Dorien Bangma

FDM IN ADULTS WITH ADHD | 163 cognitive functioning’ (range 0 – 24), ‘Debt management’ (range 0 – 4) and ‘Financial support resources’ (range 0 – 16). The total score (range 0 – 134) gives an indication of the overall financial competence of an individual with higher scores indicating better financial competence. A previous study demonstrated a good to excellent internal consistency (i.e., Cronbach’s α>.80) for the total score and all domains with the exception of ‘Financial support resources’ (Cronbach’s α = .54; Kershaw & Webber, 2008). The Financial Decision-Making Interview (FDMI) determines financial decision-making capacity using two hypothetical financial situations (i.e., ‘repairing or selling a car’ and ‘selling and buying a house’). Using a semi-structured interview, participants are requested to answer questions in order to determine their decision-making capacity. Scores (range 0 – 4) are calculated for five different scales (Appelbaum & Grisso, 1988; Suto et al., 2005), i.e., ‘Identification’, ‘Understanding’, ‘Reasoning’, ‘Appreciating’ and ‘Communication’. Furthermore, a total score (range 0 – 20) based on the sum of all scales was calculated with higher scores indicating better financial decision-making capacity. The internal consistency of the total score in the present study was, however, questionable (Cronbach’s α = .67). The Financial Decision Style (FDS) questionnaire is used to evaluate to what extent participants make use of specific financial decision styles when making financial decisions (Loo, 2000; Scott & Bruce, 1995; Spicer & Sadler-Smith, 2005). The questionnaire consists of 24 questions scored on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sum scores are calculated for five decision-making styles, i.e., ‘rational’ (range 5 – 25), ‘intuitive’ (range 5 – 25), ‘dependent’ (range 5 – 25), ‘avoidant’ (range 5 – 25) and ‘spontaneous’ (range 5 – 20). The internal consistency in the present study was acceptable to excellent with Cronbach’s α = .82, .75, .79, .93 and .81, respectively. The Competence in Decision Rules (CDR) test is used to evaluate more complex FDM and assesses the ability to make financial decisions using decision rules . The CDR is originally a subtest of the Adult Decision-Making Competence battery (Bruine de Bruin et al., 2007; Parker & Fischhoff, 2005). In the current version, participants have to indicate for ten scenarios with increasing complexity which of five televisions they would choose using specific decision rules. For each correct decision a score of 1 was given. A total score, i.e., number of correct answers, was calculated (range 0 – 10). The internal consistency of the total score was found to be acceptable (Cronbach’s α = .73; Bruine de Bruin et al., 2007). To evaluate the capacity to make decisions with implications for the future the Temporal Discounting Task (TDT) is used (Green et al., 1994). For eighteen different hypothetical scenarios, participants have to indicate the lowest amount of money they would accept today (or after one week or one month) instead of a higher amount of money later in time, i.e., in one week, one month or one year. For example, participants have to indicate how much money they would accept in one week instead of €500 in one year. Six different time intervals are presented (i.e., ‘today vs. one week’, ‘today vs. one month’, ‘today vs. one year’, ‘one week vs. one month’, ‘one week vs. one year’ and ‘one month vs. one year’), which are combined with an amount of money participants can receive after a delay (i.e., €100, €500 or €1000). The percentages of the chosen amount of money relative to the amount of money participants can receive after a delay were calculated, e.g., if a participant chose to receive €75 today instead of