4.2 Article

Comparison of three measurement models of discounting among individuals with methamphetamine use disorder

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL ON ADDICTIONS
Volume 27, Issue 5, Pages 425-432

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ajad.12761

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institute on Drug Abuse (Rockville, MD) [DA023468]
  2. Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and ObjectivesDelay discounting is associated with numerous clinically significant aspects of substance use disorders (SUDs). Recent studies have demonstrated that different models for assessing discounting may result in disparate conclusions. The current study compared two discounting tasks: money now versus money later (M-M) and methamphetamine now versus money later (MA-M) among non-treatment seeking individuals (N=59) with methamphetamine use disorder (MAUD). Results from each task were assessed using three different models for assessing delay discounting. MethodsDiscounting data were fit to three models of discounting, log k using Mazur's hyperbolic formula, area under the curve (AUC), and an alternative AUC model in which the delay values have been log transformed (AUClog). ResultsFor both discounting tasks, the distribution of model-related outcomes were normally distributed when using log k and AUClog, but skewed for AUC. Discounting in the MA-M task was significantly greater compared to the M-M task when using log k and AUClog but not AUC. ConclusionTo our knowledge, the current study is the first to report significantly greater discounting in a MA-M relative to M-M discounting task among individuals with MAUD, an outcome consistent with other psychomotor stimulants and drugs of abuse. Scientific SignificanceThe differential results observed across the three discounting models reaffirm potential issues with AUC noted in recent studies and highlight that researchers must be cautious when deciding on their final model of discounting. (Am J Addict 2018;27:425-432)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available