The BIS-11 is the most widely used self-report measure of impulsiveness, treating it as a multidimensional construct with attentional, motor, and non-planning components rather than a single trait.
It grew out of a line of work Ernest Barratt began in 1959; its current form was established by Patton, Stanford, and Barratt (1995), who fixed the three-factor structure that later studies replicated across cultures.
The total score is reliable and the scale cleanly separates clinical, substance-use, and forensic groups from undergraduates, though its subscales are less reliable and it tracks poorly onto laboratory behavioral tasks.
It is free for research and clinical use with attribution, and its main caveat is that only a high-impulsivity band is published; there is no diagnostic cutoff and no standardized norm set.
At a Glance
Items
30 (Attentional 8, Motor 11, Non-planning 11)
Administration time
A few minutes (30 items; no formal time is published)
Response format
4-point frequency scale, 1 = Rarely/Never, 2 = Occasionally, 3 = Often, 4 = Almost Always/Always
Scores
Total impulsiveness (range 30–120) plus three subscales: Attentional, Motor, Non-planning
Free for research and clinical use with attribution; the full item set is published in Stanford et al. (2009)
Original citation
Patton, Stanford, & Barratt (1995), Journal of Clinical Psychology
Introduction
The Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11) is the most widely used self-report measure of impulsiveness in research and clinical settings. Its current form was established by Patton, Stanford, and Barratt (1995), building on a line of work begun by Ernest Barratt in 1959. The BIS-11 is the eleventh revision of that original scale, and it treats impulsiveness not as a single trait but as a multidimensional construct with attentional, motor, and non-planning components. It yields a general total score together with three subscale scores.
Impulsiveness as a Multidimensional Construct
Barratt’s research treated impulsiveness as a pattern of rapid, unplanned reactions to internal and external stimuli rather than a unitary disposition. In the BIS-11 this is operationalized through six first-order factors that load onto three second-order factors (Patton et al., 1995). Because the three dimensions correlate but remain separable, the instrument supports both broad trait assessment through the total score and more specific profiling through the subscales. The three dimensions have been shown to relate differently to clinical conditions and behavioral outcomes, which is the empirical case for keeping them distinct rather than collapsing them into a single index.
Theoretical Foundation
The BIS-11 is grounded in Barratt’s neuropsychological model, which locates impulsive behavior in different stages of behavioral control. Within the framework Malloy-Diniz and colleagues adopt, the three dimensions map onto distinct processes:
Attentional impulsiveness reflects difficulty sustaining attention and concentration, cognitive instability, and intrusive extraneous thoughts. The attentional or working-memory form of impulsivity has been linked to dorsolateral prefrontal cortex function and, in this model, is treated as analogous to Barratt’s attentional impulsiveness (Malloy-Diniz et al., 2007). It is associated with ADHD, particularly inattentive presentations.
Motor impulsiveness captures acting without thinking and difficulty inhibiting behavioral responses. In the same model, motor impulsivity, understood as failure to inhibit prepotent responses, has been related to the orbitofrontal and ventromedial prefrontal cortex, including the basal forebrain (Malloy-Diniz et al., 2007). It is associated with substance use, risky behavior, and aggression.
Non-planning impulsiveness reflects a present orientation and a lack of forethought, or what Barratt characterized as limited “futuring.” It is associated with longer-term outcomes; in adults with ADHD it correlated with disadvantageous decision-making on the Iowa Gambling Task (Malloy-Diniz et al., 2007).
📏 Key insight: The BIS-11’s value is dimensional. By separating attentional, motor, and non-planning impulsiveness, it distinguishes profiles that a single impulsivity score would blur, while still yielding a general total.
Key Features
Assessment Characteristics
30 items, each a short self-descriptive statement
4-point frequency scale, from Rarely/Never to Almost Always/Always
Total score plus three subscales (Attentional, Motor, Non-planning)
A few minutes to complete; validated in adult samples
Free for research and clinical use with attribution (Patton et al., 1995)
Original 30-item BIS-11 (Patton et al., 1995), the standard adult form
BIS-Brief, 8 items, a short form derived from the BIS-11 (Steinberg, Sharp, Stanford, & Tharp, 2013)
Italian adolescent version for high-school students (Fossati, Barratt, Acquarini, & Di Ceglie, 2002)
Earlier lineage (the BIS-10 predecessor and an interim BIS-11A that Barratt recommended not be used) is documented in the scale’s 50-year review (Stanford et al., 2009)
Translations exist in numerous languages; the Italian BIS-11 is a validated example (Fossati et al., 2001)
Research Applications
ADHD research – characterizing attentional, motor, and non-planning impulsiveness in adults (Malloy-Diniz et al., 2007)
Substance-use and forensic research – group comparison and risk evaluation (Patton et al., 1995)
Personality and individual-differences research – self-control and behavioral inhibition
Treatment monitoring – tracking change in impulse control over the course of treatment
Assess impulsiveness across attentional, motor, and non-planning dimensions.
Scoring and Interpretation
Response Format
Each statement is rated on a 4-point frequency scale: 1 = Rarely/Never, 2 = Occasionally, 3 = Often, 4 = Almost Always/Always.
Illustrative Items
The BIS-11 item set is published openly in Stanford et al. (2009); the following genuine items illustrate the content of each dimension. Items marked (R) are reverse scored.
Attentional: “I don’t pay attention”; “I concentrate easily” (R); “I often have extraneous thoughts when thinking”; “I am a careful thinker” (R)
Motor: “I do things without thinking”; “I act on impulse”; “I say things without thinking”; “I act on the spur of the moment”
Non-planning: “I plan tasks carefully” (R); “I am self-controlled” (R); “I plan trips well ahead of time” (R); “I am future oriented” (R)
Sum the subscales: Attentional (8 items, range 8–32), Motor (11 items, range 11–44), Non-planning (11 items, range 11–44).
Sum all 30 items for the total score (range 30–120). Higher scores indicate greater impulsiveness.
Score Interpretation
The only published total-score classification comes from Stanford et al. (2009):
Total Score
Classification
Interpretation
Below 52
Over-controlled
Extremely low impulsiveness, or possibly invalid or non-honest responding
52–71
Within normal limits
Average levels of impulsive behavior
72–120
Highly impulsive
Above-average impulsiveness
The ≥72 threshold is a high-impulsivity marker, not a diagnostic or “clinically significant” cutoff (Stanford et al., 2009). No absolute subscale bands have a published basis, so subscale scores are best interpreted relative to a comparison sample rather than against fixed cutoffs.
Reference Values
The following total-score means are descriptive reference values from the development and validation studies, not standardized norms:
Sample
N
M
SD
Source
US college undergraduates
409
63.82
10.17
Patton et al. (1995)
Italian nonclinical undergraduates
763
64.11
10.07
Fossati et al. (2001)
Substance-abuse inpatients
—
69.26
10.28
Patton et al. (1995)
General psychiatric inpatients
—
71.37
12.61
Patton et al. (1995)
Male prison inmates
—
76.30
11.86
Patton et al. (1995)
Adults with ADHD
50
77.3
10.8
Malloy-Diniz et al. (2007)
Matched controls (ADHD study)
51
59.4
13.3
Malloy-Diniz et al. (2007)
The US and Italian undergraduate means did not differ significantly from one another (Fossati et al., 2001).
Research Evidence and Psychometric Properties
Reliability Evidence
Internal consistency: total-score α = 0.82 (Patton et al., 1995); α = 0.79 in the Italian version (Fossati et al., 2001); α = 0.84 in an independent undergraduate sample (Whiteside & Lynam, 2001)
Subscale reliability: second-order α = 0.59–0.74 (Stanford et al., 2009); in an independent sample α ≈ 0.58 (Attentional), 0.78 (Motor), 0.74 (Non-planning) (Whiteside & Lynam, 2001)
Test-retest reliability: r = 0.83 over 1 month (Stanford et al., 2009); r = 0.89 over 2 months (Fossati et al., 2001)
Cross-cultural reliability: the three-factor structure and total-score reliability replicate in translation, including the Italian version (Fossati et al., 2001)
Factor Structure
Hierarchical model: six first-order factors load onto three second-order factors (Attentional, Motor, Non-planning), which relate to a general impulsiveness factor (Patton et al., 1995)
Cross-cultural replication: the six first-order and three second-order factors were reproduced in an Italian sample, with no significant difference in total score from the US sample (Fossati et al., 2001)
Convergent Validity
ADHD symptoms: BIS-11 total correlated r = 0.36 with the Wender Utah Rating Scale of retrospective ADHD symptoms (Fossati et al., 2001)
Aggression: BIS-11 total correlated r = 0.36 with Buss-Durkee Aggressiveness, a link that survived partialling out hostility (Fossati et al., 2001)
Behavioral measures: self-report and laboratory measures of impulsivity correlate inconsistently and are largely independent (Reynolds et al., 2006); in adults with ADHD, BIS Attentional related to CPT omission errors (r = 0.46), whereas BIS Motor was uncorrelated with CPT commission errors (Malloy-Diniz et al., 2007)
Group discrimination: the total score significantly separates adults with ADHD from controls (Malloy-Diniz et al., 2007) and clinical and inmate groups from undergraduates (Patton et al., 1995)
Discriminant Validity
Intelligence: the total score is independent of general intelligence; adults with ADHD and controls did not differ on Raven’s Progressive Matrices despite a large BIS-11 gap (Malloy-Diniz et al., 2007)
Anxiety: the BIS item pool was deliberately constructed to be orthogonal to trait anxiety (Patton et al., 1995)
Social desirability: BIS-11 total correlated r = −0.32 with the MMPI K scale, consistent with a modest suppressor effect rather than shared content (Fossati et al., 2001)
Clinical Group Differentiation
ADHD (adults): M = 77.3 (SD 10.8) versus controls M = 59.4 (SD 13.3), p < .001, with all three subscales significantly elevated (Malloy-Diniz et al., 2007)
Substance-abuse and psychiatric inpatients: M = 69.26 and M = 71.37 respectively, both higher than the undergraduate mean of 63.82 (Patton et al., 1995)
Male prison inmates: M = 76.30, the highest-scoring group in the development study (Patton et al., 1995)
Predictive Validity
Everyday behavioral discontrol (nonclinical): higher BIS-11 scores distinguished high- from low-frequency alcohol intake (M = 67.3 vs 63.6), getting drunk to cope (68.9 vs 63.9), binge eating (67.7 vs 63.2), and heavy smoking (70.3 vs 63.8), all p < .005 (Fossati et al., 2001)
Treatment outcomes: higher impulsivity has been associated with poorer substance-abuse treatment retention and increased relapse (Moeller et al., 2001, review); the BIS-11 may be used to monitor change in impulse control over treatment
Developmental and Gender Findings
Age effects: self-reported impulsivity declines gradually from early adolescence into the mid-20s (Steinberg et al., 2008); that study used a shortened BIS subset, so it supports the direction of decline rather than specific BIS-11 total norms by age
Gender differences: no significant sex difference in the total score has been found (Patton et al., 1995; Fossati et al., 2001; Steinberg et al., 2008)
Usage Guidelines and Applications
Primary Applications
Characterizing impulsiveness dimensions in ADHD, substance-use, and forensic samples
Relating impulsivity to adjustment, risk behavior, and other individual differences
Monitoring change in impulse control across the course of treatment
Design Considerations
Interpret against a comparison sample. Apart from the published ≥72 high-impulsivity band (Stanford et al., 2009), the scale has no standardized norms; report reference-sample means alongside your results
Prefer continuous scores. The total and subscale scores carry more information than a single cutoff and are the usual unit of analysis
Do not expect agreement with behavioral tasks. Self-report and laboratory measures of impulsivity are largely independent (Reynolds et al., 2006; Malloy-Diniz et al., 2007)
Watch subscale reliability. The Motor subscale in particular can fall below conventional thresholds (α = 0.59; Stanford et al., 2009)
Cultural Considerations
Items about planning and spontaneity can be interpreted differently across cultures; check local validation work before use (Fossati et al., 2001)
The Italian BIS-11 reproduced the factor structure and yielded a total mean close to the US sample, an example of successful cross-cultural adaptation (Fossati et al., 2001)
Limitations and Cautions
Self-report gap: the scale may not track behavioral impulsivity, which is largely independent of self-report (Malloy-Diniz et al., 2007)
Social desirability: scores are modestly suppressed by socially desirable responding (Fossati et al., 2001)
Modest subscale reliability: some second-order subscales fall below α = 0.70 (Stanford et al., 2009; Whiteside & Lynam, 2001)
No diagnostic cutoff: the ≥72 band marks high impulsiveness, not a disorder; it should not be read as a clinical diagnosis (Stanford et al., 2009)
Copyright and Usage Responsibility: Check that you have the proper rights and permissions to use this assessment tool in your research. This may include purchasing appropriate licenses, obtaining permissions from authors/copyright holders, or ensuring your usage falls within fair use guidelines.
The BIS-11 is distributed free of charge for research and clinical use with proper attribution to the original authors. Unlike commercially licensed clinical instruments, its full 30-item set is published openly in the appendix of Stanford et al. (2009), and no license fee or publisher permission is required for standard research use.
Proper Attribution: When using or referencing this scale, cite the original development:
Stanford, M. S., Mathias, C. W., Dougherty, D. M., Lake, S. L., Anderson, N. E., & Patton, J. H. (2009). Fifty years of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale: An update and review. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(5), 385–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.04.008
Steinberg, L., Sharp, C., Stanford, M. S., & Tharp, A. T. (2013). New tricks for an old measure: The development of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale–Brief (BIS-Brief). Psychological Assessment, 25(1), 216–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030550
Fossati, A., Barratt, E. S., Acquarini, E., & Di Ceglie, A. (2002). Psychometric properties of an adolescent version of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11 for a sample of Italian high school students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95(2), 621–635. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2002.95.2.621
Validation:
Fossati, A., Di Ceglie, A., Acquarini, E., & Barratt, E. S. (2001). Psychometric properties of an Italian version of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11 (BIS-11) in nonclinical subjects. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57(6), 815–828. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.1051
Clinical and Neuropsychological Applications:
Malloy-Diniz, L. F., Fuentes, D., Leite, W. B., Correa, H., & Bechara, A. (2007). Impulsive behavior in adults with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Characterization of attentional, motor and cognitive impulsiveness. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 13(4), 693–698. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617707070889
Moeller, F. G., Barratt, E. S., Dougherty, D. M., Schmitz, J. M., & Swann, A. C. (2001). Psychiatric aspects of impulsivity. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158(11), 1783–1793. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.158.11.1783
Personality and Behavioral Research:
Reynolds, B., Ortengren, A., Richards, J. B., & de Wit, H. (2006). Dimensions of impulsive behavior: Personality and behavioral measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(2), 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.03.024
Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). The Five Factor Model and impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(4), 669–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00064-7
Developmental Research:
Steinberg, L., Albert, D., Cauffman, E., Banich, M., Graham, S., & Woolard, J. (2008). Age differences in sensation seeking and impulsivity as indexed by behavior and self-report: Evidence for a dual systems model. Developmental Psychology, 44(6), 1764–1778. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012955
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the BIS-11 measure?
The BIS-11 measures impulsiveness as a multidimensional construct across three dimensions: Attentional Impulsiveness (concentration difficulty and cognitive instability), Motor Impulsiveness (acting without thinking and behavioral disinhibition), and Non-planning Impulsiveness (lack of forethought and future orientation). It provides a general total score together with a score for each dimension.
How is the BIS-11 scored?
Designated items are reverse scored (reverse score = 5 minus the original), then items are summed into three subscales: Attentional (8 items, range 8 to 32), Motor (11 items, range 11 to 44), and Non-planning (11 items, range 11 to 44). The 30 items sum to a total score ranging from 30 to 120, with higher scores indicating greater impulsiveness.
Is there a cutoff score?
The only published classification comes from Stanford et al. (2009): a total of 72 or above is classified as highly impulsive, 52 to 71 as within normal limits, and below 52 as over-controlled or possibly invalid responding. This is a high-impulsivity marker, not a diagnostic or clinically significant threshold.
Is the BIS-11 free to use?
Yes. The BIS-11 is available for research and clinical use with proper attribution to the original authors; cite Patton, Stanford, and Barratt (1995). Its full item set is published openly in the appendix of Stanford et al. (2009), and it has been translated into numerous languages, including a validated Italian version (Fossati et al., 2001).
How reliable is the BIS-11?
The total score is reliable, with internal consistency of about 0.82 (Patton et al., 1995; 0.79 in the Italian version, Fossati et al., 2001; 0.84 in an independent undergraduate sample, Whiteside and Lynam, 2001). Test-retest reliability is r = 0.83 over one month (Stanford et al., 2009) and r = 0.89 over two months (Fossati et al., 2001). Subscale reliability is lower, roughly 0.59 to 0.74 (Stanford et al., 2009).
Do BIS-11 scores agree with behavioral impulsivity tasks?
Generally not. Self-report measures such as the BIS-11 and laboratory behavioral tasks correlate inconsistently and are largely independent (Reynolds et al., 2006). In adults with ADHD, BIS Attentional related to continuous-performance omission errors, but BIS Motor was uncorrelated with commission errors (Malloy-Diniz et al., 2007). The two measurement families should be treated as complementary rather than interchangeable.
How does the BIS-11 differ from the UPPS Impulsive Behavior Scale?
The BIS-11 uses a three-factor model (Attentional, Motor, Non-planning) rooted in Barratt's neuropsychological framework, whereas the UPPS measures four facets derived from the Five Factor Model: (negative) Urgency, (lack of) Premeditation, (lack of) Perseverance, and Sensation Seeking (Whiteside and Lynam, 2001). A fifth facet, Positive Urgency, was added later in the UPPS-P. The BIS-11 is the more clinically oriented of the two and is heavily used in ADHD and substance-use research.
