CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 555Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 73 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An algorithm for identifying nonsystematic delay-discounting data.

Open access
Johnson, Matthew W., Bickel, Warren K.·2008·Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology
DOI 10.1037/1064-1297.16.3.264PMC PMC2765051
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Several [corrected] discounting studies have use the R2 measure to identify data [corrected] with poor fits to a mathematical discounting model as nonsystematic data to be eliminated [corrected] Data from three previous delay-discounting studies (six separate groups, with a total of 161 individuals) were used to demonstrate why using R2 to assess the fits of discounting data is problematic. A significant, positive correlation between discounting rate parameter and R2 was found in most groups, showing that R2 is more stringent as a measure of fit for low discounting rates than for high discounting rates. Furthermore, it is suggested that identifying nonsystematic data based on any measure of fit to a mathematical discounting model may be problematic because it confounds discounting rate comparison with the issue of discounting model assessment. Therefore, a model-free method to identify nonsystematic data is needed. An algorithm for identifying nonsystematic data is presented that is based on the expectation of a monotonically decreasing discounting function. This algorithm identified 13 cases out of the 161 reanalyzed data sets as nonsystematic. These nonsystematic data are presented, along with examples of data not identified as nonsystematic. This algorithm, or modifications of it, may be useful in a variety of human and nonhuman animal discounting studies (e.g., delay discounting, probability discounting) as an alternative to the R2 measure for identifying nonsystematic data. The algorithm may be used in empirical investigations to improve discounting methodology, and may be used to identify outliers to be removed from analyses.

Overview

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 · 10.1037/1064-1297.16.3.264

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 73 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–555 of 555

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Johnson, M. W., & Bickel, W. K.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (US)
ORCID
Venue
Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2008
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
264-274
ISSN
  • 1064-1297 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-2293
DOI
10.1037/1064-1297.16.3.264
PMC
PMC2765051
OpenAlex
W2092110116
Cited by
555
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 81 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 40 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 11
FWCI
6.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
correction (2008-08-25)
Open access
Locations
  • Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01 DA 11692; T32 DA07242)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
delay discounting, discount rate, model fit assessment, outlier detection, probability discounting
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Animals, Behavior, Humans, Motivation, Reinforcement, Psychology, Smoking, Time Factors, Models, Statistical

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