INS NYC 2024 Program

Poster	Poster Session 10 Program Schedule 02/17/2024 09:00 am - 10:15 am Room: Shubert Complex (Posters 1-60) Poster Session 10: Neurodevelopmental \| Congenital Conditions Final Abstract #29 Temporal discounting in children and adolescents with and without Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A comparison of four scoring methods Erik de Water, Great Lakes Neurobehavioral Center, Edina, United States Ellen Demurie, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium Gabry Mies, Karakter Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Nijmegen, Netherlands Anouk Scheres, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands Category: ADHD/Attentional Functions Keyword 1: neuropsychological assessment Keyword 2: inhibitory control Keyword 3: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Objective: Temporal discounting (TD) tasks measure the preference for immediate rewards over larger delayed rewards and have been widely used to study impulsivity in children and adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Relatively impulsive individuals tend to show high inconsistency in their choices, which makes it difficult to determine commonly used TD outcome measures (e.g., area under the curve, AUC). Scoring rules have been developed to determine TD outcomes for children and adolescents who show inconsistent choice patterns, but applying these rules is time-consuming and requires extensive training and experience. The objective of the current study was to compare two established methods that use predetermined scoring rules to determine TD outcome variables to two methods that can be automated (i.e., a proportion method, and logistic regression). Participants and Methods: In this study, we leveraged two published datasets (Mies et al., 2019; Demurie et al., 2012) to compare four methods to compute TD outcome measures in children and adolescents (8-17 years) with ADHD (n = 107) and typically developing control participants (n = 128). TD tasks involved repeated choices between a small immediate reward (e.g., 4 cents now) and a larger, delayed reward (e.g., 10 cents after 25 seconds). The TD tasks used in both datasets differed in important dimensions, including hypothetical vs. real experience of delays and rewards and short vs. long delays. Outcome variables included the subjective value (SV) of the delayed reward for each delay, and AUC. We computed Spearman rank-order correlations between SVs and AUCs for the four different scoring methods for all participants, and for each group (i.e., ADHD vs. control group) separately. We performed repeated measures ANOVAs with SV as dependent variable, delay as within-subjects factor, and group (ADHD vs. control) as between-subjects factor to examine whether declines in SVs with increasing delays differed between groups. Finally, we performed independent-samples t-tests to compare group differences in AUCs between the four scoring methods. Results: In both datasets, AUCs determined by the four different methods were significantly (p<0.001) and highly correlated (rho's 0.93-0.99) and group differences in TD were similar. Specifically, participants with ADHD showed a significantly stronger preference for immediate rewards compared to typically developing control participants (ps<0.03 in dataset 1; ps<0.015 in dataset 2), with similar effect sizes (d's 0.59-0.64 in dataset 1; d's 0.38-0.41 in dataset 2). However, when using logistic regression, a large proportion of AUCs (95% in dataset 1; 33% in dataset 2) could not be computed due to inconsistent choice patterns of participants. The proportion of participants in dataset 2 for whom the AUC could not be determined using the logistic regression method was significantly larger in the ADHD group (47.9%) than in the control group (22.7%) (p = 0.001). Conclusions: These findings indicate that predetermined rules methods (for studies with small sample sizes and experienced raters) and a proportion method (for studies with larger sample sizes or less experienced raters) are recommended over logistic regression when determining subjective values of delayed rewards in TD tasks for participants with inconsistent choice patterns, such as children and adolescents with ADHD.

Poster

02/17/2024
09:00 am - 10:15 am
Room: Shubert Complex (Posters 1-60)

Poster Session 10: Neurodevelopmental | Congenital Conditions

Final Abstract #29

Temporal discounting in children and adolescents with and without Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A comparison of four scoring methods

Erik de Water, Great Lakes Neurobehavioral Center, Edina, United States
Ellen Demurie, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium
Gabry Mies, Karakter Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Nijmegen, Netherlands
Anouk Scheres, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands

Category: ADHD/Attentional Functions

Keyword 1: neuropsychological assessment
Keyword 2: inhibitory control
Keyword 3: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Objective:

Temporal discounting (TD) tasks measure the preference for immediate rewards over larger delayed rewards and have been widely used to study impulsivity in children and adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Relatively impulsive individuals tend to show high inconsistency in their choices, which makes it difficult to determine commonly used TD outcome measures (e.g., area under the curve, AUC). Scoring rules have been developed to determine TD outcomes for children and adolescents who show inconsistent choice patterns, but applying these rules is time-consuming and requires extensive training and experience. The objective of the current study was to compare two established methods that use predetermined scoring rules to determine TD outcome variables to two methods that can be automated (i.e., a proportion method, and logistic regression).

Participants and Methods:

In this study, we leveraged two published datasets (Mies et al., 2019; Demurie et al., 2012) to compare four methods to compute TD outcome measures in children and adolescents (8-17 years) with ADHD (n = 107) and typically developing control participants (n = 128). TD tasks involved repeated choices between a small immediate reward (e.g., 4 cents now) and a larger, delayed reward (e.g., 10 cents after 25 seconds). The TD tasks used in both datasets differed in important dimensions, including hypothetical vs. real experience of delays and rewards and short vs. long delays. Outcome variables included the subjective value (SV) of the delayed reward for each delay, and AUC. We computed Spearman rank-order correlations between SVs and AUCs for the four different scoring methods for all participants, and for each group (i.e., ADHD vs. control group) separately. We performed repeated measures ANOVAs with SV as dependent variable, delay as within-subjects factor, and group (ADHD vs. control) as between-subjects factor to examine whether declines in SVs with increasing delays differed between groups. Finally, we performed independent-samples t-tests to compare group differences in AUCs between the four scoring methods.

Results:

In both datasets, AUCs determined by the four different methods were significantly (p<0.001) and highly correlated (rho's 0.93-0.99) and group differences in TD were similar. Specifically, participants with ADHD showed a significantly stronger preference for immediate rewards compared to typically developing control participants (ps<0.03 in dataset 1; ps<0.015 in dataset 2), with similar effect sizes (d's 0.59-0.64 in dataset 1; d's 0.38-0.41 in dataset 2). However, when using logistic regression, a large proportion of AUCs (95% in dataset 1; 33% in dataset 2) could not be computed due to inconsistent choice patterns of participants. The proportion of participants in dataset 2 for whom the AUC could not be determined using the logistic regression method was significantly larger in the ADHD group (47.9%) than in the control group (22.7%) (p = 0.001).

Conclusions:

These findings indicate that predetermined rules methods (for studies with small sample sizes and experienced raters) and a proportion method (for studies with larger sample sizes or less experienced raters) are recommended over logistic regression when determining subjective values of delayed rewards in TD tasks for participants with inconsistent choice patterns, such as children and adolescents with ADHD.