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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“Data that did not meet validity criteria were treated as missing in analyses.”
From Subtyping cognitive profiles in Autism Spectrum Disorder using a Functional Random Forest algorithm (2018) · cites this paper as [76]
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
Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review
Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O’Donoghue, T. (2002) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/002205102320161311 · Cited by 6,106
Model Selection and Multimodel Inference
(2003) · Technometrics · doi:10.1198/tech.2003.s146 · Cited by 5,509
Delay of gratification in children.
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. L. (1989) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.2658056 · Cited by 3,397
Specious reward: A behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control.
Ainslie, G. (1975) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0076860 · Cited by 2,708
Anomalies in Intertemporal Choice: Evidence and an Interpretation
Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (1992) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/2118482 · Cited by 2,305
Some empirical evidence on dynamic inconsistency
Thaler, R. H. (1981) · Economics Letters · doi:10.1016/0165-1765(81)90067-7 · Cited by 2,282
Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers.
Ratcliff, R. (1993) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.510 · Cited by 2,142
Motulsky, H. J., & Christopoulos, A. (2004) · Cited by 1,972
An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement.
Commons, M. L., Mazur, J., Nevin, J. A., & Rachlin, H. C. (1987) · doi:10.4324/9781315825502-11 · Cited by 1,842
Impulsivity and cigarette smoking: delay discounting in current, never, and ex-smokers
Bickel, W. K., Odum, A. L., & Madden, G. J. (1999) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/pl00005490 · Cited by 1,433
Self-citation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Peters, J., & Büchel, C. (2010) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.03.026 · Cited by 871
A 5-trial adjusting delay discounting task: Accurate discount rates in less than one minute.
Koffarnus, M. N., & Bickel, W. K. (2014) · Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1037/a0035973 · Cited by 411
Self-citationIdentification and management of nonsystematic purchase task data: Toward best practice.
Stein, J. S., Koffarnus, M. N., Snider, S. E., Quisenberry, A. J., & Bickel, W. K. (2015) · Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1037/pha0000020 · Cited by 281
Self-citationPercent body fat is related to delay and probability discounting for food in humans
Rasmussen, E. B., Lawyer, S. R., & Reilly, W. (2009) · Behavioural Processes · doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2009.09.001 · Cited by 286
Unstuck in time: episodic future thinking reduces delay discounting and cigarette smoking
Stein, J. S., Wilson, A. G., Koffarnus, M. N., Daniel, T. O., Epstein, L. H., & Bickel, W. K. (2016) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-016-4410-y · Cited by 267
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Johnson, M. W., & Bickel, W. K.
- Affiliations
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (US)
- Venue
- Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology
- Published
- 2008
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 264-274
- ISSN
- 1064-1297 (ISSN-L)
- 1936-2293
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- 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
