The Millennium Cohort Study (MCS) assessed their cohort members (CMs) during the study’s age 11 sweep using the Cambridge Gambling Task from the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB).
Details on this measure and the data collected from the CMs are outlined in the table below.
| Year of data collection: | 2012 | |||
| Domain: | Executive function (decision making) | |||
| Measures: | The Cambridge Gambling Task was developed to assess decision making and risk-taking behaviour outside a learning context. It can be contrasted with widely used tests including the Balloon Analog Risk Taking Task (BART) and Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) in that the CGT asks participants to make bets under conditions of known risk, rather than ambiguity (e.g., Bechara, Damasio, Tranel & Damasio 2005; Lejuez et al., 2002). The test minimises learning, executive and working memory demands on participants, which can confound the interpretation of test scores. It also separates the decision-making - where participants choose what to bet on - from risk-taking, where participants decide how much then to bet on that choice. | |||
| The test is recommended to assess cognitive function in: Attention deficit disorders, Depression and affective disorders, Obsessive compulsive disorder, Parkinson's disease, Schizophrenia and Traumatic brain injury. | ||||
| CHC: | Gs (Processing Speed) | |||
| CLOSER source: | Explore this sweep in CLOSER Discovery: | |||
| Gt (Decision Speed/Reaction Time) | ||||
| Administrative method: | Self-completion on Computer-Assisted Personal Interview (CAPI) tablet; using the CANTAB eclipse software which was integrated into the CAPI interview. | |||
| Procedure: | The participant was presented with a row of ten boxes across the top of the screen: some were red and some were blue. The ratio of red and blue boxes varied between stages but there was always one box that contained a yellow token hidden behind it. Participants used the 'Red' and 'Blue' buttons at the bottom of the screen to choose the box colour in which they thought the token was hidden. | |||
| In the assessed stages, participants started with 100 points and selected a proportion of these points to bet on their decision. A circle in the centre of the screen displayed the current bet value, which would either incrementally increase or decrease (depending on the task variant selected). Participants pressed this button when it showed the proportion of their score they would like to bet. These points were either added or taken away to their total score, depending on their decision and where the token was actually hidden. | ||||
| Duration: max 18 minutes | ||||
| Link to questionnaire: | Documentation not available. | |||
| For some additional detail, see: Cambridge Cognition web page on Cambridge Gambling Task (opens in new tab) | ||||
| Scoring: | Raw data and procedures / algorithms for deriving the summary scores are unavailable. There are currently no normative scores. | |||
| Item-level variable(s): | Not readily available. | |||
| There are additional variables available that outline any technical problems and test conditions | ||||
| Total score/derived variable(s): | CGTTTIME (Test duration) | |||
| CGTDELAY (Delay aversion) | ||||
| CGTDTIME (Deliberation time - milliseconds) | ||||
| CGTOPBET (Overall proportional bet) | ||||
| CGTQOFDM (Quality of decision making) | ||||
| CGTRISKA (Risk adjustment) | ||||
| CGTRISKT (Risk taking) | ||||
| Age of participant (months): | Mean = 134, SD = 3.95, Range = 122 - 148 | |||
| Descriptives: | CGTDTIME | CGTDELAY | CGTOPBET | |
| (deliberation time) | (Delay aversion | (Overall proportional bet) | ||
| N | 12,690 | 12,624 | 12,689 | |
| Range | 468 - 31978 | -0.9 - 0.9 | 0.05 - 0.95 | |
| Mean | 3331.12 | 0.29 | 0.49 | |
| SD | 1353.34 | 0.25 | 0.16 | |
(click image to enlarge) | (click image to enlarge) | (click image to enlarge) |
||
| CGTQOFDM | CGTRISKA | CGTRISKT | ||
| (Quality of decision making) | (Risk adjustment) | (Risk taking) | ||
| N | 12,690 | 12,689 | 12,689 | |
| Range | 0 - 1 | -6.43 - 6.43 | 0.05 - 0.95 | |
| Mean | 0.80 | 0.65 | 0.53 | |
| SD | 0.17 | 1.04 | 0.17 | |
(click image to enlarge) | (click image to enlarge) | (click image to enlarge) |
||
| Other sweep and/or cohort: | MCS (Age 14) | |||
| Source: | Cambridge Cognition. CANTAB (Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery) - Cognitive Assessment Software. (opens in new tab) | |||
| Technical resources: | Atkinson, M. (2015). Millennium Cohort Study Interpreting the CANTAB Cognitive Measures. London, UK: Centre for Longitudinal Studies, Institute of Education, University of London. (opens in new tab) | |||
| Hansen K, ed. (2014). Millennium Cohort Study, A Guide to the Datasets (Eighth Edition) - First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Surveys. London, UK: Centre for Longitudinal Studies, Institute of Education, University of London (opens in new tab) | ||||
| Example articles: | Brown, M., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Cognitive Development. In Platt, L. (ed), Millennium Cohort Study: Initial findings from the Age 11 survey. London: Centre for Longitudinal Studies. | |||
| Flouri, E., Ioakeimidi, S., Midouhas, E., & Ploubidis, G. B. (2017). Maternal psychological distress and child decision-making. Journal of Affective Disorders, 218, 35-40. | ||||
| Flouri, E., Moulton, V., & Ploubidis, G. B. (2018). The role of intelligence in decision-making in early adolescence. British Journal of Developmental Psychology. | ||||
Go to:
- Overview of all cognitive measures in MCS
- Overview of childhood cognitive measures across all studies
This page is part of CLOSER’s ‘A guide to the cognitive measures in five British birth cohort studies’.