A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Test-retest Reliability and Stability of Delay and Probability Discounting

Overview

Journal J Exp Anal Behav

Specialties Psychology
Social Sciences

Date 2024 Mar 18

PMID 38499476

Authors

Brett W Gelino

Rebekah D Schlitzer

Derek D Reed

Justin C Strickland

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

In this meta-analysis, we describe a benchmark value of delay and probability discounting reliability and stability that might be used to (a) evaluate the meaningfulness of clinically achieved changes in discounting and (b) support the role of discounting as a valid and enduring measure of intertemporal choice. We examined test-retest reliability, stability effect sizes (d; Cohen, 1992), and relevant moderators across 30 publications comprising 39 independent samples and 262 measures of discounting, identified via a systematic review of PsychInfo, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases. We calculated omnibus effect-size estimates and evaluated the role of proposed moderators using a robust variance estimation meta-regression method. The meta-regression output reflected modest test-retest reliability, r = .670, p < .001, 95% CI [.618, .716]. Discounting was most reliable when measured in the context of temporal constraints, in adult respondents, when using money as a medium, and when reassessed within 1 month. Testing also suggested acceptable stability via nonsignificant and small changes in effect magnitude over time, d = 0.048, p = .31, 95% CI [-0.051, 0.146]. Clinicians and researchers seeking to measure discounting can consider the contexts when reliability is maximized for specific cases.

Citing Articles

Genome-wide association study of delay discounting in Heterogeneous Stock rats.

Lara M, Chitre A, Chen D, Johnson B, Nguyen K, Cohen K Genes Brain Behav. 2024; 23(4):e12909.

PMID: 39119916 PMC: 11310854. DOI: 10.1111/gbb.12909.

References

Kuang J, Milhorn H, Stuppy-Sullivan A, Jung S, Yi R . Alternate versions of a fixed-choice, delay-discounting assessment for repeated-measures designs. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2018; 26(5):503-508. PMC: 6162107. DOI: 10.1037/pha0000211. View

Reed D, Martens B . Temporal discounting predicts student responsiveness to exchange delays in a classroom token system. J Appl Behav Anal. 2011; 44(1):1-18. PMC: 3050479. DOI: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-1. View

Gilroy S, Franck C, Hantula D . The discounting model selector: Statistical software for delay discounting applications. J Exp Anal Behav. 2017; 107(3):388-401. DOI: 10.1002/jeab.257. View

Frohner J, Teckentrup V, Smolka M, Kroemer N . Addressing the reliability fallacy in fMRI: Similar group effects may arise from unreliable individual effects. Neuroimage. 2019; 195:174-189. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.03.053. View

Myerson J, Green L, Warusawitharana M . Area under the curve as a measure of discounting. J Exp Anal Behav. 2001; 76(2):235-43. PMC: 1284836. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2001.76-235. View

Johnson M, Bruner N . The Sexual Discounting Task: HIV risk behavior and the discounting of delayed sexual rewards in cocaine dependence. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011; 123(1-3):15-21. PMC: 3290676. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.09.032. View

Richards J, Zhang L, Mitchell S, de Wit H . Delay or probability discounting in a model of impulsive behavior: effect of alcohol. J Exp Anal Behav. 1999; 71(2):121-43. PMC: 1284697. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1999.71-121. View

Johnson M, Herrmann E, Sweeney M, LeComte R, Johnson P . Cocaine administration dose-dependently increases sexual desire and decreases condom use likelihood: The role of delay and probability discounting in connecting cocaine with HIV. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2016; 234(4):599-612. PMC: 5343757. DOI: 10.1007/s00213-016-4493-5. View

Rachlin H, Raineri A, Cross D . Subjective probability and delay. J Exp Anal Behav. 1991; 55(2):233-44. PMC: 1323057. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1991.55-233. View

10.

Arfer K, Luhmann C . Time-Preference Tests Fail to Predict Behavior Related to Self-control. Front Psychol. 2017; 8:150. PMC: 5298954. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00150. View

11.

Madden G, Petry N, Johnson P . Pathological gamblers discount probabilistic rewards less steeply than matched controls. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2009; 17(5):283-90. PMC: 2855821. DOI: 10.1037/a0016806. View

12.

Jimura K, Myerson J, Hilgard J, Keighley J, Braver T, Green L . Domain independence and stability in young and older adults' discounting of delayed rewards. Behav Processes. 2011; 87(3):253-9. PMC: 3138910. DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2011.04.006. View

13.

Gilroy S, Hantula D . Discounting model selection with area-based measures: A case for numerical integration. J Exp Anal Behav. 2018; 109(2):433-449. DOI: 10.1002/jeab.318. View

14.

Amlung M, Petker T, Jackson J, Balodis I, MacKillop J . Steep discounting of delayed monetary and food rewards in obesity: a meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2016; 46(11):2423-34. DOI: 10.1017/S0033291716000866. View

15.

Gilroy S, Hantula D . Exact solutions for area-based delay discounting analyses. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2023; 31(4):849-860. DOI: 10.1037/pha0000638. View

16.

Madden G, Begotka A, Raiff B, Kastern L . Delay discounting of real and hypothetical rewards. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2003; 11(2):139-45. DOI: 10.1037/1064-1297.11.2.139. View

17.

Smits R, Stein J, Johnson P, Odum A, Madden G . Test-retest reliability and construct validity of the Experiential Discounting Task. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2013; 21(2):155-63. PMC: 3959642. DOI: 10.1037/a0031725. View

18.

Odum A . Delay discounting: trait variable?. Behav Processes. 2011; 87(1):1-9. PMC: 3266171. DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2011.02.007. View

19.

Strickland J, Alcorn 3rd J, Stoops W . Using behavioral economic variables to predict future alcohol use in a crowdsourced sample. J Psychopharmacol. 2019; 33(7):779-790. DOI: 10.1177/0269881119827800. View

20.

Kirby K, Petry N, Bickel W . Heroin addicts have higher discount rates for delayed rewards than non-drug-using controls. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1999; 128(1):78-87. DOI: 10.1037//0096-3445.128.1.78. View