Cited by 157Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsPsychometric Methodologies and TestingNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Test–retest reliability of a group-administered paper–pencil measure of delay discounting.

Beck, Robert C., Triplett, Mary Frances·2009·Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability of an easily administered paper-pencil temporal discounting task modeled loosely on the hypothetical money choice task (Rachlin, Raineri, & Cross, 1991). Our group-administered task used 2 descriptions of discounting, the slope constant (k) of the hyperbolic function V = A/(1 + kD) and the area under the curve (AUC). The task was initially administered to 387 (163 men, 188 women, and 35 unspecified gender) introductory psychology students in groups ranging in size from 15 to 45. Six weeks later, 299 students (131 men and 168 women) repeated the task in groups ranging from 15 to 30. At each test time, the data from participants who met specified discounting criteria (about 85%) were fit well with the hyperbolic function (mean r(2) = .90). The test-retest correlation for logk was r = .64; for AUC scores, it was r = .70, with a correlation of r = -.96 between logk and AUC scores at Test 1. The (dislike for) Cognitive Complexity and Cognitive Instability subscales of the Barratt Impulsivity Scales, Version 11, administered only at the retest correlated with k values (r = .20, p = .001, and r = .179, p = .003), and women discounted more than men (p < .001) at both test times. The results are discussed in terms of the utility of the procedure and a detailed comparison of k and AUC measures of discounting.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0017078

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beck, R. C., & Triplett, M. F.
Affiliations
Wake Forest University (US)
Venue
Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology
Published
2009-10
Volume
17
Issue
5
Pages
345-355
ISSN
  • 1064-1297 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-2293
OpenAlex
W2082218440
Cited by
157
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 19
FWCI
7.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
delay discounting, test-retest reliability, hyperbolic discounting, area under the curve, impulsivity, Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, sex differences
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychometrics, Reinforcement, Psychology, Reinforcement Schedule, Self Concept, Sex Factors, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical, Area Under Curve, Population Groups

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