A systematic review and meta-analysis of test–retest reliability and stability of delay and probability discounting

IF 1.4 3区 心理学 Q4 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Brett W. Gelino, Rebekah D. Schlitzer, Derek D. Reed, Justin C. Strickland
{"title":"A systematic review and meta-analysis of test–retest reliability and stability of delay and probability discounting","authors":"Brett W. Gelino,&nbsp;Rebekah D. Schlitzer,&nbsp;Derek D. Reed,&nbsp;Justin C. Strickland","doi":"10.1002/jeab.910","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>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 (<i>d</i><sub>z</sub>; 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, <i>r</i> = .670, <i>p</i> &lt; .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, <i>d</i><sub>z</sub> = 0.048, <i>p</i> = .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.</p>","PeriodicalId":17411,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior","volume":"121 3","pages":"358-372"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jeab.910","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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 (dz; 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, dz = 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.

对延迟和概率折扣的测试重复可靠性和稳定性进行系统回顾和荟萃分析。
在这项荟萃分析中,我们描述了延迟和概率折扣可靠性和稳定性的基准值,该基准值可用于:(a) 评估临床上实现的折扣变化的意义;(b) 支持折扣作为时际选择的有效和持久测量方法的作用。我们通过对 PsychInfo、PubMed 和 Google Scholar 数据库的系统性审查,对包含 39 个独立样本和 262 种折现测量方法的 30 篇出版物中的测试重复可靠性、稳定性效应大小(dz;Cohen,1992 年)和相关调节因素进行了研究。我们使用稳健方差估计元回归方法计算了总效应大小估计值,并评估了所提出的调节因子的作用。元回归结果反映了适度的重复测试可靠性,r = .670,p z = 0.048,p = .31,95% CI [-0.051, 0.146]。寻求测量折现的临床医生和研究人员可以考虑在特定情况下最大限度地提高可靠性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
14.80%
发文量
83
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior is primarily for the original publication of experiments relevant to the behavior of individual organisms.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信