseverance a HIGHER score is the less desirable direction. Entirely optional — skip it if you would rather just read.

Score bands: 30-51 = Low Impulsivity; 52-71 = Average Impulsivity; 72-120 = High Impulsivity

Fields: BIS-11 · Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, Version 11 · 30 items; Total score (30-120); My total (enter 30-120); Attention Impulsiveness (5-20) — higher means more; Attention Impulsiveness (enter 5-20); Motor Impulsiveness (7-28) — higher means more; Motor Impulsiveness (enter 7-28); Cognitive Instability (3-12) — higher means more; Cognitive Instability (enter 3-12); Self-Control (6-24) — REVERSED: a higher score means LESS self-control; Self-Control (enter 6-24); Cognitive Complexity (5-20) — REVERSED: a higher score means LESS of it; Cognitive Complexity (enter 5-20); Perseverance (4-16) — REVERSED: a higher score means LESS perseverance; Perseverance (enter 4-16); Date I took it

Reading the three reversed subscales the right way up

Section F, item 1. This is the one thing in the module worth checking twice. Write the sentence out properly for each of the three.

Fields: My Self-Control score, and the label the page gave it; My Cognitive Complexity score, and its label; My Perseverance score, and its label; Did I read any of the three backwards the first time?: Yes, at least one / No / I have not taken it yet

The three families

Section F, item 2. Attention + Cognitive Instability = Attentional. Motor + Perseverance = Motor. Self-Control + Cognitive Complexity = Nonplanning. Add your own pairs and see which is loudest.

Fields: My Attentional total (attention + cognitive instability); My Motor total (motor + perseverance); My Nonplanning total (self-control + cognitive complexity); Which family is loudest for me?: Attentional / Motor / Nonplanning / Two are level / I would need to think about it; What the loudest one actually looks like on an ordinary Tuesday

The twenty seconds before

Section F, item 3. Motor impulsiveness is a timing problem, so the fix is friction rather than willpower.

Fields: The app, card or account that costs me most; The one piece of friction I will add to it this week; The last three times I wish I had waited twenty seconds

Making next Thursday visible

Section F, item 4. Nonplanning impulsiveness is the future not being in the room. This is about putting it back.

Fields: What keeps sliding off the end of the week; Tick: Standing orders set for the day I am paid; Tick: A calendar I can see from where I sit; Tick: One shared list rather than four private ones

What else raises this score

Section D. A high total is elevated across several conditions and in people having a hard year. Going through this honestly makes a conversation with a clinician faster, not weaker.

Fields: Tick: My sleep has been bad for months; Tick: Drinking or something else has crept up; Tick: My mood swings further than other people's seem to; Tick: My relationship with eating is difficult; Tick: This year has been genuinely hard for reasons outside me; Notes on anything I ticked

What the speed is good for

Strengths Lens. The BIS-11 was built to count the costs of acting fast, so costs are all it counts. This is the other column.

Fields: A time moving first was exactly the right thing to do; Something I have made or started that a more careful person would not have; The one thing I would want an assessor to understand first

Appendix — Research companion

Peer-reviewed research

10. Chamberlain SR, Cortese S, Grant JE (2021). Screening for adult ADHD using brief rating tools: what can we conclude from a positive screen? Some caveats. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 106, 152224. DOI 10.1016/j.comppsych.2021.152224. View the paper Two independent general population samples, in the UK (N = 642) and the USA (N = 579), completed the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale and the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. The screener indicated probable ADHD in 26.0% and 17.3% of participants against an expected prevalence of about 2.5%, an estimated positive predictive value of roughly 11.5% and a seven to tenfold over-identification, while both samples showed normal levels of trait impulsivity on the BIS. The authors conclude that such tools capture impulsive symptoms rather than symptoms specific to ADHD and must be followed by clinical assessment. Limitation: online general population samples with no diagnostic interview conducted, so the positive predictive value is estimated from expected prevalence rather than measured against confirmed cases.

13. Charles NE, Floyd PN, Barry CT (2021). The structure, measurement invariance, and external validity of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-Brief in a sample of at-risk adolescents. Assessment, 28(1), 116-127. DOI 10.1177/1073191119872259. View the paper Evaluation of the eight-item BIS-Brief in 315 at-risk adolescents, 81% male, mean age 16.7. A two-dimensional structure fitted best and was invariant across racial groups; the BIS-Brief performed comparably to the full BIS-11 in its relationships with external measures of impulsivity, though the two dimensions differed significantly in what they were associated with. Limitation: an adolescent residential sample that is predominantly male, so the findings do not transfer directly to adults completing the full BIS-11 online.

9. Crisp ZC, Grant JE (2024). Impulsivity across psychiatric disorders in young adults. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 130, 152449. DOI 10.1016/j.comppsych.2023.152449. View the paper 700 non-treatment-seeking community participants aged 18 to 29 were psychiatrically evaluated and then completed the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale and the Stop Signal Task. Effect sizes for total BIS impulsivity were large (d greater than 0.8) for eating, personality, addictive and mood disorders and for any ADHD; bulimia nervosa showed the highest attentional impulsivity, comorbid panic disorder with agoraphobia the highest motor impulsivity, and borderline personality disorder the highest non-planning impulsivity, while trichotillomania showed the greatest impairment on the behavioural task. The authors argue for treating impulsivity as a transdiagnostic factor. Limitation: a non-treatment-seeking community sample aged under 30 with small numbers in several diagnostic cells and no control for psychiatric medication.

8. Cyders MA, Coskunpinar A (2011). Measurement of constructs using self-report and behavioral lab tasks: is there overlap in nomothetic span and construct representation for impulsivity?. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(6), 965-982. DOI 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.06.001. View the paper Meta-analysis of 27 published studies comparing self-report questionnaire measures of impulsivity with behavioural laboratory task measures. The relationship between multidimensional self-report and lab-task impulsivity was statistically significant but practically small at r = 0.097, and unidimensional comparisons showed very little overlap: lack of perseverance with prepotent response inhibition r = 0.099, lack of planning with prepotent response inhibition r = 0.106 and with delay response r = 0.134, sensation seeking with delay response r = 0.131. The authors conclude the two methods measure disparate aspects of impulsivity. Limitation: 27 studies using heterogeneous tasks and questionnaires, with no BIS-11-specific pooled estimate reported separately.

14. Figueiredo T, Fortes D, Erthal P, Bortolini T, Segenreich D, Malloy-Diniz L, Mattos P (2021). Impulsivity as an endophenotype in ADHD: negative findings. Journal of Attention Disorders, 25(4), 502-507. DOI 10.1177/1087054718816161. View the paper Self-reported impulsivity measured with the BIS-11 in groups defined by ADHD status: never affected, remitted and non-remitted. The ADHD group showed the highest impulsivity levels of all groups, while the remitted and control groups did not differ significantly, and only the attentional dimension was impaired. The authors conclude that impulsivity tends to remit alongside ADHD symptoms rather than persisting as a trait marker, so it should not be treated as an endophenotype, and they caution against the DSM-5 emphasis on impulsivity items. Limitation: a modest single-centre sample with self-report only and no behavioural or task-based impulsivity measure, and remission was defined cross-sectionally.

7. Kahn JP, Cohen RF, Etain B, Aubin V, Bellivier F, Belzeaux R, Bougerol T, Courtet P, et al (2019). Reconsideration of the factorial structure of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11): assessment of impulsivity in a large population of euthymic bipolar patients. Journal of Affective Disorders, 253, 203-209. DOI 10.1016/j.jad.2019.04.060. View the paper Analysis of BIS-11 responses from 580 euthymic bipolar patients in a large French cohort. The original three-dimensional structure did not fit the data, so the authors derived a 12-item scale with two dimensions, behavioural and cognitive impulsivity, which showed strong fit indices across both halves of the sample and was associated with past suicide attempts and substance misuse. Limitation: the sample is confined to euthymic bipolar patients recruited through expert centres, so the revised structure may not generalise to non-clinical respondents, and the authors note difficulties with the reverse-keyed items.

6. Lau JH, Jeyagurunathan A, Shafie S, Chang S, Samari E, Cetty L, Verma S, Tang C, Subramaniam M (2022). The factor structure of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11) and correlates of impulsivity among outpatients with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders in Singapore. BMC Psychiatry, 22(1), 226. DOI 10.1186/s12888-022-03870-x. View the paper Confirmatory factor analyses of every BIS-11 structure proposed in the existing literature, in 397 outpatients with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. Fit statistics were poor for all of them, so the sample was split and an exploratory analysis in the first half (n = 200) produced a 16-item three-factor solution - non-planning impulsivity, motor impulsiveness and lack of self-control - which fitted acceptably when tested in the second half (n = 197). Lower education predicted higher non-planning impulsivity and problematic alcohol use predicted greater lack of self-control. Limitation: a single-site outpatient psychosis sample in one country, and the 16-item solution was derived and tested within the same 397 participants, so it awaits independent replication.

12. Meule A, Michalek S, Friederich HC, Brockmeyer T (2020). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-short form (BIS-15) in patients with mental disorders. Psychiatry Research, 284, 112665. DOI 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112665. View the paper Confirmatory factor analysis of the 15-item short form in 453 patients with mental disorders, 64% of them women. The three-factor structure of non-planning, motor and attentional impulsivity with a second-order general impulsivity factor showed acceptable model fit, and the authors conclude the BIS-15 has sound psychometric properties for assessing impulsivity in patients with mental disorders. Limitation: it tests the shortened 15-item scale rather than the full 30-item BIS-11, in a mixed diagnostic sample from a single clinical service, so it does not rescue the full instrument's six-factor structure.

2. Patton JH, Stanford MS, Barratt ES (1995). Factor structure of the Barratt impulsiveness scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51(6), 768-774. View the paper The paper that created the BIS-11, revising the BIS-10 and administering it to 412 college undergraduates, 248 psychiatric inpatients and 73 male prison inmates. Exploratory principal components analysis identified six primary factors and three second-order factors, labelled Attentional Impulsiveness, Motor Impulsiveness and Nonplanning Impulsiveness; two of the three matched Barratt's 1985 proposal but no cognitive impulsiveness component was identified as such. The authors concluded the total score is an internally consistent measure of impulsiveness with potential clinical utility in selected patient and inmate populations. Limitation: a single US sample of convenience with no clinical criterion measure, no test-retest data and no cut-off score, so it establishes a factor structure and nothing about diagnostic accuracy.

4. Reise SP, Moore TM, Sabb FW, Brown AK, London ED (2013). The Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11: reassessment of its structure in a community sample. Psychological Assessment, 25(2), 631-642. DOI 10.1037/a0032161. View the paper Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the BIS-11 in 691 community participants, testing four previously published structural models. The analyses found low item correlations, redundant item content, extensive cross-loadings and poor model fit throughout, and the authors concluded that the theoretical three-subdomain structure of attention, motor and nonplanning was not empirically supported and that total scores present challenges in interpretation. A two-factor model is offered as an alternative. Limitation: a single community sample recruited in one region, and the alternative two-factor solution is itself derived from these data rather than replicated elsewhere.

11. Spinella M (2007). Normative data and a short form of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. International Journal of Neuroscience, 117(3), 359-368. DOI 10.1080/00207450600588881. View the paper Reports normative data for the BIS-11 from a community sample of 700 adults and derives a 15-item short form, the BIS-15, which retained the original three-factor structure with good reliability and validity. The paper also summarises the evidence that BIS scores relate to prefrontal structure and function and to central serotonergic function, which is part of why the scale has held its place in neuropsychiatric research. Limitation: a single community sample with no clinical comparison group, and short-form derivation and evaluation carried out in the same data.

3. Stanford MS, Mathias CW, Dougherty DM, Lake SL, Anderson NE, Patton JH (2009). Fifty years of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale: an update and review. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(5), 385-395. DOI 10.1016/j.paid.2009.04.008. View the paper The review that established current BIS-11 scoring practice, written to mark fifty years of research with the scale. It is the source of the classification used by almost every version of the questionnaire in circulation: a total of 72 or above is treated as highly impulsive, 52 to 71 as within the normal range, and 51 or below as low in impulsiveness or highly controlled. Limitation: the classification is derived from the distribution of normative scores rather than calibrated against any diagnosis, so 72 is a descriptive convention with no published sensitivity or specificity attached to it; the article is also paywalled, and the cut-off wording above was confirmed against a peer-reviewed paper that reproduces it.

5. Steinberg L, Sharp C, Stanford MS, Tharp AT (2013). New tricks for an old measure: the development of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-Brief (BIS-Brief). Psychological Assessment, 25(1), 216-226. DOI 10.1037/a0030550. View the paper Bifactor analyses of the 30 BIS-11 items reported that half of the items do not share any relation with other items and do not form any factor. The authors derived a unidimensional eight-item BIS-Brief and validated it across three samples: patients with borderline personality disorder plus controls, a forensic sample, and inpatient adolescents and young adults, finding construct validity comparable to the full BIS-11 total score with much lower respondent burden. Limitation: the short form is unidimensional by design, so it discards the subscale profile entirely, and its validation samples are clinical and forensic rather than general population.

Clinical frameworks and position statements

1. International Society for Research on Impulsivity (2026). Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11). Instrument page and factor structure table, impulsivity.org, accessed August 2026. View the source The instrument's own reference page, maintained by the society founded around Ernest Barratt's research programme. It documents that the BIS-11 has 30 items describing common impulsive or non-impulsive behaviours for reverse-scored items, that items are rated Rarely/Never = 1, Occasionally = 2, Often = 3, Almost Always/Always = 4, and it prints the item-to-factor table showing six first-order factors nested under the three second-order factors Attentional, Motor and Nonplanning. Limitation: a scale-distribution page rather than a peer-reviewed source, carrying no cut-off scores, no normative tables and no interpretation guidance, and it directs interpretation questions to the authors.

Lived experience

15. Schrevel SJC, Dedding C, van Aken JA, Broerse JEW (2016). Do I need to become someone else? A qualitative exploratory study into the experiences and needs of adults with ADHD. Health Expectations, 19(1), 39-48. DOI 10.1111/hex.12328. View the source Exploratory qualitative study with 52 adults aged 21 or over with a primary diagnosis of ADHD or ADD, through eight focus groups held in five Dutch cities. Participants placed less weight on core symptoms than on the social consequences of living with the condition and the effect on how they saw themselves, describing feelings of inadequacy, insufficient acceptance from those around them and a negative self-image shaped by perceived powerlessness, failure and other people's reactions. They asked for wider recognition of the difficulties alongside acknowledgement of their distinctive capabilities and ways of thinking, particularly creative and associative thinking. Limitation: 52 self-selected Dutch adults already diagnosed and largely recruited through patient organisations, so the accounts are not representative of undiagnosed or unsupported adults.

Up next

Module 7 - ADHD-SIM-24 — Sex, Desire and Attention with ADHD

All modules in ADHD Self-Discovery

Acting fast is not a character flaw. This course was built by clinicians who are part of the New Path family of therapy centers. A high impulsiveness score is one of the least specific findings in this course — it comes up in ADHD, and in several other things, and sorting out which is which is exactly the kind of conversation worth having with a person rather than a questionnaire. Therapy for clients in California, coaching worldwide, all by telehealth. A conversation costs nothing and there is no pressure. Saving this for later counts too. Talk with the New Path team

NEW PATH FAMILY