Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37844072›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Discounting of delayed rewards: Missing data imputation for the 21- and 27-item monetary choice questionnaires.

Yu-Hua Yeh, Allison N Tegge, Roberta Freitas-Lemos, Joel Myerson, Leonard Green, Warren K Bickel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Yu-Hua YehPsychology Department, Illinois College, Jacksonville, IL, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4880-0475
Allison N TeggeFralin Biomedical Research Institute at VTC, Roanoke, VA, United States of America.
Roberta Freitas-LemosFralin Biomedical Research Institute at VTC, Roanoke, VA, United States of America.
Joel MyersonDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States of America.
Leonard GreenDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States of America.
Warren K BickelFralin Biomedical Research Institute at VTC, Roanoke, VA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-1048-7372

Funding

DECISION-MAKING IN YOUNGER AND OLDER ADULTS: A DISCOUNTING FRAMEWORKR01AG058885 · NIA · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI GREEN, LEONARD S, MYERSON, JOEL · 2018 to 2022
$1.7M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG058885
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Monetary Choice Questionnaire (MCQ) is a widely used behavioral task that measures the rate of delay discounting (i.e., k), the degree to which a delayed reward loses its present value as a function of the time to its receipt. Both 21- and 27-item MCQs have been extensively validated and proven valuable in research. Different methods have been developed to streamline MCQ scoring. However, existing scoring methods have yet to tackle the issue of missing responses or provide clear guidance on imputing such data. Due to this lack of knowledge, the present study developed and compared three imputation approaches that leverage the MCQ's structure and prioritize ease of implementation. Additionally, their performance was compared with mode imputation. A Monte Carlo simulation was conducted to evaluate the performance of these approaches in handling various missing responses in each observation across two datasets from prior studies that employed the 21- and 27-item MCQs. One of the three approaches consistently outperformed mode imputation across all performance measures. This approach involves imputing missing values using congruent non-missing responses to the items corresponding to the same k value or introducing random responses when congruent answers are unavailable. This investigation unveils a straightforward method for imputing missing data in the MCQ while ensuring unbiased estimates. Along with the investigation, an R tool was developed for researchers to implement this strategy while streamlining the MCQ scoring process.

Indexed as

Research DesignRewardComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID37844072
PMCPMC10578570

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.