Temporal discounting in children and adolescents with and without attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a comparison of four scoring methods.

IF 1.6 3区 心理学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Child Neuropsychology Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-20 DOI:10.1080/09297049.2023.2268768
Erik de Water, Ellen Demurie, Gabry W Mies, Anouk Scheres
{"title":"Temporal discounting in children and adolescents with and without attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a comparison of four scoring methods.","authors":"Erik de Water, Ellen Demurie, Gabry W Mies, Anouk Scheres","doi":"10.1080/09297049.2023.2268768","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Temporal discounting (TD) tasks measure the preference for immediate rewards over larger delayed rewards and have been widely used to study impulsivity in children and adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Relatively impulsive individuals tend to show high inconsistency in their choices, which makes it difficult to determine commonly used TD outcome measures (e.g., area under the curve, AUC). In this study, we leveraged two published datasets to compare four methods to compute TD outcome measures in children and adolescents (8-17 years) with (<i>n</i> = 107) and without ADHD (<i>n</i> = 128): two predetermined rules methods, a proportion method, and logistic regression. In both datasets, when using the two predetermined rules methods and the proportion method, TD outcomes were highly correlated and group differences in TD were similar. When using logistic regression, a large proportion of AUCs (95% in dataset 1; 33% in dataset 2) could not be computed due to inconsistent choice patterns. These findings indicate that predetermined rules methods (for studies with small sample sizes and experienced raters) and a proportion method (for studies with larger sample sizes or less experienced raters) are recommended over logistic regression when determining subjective reward values for participants with inconsistent choice patterns.</p>","PeriodicalId":9789,"journal":{"name":"Child Neuropsychology","volume":" ","pages":"702-721"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Child Neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2023.2268768","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Temporal discounting (TD) tasks measure the preference for immediate rewards over larger delayed rewards and have been widely used to study impulsivity in children and adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Relatively impulsive individuals tend to show high inconsistency in their choices, which makes it difficult to determine commonly used TD outcome measures (e.g., area under the curve, AUC). In this study, we leveraged two published datasets to compare four methods to compute TD outcome measures in children and adolescents (8-17 years) with (n = 107) and without ADHD (n = 128): two predetermined rules methods, a proportion method, and logistic regression. In both datasets, when using the two predetermined rules methods and the proportion method, TD outcomes were highly correlated and group differences in TD were similar. When using logistic regression, a large proportion of AUCs (95% in dataset 1; 33% in dataset 2) could not be computed due to inconsistent choice patterns. These findings indicate that predetermined rules methods (for studies with small sample sizes and experienced raters) and a proportion method (for studies with larger sample sizes or less experienced raters) are recommended over logistic regression when determining subjective reward values for participants with inconsistent choice patterns.

患有和不患有注意力缺陷/多动障碍的儿童和青少年的时间折扣:四种评分方法的比较。
时间折扣(TD)任务衡量了对即时奖励的偏好,而不是更大的延迟奖励,并已被广泛用于研究患有注意力缺陷/多动障碍(ADHD)的儿童和青少年的冲动性。相对冲动的个体往往在他们的选择中表现出高度的不一致性,这使得很难确定常用的TD结果指标(例如,曲线下面积,AUC)。在这项研究中,我们利用两个已发表的数据集比较了四种计算儿童和青少年TD结果测量的方法(8-17 年)与(n = 107)和无ADHD(n = 128):两种预先确定的规则方法,比例法和逻辑回归。在这两个数据集中,当使用两种预定规则方法和比例方法时,TD结果高度相关,TD的组间差异相似。当使用逻辑回归时,由于选择模式不一致,很大一部分AUC(数据集1中为95%;数据集2中为33%)无法计算。这些发现表明,在为选择模式不一致的参与者确定主观奖励值时,建议使用预先确定的规则方法(用于小样本量和经验丰富的评分者的研究)和比例方法(用于较大样本量或经验较少的评分者),而不是逻辑回归。
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
Child Neuropsychology
Child Neuropsychology 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
9.10%
发文量
71
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The purposes of Child Neuropsychology are to: publish research on the neuropsychological effects of disorders which affect brain functioning in children and adolescents, publish research on the neuropsychological dimensions of development in childhood and adolescence and promote the integration of theory, method and research findings in child/developmental neuropsychology. The primary emphasis of Child Neuropsychology is to publish original empirical research. Theoretical and methodological papers and theoretically relevant case studies are welcome. Critical reviews of topics pertinent to child/developmental neuropsychology are encouraged. Emphases of interest include the following: information processing mechanisms; the impact of injury or disease on neuropsychological functioning; behavioral cognitive and pharmacological approaches to treatment/intervention; psychosocial correlates of neuropsychological dysfunction; definitive normative, reliability, and validity studies of psychometric and other procedures used in the neuropsychological assessment of children and adolescents. Articles on both normal and dysfunctional development that are relevant to the aforementioned dimensions are welcome. Multiple approaches (e.g., basic, applied, clinical) and multiple methodologies (e.g., cross-sectional, longitudinal, experimental, multivariate, correlational) are appropriate. Books, media, and software reviews will be published.
×
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