Designing and Validating a Novel Method for Assessing Delay Discounting Associated With Health Behaviors: Ecological Momentary Assessment Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Delay discounting quantifies an individual's preference for smaller, short-term rewards over larger, long-term rewards and represents a transdiagnostic factor associated with numerous adverse health outcomes. Rather than a fixed trait, delay discounting may vary over time and place, influenced by individual and contextual factors. Continuous, real-time measurement could inform adaptive interventions for various health conditions. OBJECTIVE: The goals of this paper are 2-fold. First, we present and validate a novel, short, ecological momentary assessment (EMA)-based delay discounting scale we developed. Second, we assess this tool's ability to reproduce known associations between delay discounting and health behaviors (ie, substance use and craving) using a convenience-based sample. METHODS: Participants (N=97) were adults (age range 18-71 years), recruited on social media. In phase 1, data were collected on participant sociodemographic characteristics, and delay discounting was evaluated via the traditional Monetary Choice Questionnaire (MCQ) and our novel method (ie, 7-item time-selection and 7-item monetary-selection scales). During phase 2 (approximately 6 months later), participants completed the MCQ, our novel delay discounting measures, and health outcomes questions. The correlations between our method and the traditional MCQ within and across phases were examined. For scale reduction, a random number of items were iteratively selected, and the correlation between the full and random scales was assessed. We then examined the association between our time- and monetary-selection scales assessed during phase 2 and the percentage of assessments that participants endorsed using or craving alcohol, tobacco, or cannabis. RESULTS: In total, 6 of the 7 individual time-selection items were highly correlated with the full scale (r>0.89). Both time-selection (r=0.71; P<.001) and monetary-selection (r=0.66; P<.001) delay discounting rates had high test-retest reliability across phases 1 and 2. Phase 1 MCQ delay discounting function highly correlated with phase 1 (r=0.76; P<.001) and phase 2 (r=0.45; P<.001) time-selection delay discounting scales. One or more randomly chosen time-selection items were highly correlated with the full scale (r>0.94). Greater delay discounting measured via the time-selection measure (adjusted mean difference=5.89, 95% CI 1.99-9.79), but not the monetary-selection scale (adjusted mean difference=-0.62, 95% CI -3.57 to 2.32), was associated with more past-hour tobacco use endorsement in follow-up surveys. CONCLUSIONS: This study evaluated a novel EMA-based scale's ability to validly and reliably assess delay discounting. By measuring delay discounting with fewer items and in situ via EMA in natural environments, researchers may be better able to identify individuals at risk for poor health outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.040 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".