Department of Psychology, Addictive Behaviors Research Group, University of Oviedo.
Department of Psychology and Sociology, University of Zaragoza.
Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2024 Jun;32(3):358-368. doi: 10.1037/pha0000688. Epub 2023 Nov 27.
Delay discounting (DD) assessments offer a wide variety of procedures to suit specific clinical and research needs. This study compared the reliability and validity of two DD tasks: (a) an adjusting amounts task presented on a computer (AAC) and (b) the 21-item Monetary Choice Task, which was administered online (MCT). Participants were 1,573 Spanish young-adults reporting past-month substance use. Measures included quantity and severity of drug use (i.e., cigarette smoking, cannabis, alcohol) and two DD assessments (i.e., AAC, MCT). Reliability was assessed using both the classical test and item response theory. Correlations and linear regressions examined the validity of both DD tasks in relation to substance use. The MCT showed higher internal consistency than the AAC (α = .941 vs. α = .748). AAC precision was adequate for moderate levels of discounting (θ values between -2 and +2), but the MCT showed superior reliability at low, moderate, and high levels of discounting (θ values between -1 and +1.5). Both DD tasks showed more significant correlations for alcohol-related measures (|rs| ranged between .053 and .093) compared to cigarettes and cannabis. The incremental validity of DD tasks in relation to nicotine dependence (AUC: β = -.664, 95% CI [-1.256, -.071]) and alcohol problems (AUC: β = -3.098, 95% CI [-5.209, -.988]) was only supported for the AAC. The MCT was more reliable than the AAC for measuring impulsive choice in young adult substance users. Nevertheless, the AAC may serve as a valid marker of nicotine dependence and alcohol problems. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
延迟折扣(DD)评估提供了多种程序,以满足特定的临床和研究需求。本研究比较了两种 DD 任务的可靠性和有效性:(a)在计算机上呈现的调整数量任务(AAC)和(b)在线进行的 21 项货币选择任务(MCT)。参与者是 1573 名报告过去一个月有物质使用史的西班牙年轻成年人。测量包括药物使用的数量和严重程度(即吸烟、大麻、酒精)以及两种 DD 评估(即 AAC、MCT)。使用经典测试和项目反应理论评估可靠性。相关性和线性回归检验了这两种 DD 任务与物质使用的关系的有效性。MCT 的内部一致性高于 AAC(α=.941 对 α=.748)。AAC 的精度对于中等水平的折扣(θ值在-2 到+2 之间)是足够的,但 MCT 在低、中、高水平的折扣(θ值在-1 到+1.5 之间)显示出更好的可靠性。与香烟和大麻相比,两种 DD 任务与酒精相关措施的相关性更显著(|rs|在.053 到.093 之间)。只有 AAC 支持 DD 任务与尼古丁依赖(AUC:β=-.664,95%CI[-1.256,-.071])和酒精问题(AUC:β=-3.098,95%CI[-5.209,-.988])的增量有效性。MCT 比 AAC 更可靠,可用于衡量年轻成年物质使用者的冲动选择。然而,AAC 可能是尼古丁依赖和酒精问题的有效标志物。(PsycInfo 数据库记录(c)2024 APA,保留所有权利)。