Dorien Bangma

DECISION-MAKING IN ADHD | 139 Name of test Test description Possible outcome measures Construct of measurement Financial Decision- Making Interview (FDMI; Bangma et al. , 2017) Goal: maximize task performance. § The participant gets to read and listen to two complex hypothetical financial problems. § By means of a semi-structured interview, questions are asked about these problems. § The FDMI measures financial judgment (or financial decision-making capacity) and consists of five domains: 1. Identification (of the problem) 2. Understanding (of risks and benefits) 3. Reasoning (evaluating choice options and making a decision) 4. Appreciating (evaluating the consequences of the decision) 5. Communication (articulation of the choice) § Performance on the five domains (i.e., total score on each of the five domains). § Total score (sum of the five domains). Financial decision- making Note. a Risk index is calculated as (HR – LR)/(HR + LR), with LR equals the number of trials a participant gambled with a low number of points (i.e., 0, 4 or 8 points; low risk index) and HR equals the number of trials a participant gambled with a high number of points (i.e., 12, 16 or 20 points; high risk index). Risky decision-making The majority of the studies looked into risky decision-making by means of various gambling tasks (20/31 = 65%; see Table 6.1 and 6.2). Six of these 20 studies (6/20 = 30%) showed that adults with ADHD performed in a more risky fashion than the control groups (Duarte et al., 2012; Malloy-Diniz et al., 2007, 2008; Miller et al., 2013; Tamm et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2019). All six studies made use of the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) to assess risky decision-making. Four studies provided inconsistent evidence of differences in risky decision-making between adults with ADHD and healthy adults (Agay et al., 2010, 2014; Mäntylä et al., 2012; Matthies et al., 2012). For example, Agay et al. (2010) found that the task performance for the Forgone Payoff Gambling Task (FPGT) was aberrant for adults with ADHD, while in the same study no significant differences were found between adults with ADHD and the control groups for the IGT. Another study, by the same authors, found that task performance differed between groups for the IGT, but not for the FPGT (Agay et al., 2014). Matthies et al. (2012) conducted a two-part study and concluded on the basis of the first part of the study that adults with ADHD clearly made riskier choices than the control group in the Game of Dice Task (GDT). However, in the second part of the study, these group differences disappeared after boredom was induced before administering the GDT. According to Matthies et al. (2012), the difference in findings between the first and second part of their study could be explained by an increase in risky behavior in the control group after the boredom induction. Finally, Mäntylä et al. (2012) initially found group differences for the IGT between the control group and adults with ADHD, but these findings were found to be mediated by the level of education of the participants, which meant that after correction for the level of education, the results were no longer significant. In the remaining ten studies that assessed risky decision-making, no (significant) group differences were observed (10/20 = 50%; Abouzari et al., 2015; Bangma et al., 2019; Dai et al.,