Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30135865›Full record

ArticleBehavior analysis (Washington, D.C.)2018

Resurrecting the individual in behavioral analysis: Using mixed effects models to address nonsystematic discounting data.

Kimberly Kirkpatrick, Andrew T Marshall, Catherine C Steele, Jennifer R Peterson

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior analysis (Washington, D.C.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Effort-Related Decision-Making in ADHD.Journal of psychiatry and brain science · 2020
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kimberly KirkpatrickDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506.
Andrew T MarshallDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Care, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697.
Catherine C SteeleDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506.
Jennifer R PetersonDepartment of Psychology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775.
Kansas State University · USUniversity of Alaska Fairbanks · USUniversity of California, Irvine · US

Funding

Timing, Reward Processing and choiceR01MH085739 · NIMH · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI SMITH, TRAVIS R · 2010 to 2025
$4.7M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH085739
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Delay and probability discounting functions typically take a monotonic form, but some individuals produce functions that are nonsystematic. Johnson and Bickel (2008) developed an algorithm for classifying nonsystematic functions on the basis of two different criteria. Type 1 functions were identified as nonsystematic due to random choices and Type 2 functions were identified as nonsystematic due to relatively shallow slopes, suggesting poor sensitivity to choice parameters. Since their original publication, the algorithm has become widely used in the human discounting literature for removal of participants, with studies often removing approximately 20% of the original sample (Smith & Lawyer, 2017). Because subject removal may not always be feasible due to loss of power or other factors, the present report applied a mixed effects regression modeling technique (Wileyto, Audrain-Mcgovern, Epstein, & Lerman, 2004; Young, 2017) to account for individual differences in DD and PD functions. Assessment of the model estimates for Type 1 and 2 nonsystematic functions indicated that both types of functions deviated systematically from the rest of the sample in that nonsystematic participants were more likely to show shallower slopes and increased biases for larger amounts. The results indicate that removing these participants would fundamentally alter the properties of the final sample in undesirable ways. Because mixed effects models account for between-participant variation with random effects, we advocate for the use of these models for future analyses of a wide range of functions within the behavioral analysis field, with the benefit of avoiding the negative consequences associated with subject removal.

Indexed as

delay discountingindividual differencesmixed effects modelnonsystematic dataprobability discounting

Identifiers

PMID30135865
PMCPMC6101656
OpenAlexW2808894785

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.