Maria Orlando Edelen1, Joan S Tucker2, William G Shadel3, Brian D Stucky2, Jennifer Cerully3, Zhen Li4, Mark Hansen4, Li Cai4. 1. RAND Health, RAND Corporation, Boston, MA; orlando@rand.org. 2. RAND Health, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA; 3. RAND Health, RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA; 4. CSE/CRESST, Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Smokers' health-related outcome expectancies are associated with a number of important constructs in smoking research, yet there are no measures currently available that focus exclusively on this domain. This paper describes the development and evaluation of item banks for assessing the health expectancies of smoking. METHODS: Using data from a 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 analyses (according to gender, age, and race/ethnicity) to arrive at a unidimensional set of health expectancies items for daily and nondaily smokers. We also evaluated the performance of short forms (SFs) and computer adaptive tests (CATs) to efficiently assess health expectancies. RESULTS: A total of 24 items were included in the Health Expectancies item banks; 13 items are common across daily and nondaily smokers, 6 are unique to daily, and 5 are unique to nondaily. For both daily and nondaily smokers, the Health Expectancies item banks are unidimensional, reliable (reliability = 0.95 and 0.96, respectively), and perform similarly across gender, age, and race/ethnicity groups. A SF common to daily and nondaily smokers consists of 6 items (reliability = 0.87). Results from simulated CATs showed that health expectancies can be assessed with good precision with an average of 5-6 items adaptively selected from the item banks. CONCLUSIONS: Health expectancies of smoking can be assessed on the basis of these item banks via SFs, CATs, or through a tailored set of items selected for a specific research purpose.
INTRODUCTION: Smokers' health-related outcome expectancies are associated with a number of important constructs in smoking research, yet there are no measures currently available that focus exclusively on this domain. This paper describes the development and evaluation of item banks for assessing the health expectancies of smoking. METHODS: Using data from a 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 analyses (according to gender, age, and race/ethnicity) to arrive at a unidimensional set of health expectancies items for daily and nondaily smokers. We also evaluated the performance of short forms (SFs) and computer adaptive tests (CATs) to efficiently assess health expectancies. RESULTS: A total of 24 items were included in the Health Expectancies item banks; 13 items are common across daily and nondaily smokers, 6 are unique to daily, and 5 are unique to nondaily. For both daily and nondaily smokers, the Health Expectancies item banks are unidimensional, reliable (reliability = 0.95 and 0.96, respectively), and perform similarly across gender, age, and race/ethnicity groups. A SF common to daily and nondaily smokers consists of 6 items (reliability = 0.87). Results from simulated CATs showed that health expectancies can be assessed with good precision with an average of 5-6 items adaptively selected from the item banks. CONCLUSIONS: Health expectancies of smoking can be assessed on the basis of these item banks via SFs, CATs, or through a tailored set of items selected for a specific research purpose.
Authors: Bryce B Reeve; Ron D Hays; Jakob B Bjorner; Karon F Cook; Paul K Crane; Jeanne A Teresi; David Thissen; Dennis A Revicki; David J Weiss; Ronald K Hambleton; Honghu Liu; Richard Gershon; Steven P Reise; Jin-shei Lai; David Cella Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Mark Hansen; Li Cai; Brian D Stucky; Joan S Tucker; William G Shadel; Maria Orlando Edelen Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2013-08-13 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Andrew A Strasser; Kathy Z Tang; Daniel Romer; Christopher Jepson; Joseph N Cappella Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 5.043
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: Damaris J Rohsenow; David B Abrams; Peter M Monti; Suzanne M Colby; Rosemarie Martin; Raymond S Niaura Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 3.913
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: Aimée Wattiaux; Brittany Bettendorf; Laura Block; Andrea Gilmore-Bykovskyi; Edmond Ramly; Megan E Piper; Ann Rosenthal; Jane Sadusky; Elizabeth Cox; Betty Chewning; Christie M Bartels Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 4.794
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: Karina Newhall; Bjoern Suckow; Emily Spangler; Benjamin S Brooke; Andres Schanzer; Tze-Woei Tan; Mary Burnette; Maria Orlando Edelen; Alik Farber; Philip Goodney Journal: Ann Vasc Surg Date: 2016-08-10 Impact factor: 1.466
Authors: Joan S Tucker; Brian D Stucky; Maria Orlando Edelen; William G Shadel; David J Klein Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2018-05-22 Impact factor: 4.591