Cited by 167Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Monetary Delay Discounting: A Meta-Analysis of Case-Control Studies

Open access
Jackson, Jacob N.S., MacKillop, James·2016·Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging

Abstract

Background A growing number of studies have investigated delay discounting, a behavioral economic index of impulsivity, and its relevance to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but with mixed findings. The current meta-analysis synthesizes the literature on the relationship between monetary delay discounting and ADHD in studies using case-control designs. Specifically, the objectives were: 1) to characterize the aggregated differences in monetary delay discounting between individuals with ADHD (cases) and controls in studies using categorical case-control designs; 2) to examine potential differences based on sample age (<18 vs. >18), reward outcome (real vs. hypothetical), and prevalence of conduct disorder and oppositional defiant disorder in the sample; and 3) to evaluate potential small-study (publication) bias in the literature.Methods From 567 candidate articles, 21 independent investigations yielded 25 case-control comparisons (total N=3,913). Random effects meta-analysis was conducted using Cohen's d as the common effect size. Publication bias was evaluated using fail-safe N, Begg-Mazumdar and Egger tests, and metaregression of publication year and effect size.Results Across studies, a statistically significant difference of medium magnitude effect size was present for the case-control comparisons (d=0.43; p < 10-15). No significant differences based on sample age, reward outcome, or comorbid status was detected. Minimal heterogeneity and evidence of publication bias was present.Conclusions These findings provide robust evidence that delay discounting is significantly elevated among individuals with ADHD compared to controls. Gaps in the literature and the importance of characterizing the neural and genetic bases of this relationship are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bpsc.2016.01.007

Cites

95 of 95 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • ADHD is associated with moderate tendency to favor small immediate rewards over large delayed rewards.

    “Two meta-analyses, one with 21 studies and over 3,900 participants, the other with 15 studies with over a thousand participants, found that those diagnosed with ADHD have a moderate tendency to favor small immediate rewards over large delayed rewards (Jackson and MacKillop, 2016; Marx et al., 2018).”
  • Discount rate is highly correlated with a variety of health behaviors and disorders, with medium effect sizes across studies.

    “Supporting this belief, discount rate is highly correlated with a variety of health behaviors and disorders, with medium effect sizes across studies (Amlung, Petker, Jackson, Balodis, & MacKillop, 2016; Jackson & MacKillop, 2016; MacKillop et al., 2011).”

    From Behavioral trainings and manipulations to reduce delay discounting: A systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as Jackson & MacKillop, 2016

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Scheidel G (2013): Delay and probability discounting functions of adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) [dissertation]. Utah State University, Logan, Utah.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jackson, J. N. S., & MacKillop, J.
Affiliations
  • Peter Boris Centre for Addictions Research (CA)
  • Homewood Research Institute (CA)
Corresponding author
MacKillop, James
Venue
Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-07
Volume
1
Issue
4
Pages
316-325
ISSN
2451-9022 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2267519008
Cited by
167
References
94
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 6
FWCI
2.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biological Psychiatry Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (P30 DA027827, R01 DA032015)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, delay discounting, impulsivity, monetary rewards, conduct disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, publication bias, age differences

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review