William G Shadel1, Maria Orlando Edelen2, Joan S Tucker3, Brian D Stucky3, Mark Hansen4, Li Cai4. 1. RAND Health, RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA; shadel@rand.org. 2. RAND Health, RAND Corporation, Boston, MA; 3. RAND Health, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA; 4. CSE/CRESST, Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Smoking is a coping strategy for many smokers who then have difficulty finding new ways to cope with negative affect when they quit. This paper describes analyses conducted to develop and evaluate item banks for assessing the coping expectancies of smoking for daily and nondaily smokers. METHODS: Using data from a large sample of daily (N = 4,201) and nondaily (N = 1,183) smokers, we conducted a series of item factor analyses, item response theory analyses, and differential item functioning (DIF) analyses (according to gender, age, and ethnicity) to arrive at a unidimensional set of items for daily and nondaily smokers. We also evaluated performance of short forms (SFs) and computer adaptive tests (CATs) for assessing coping expectancies of smoking. RESULTS: For both daily and nondaily smokers, the unidimensional Coping Expectancies item banks (21 items) are relatively DIF free and are highly reliable (0.96 and 0.97, respectively). A common 4-item SF for daily and nondaily smokers also showed good reliability (0.85). Adaptive tests required an average of 4.3 and 3.7 items for simulated daily and nondaily respondents, respectively, and achieved reliabilities of 0.91 for both when the maximum test length was 10 items. CONCLUSIONS: This research provides a new set of items that can be used to reliably assess coping expectancies of smoking, through a SF, CAT, or a tailored set selected for a specific research purpose.
OBJECTIVE: Smoking is a coping strategy for many smokers who then have difficulty finding new ways to cope with negative affect when they quit. This paper describes analyses conducted to develop and evaluate item banks for assessing the coping expectancies of smoking for daily and nondaily smokers. METHODS: Using data from a large sample of daily (N = 4,201) and nondaily (N = 1,183) smokers, we conducted a series of item factor analyses, item response theory analyses, and differential item functioning (DIF) analyses (according to gender, age, and ethnicity) to arrive at a unidimensional set of items for daily and nondaily smokers. We also evaluated performance of short forms (SFs) and computer adaptive tests (CATs) for assessing coping expectancies of smoking. RESULTS: For both daily and nondaily smokers, the unidimensional Coping Expectancies item banks (21 items) are relatively DIF free and are highly reliable (0.96 and 0.97, respectively). A common 4-item SF for daily and nondaily smokers also showed good reliability (0.85). Adaptive tests required an average of 4.3 and 3.7 items for simulated daily and nondaily respondents, respectively, and achieved reliabilities of 0.91 for both when the maximum test length was 10 items. CONCLUSIONS: This research provides a new set of items that can be used to reliably assess coping expectancies of smoking, through a SF, CAT, or a tailored set selected for a specific research purpose.
Authors: Megan E Piper; Thomas M Piasecki; E Belle Federman; Daniel M Bolt; Stevens S Smith; Michael C Fiore; Timothy B Baker Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2004-04
Authors: Wenjing Huang; Brian D Stucky; Maria O Edelen; Joan S Tucker; William G Shadel; Mark Hansen; Li Cai Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2016-01-31 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Maria Orlando Edelen; Brian D Stucky; Mark Hansen; Joan S Tucker; William G Shadel; Li Cai Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Joan S Tucker; Eric R Pedersen; Sebastian Linnemayr; William G Shadel; Maria DeYoreo; Rushil Zutshi Journal: Addict Sci Clin Pract Date: 2020-02-19