Sarah E Adkison1, Vaughan W Rees2, Maansi Bansal-Travers3, Dorothy K Hatsukami4, Richard J O'Connor3. 1. Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY; Sarah.adkison@roswellpark.org. 2. Center for Global Tobacco Control, Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA; 3. Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY; 4. Department of Psychiatry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Attempts to validate the Brief Wisconsin Inventory of Smoking Dependence Motives (WISDM) have produced mixed results. The objectives for the current research were to (1) evaluate the test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and concurrent validity for each of the motive scales (2) evaluate three models to determine fit based on previous research: (i) 11-factor model, (ii) 11-factor model with four error covariances specified by previous research, and (iii) 11-factor model with two higher order primary and secondary dependence motive factors, and (3) evaluate the discriminant and convergent validity of the Brief WISDM scales. METHODS: Smoking adults aged 18-65 completed a survey about their smoking behaviors and nicotine dependence with a web-based instrument that was administered at a 3-month test-retest interval. Psychometric properties and test-retest reliability were evaluated for each instrument. The 11-factor Brief WISDM was evaluated with confirmatory factor analyses; the scales were evaluated for convergent and discriminant validity. RESULTS: The Brief WISDM demonstrated good to excellent test-retest reliability. Confirmatory factor analysis showed the model with the second order primary and secondary dependence motive factors demonstrated the best fit for the data at both administrations. Discriminant validity issues were present for most of the primary dependence motive scales. CONCLUSIONS: To date, the theoretically derived smoking motives for the Brief WISDM have demonstrated mixed support when submitted to confirmatory factor analysis. While these scales tap critical motives of nicotine dependence, further refinement of primary dependence motives is necessary to ensure each latent variable assesses a unique construct.
INTRODUCTION: Attempts to validate the Brief Wisconsin Inventory of Smoking Dependence Motives (WISDM) have produced mixed results. The objectives for the current research were to (1) evaluate the test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and concurrent validity for each of the motive scales (2) evaluate three models to determine fit based on previous research: (i) 11-factor model, (ii) 11-factor model with four error covariances specified by previous research, and (iii) 11-factor model with two higher order primary and secondary dependence motive factors, and (3) evaluate the discriminant and convergent validity of the Brief WISDM scales. METHODS: Smoking adults aged 18-65 completed a survey about their smoking behaviors and nicotine dependence with a web-based instrument that was administered at a 3-month test-retest interval. Psychometric properties and test-retest reliability were evaluated for each instrument. The 11-factor Brief WISDM was evaluated with confirmatory factor analyses; the scales were evaluated for convergent and discriminant validity. RESULTS: The Brief WISDM demonstrated good to excellent test-retest reliability. Confirmatory factor analysis showed the model with the second order primary and secondary dependence motive factors demonstrated the best fit for the data at both administrations. Discriminant validity issues were present for most of the primary dependence motive scales. CONCLUSIONS: To date, the theoretically derived smoking motives for the Brief WISDM have demonstrated mixed support when submitted to confirmatory factor analysis. While these scales tap critical motives of nicotine dependence, further refinement of primary dependence motives is necessary to ensure each latent variable assesses a unique construct.
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: Yessenia Castro; Virmarie Correa-Fernández; Miguel Á Cano; Carlos Mazas; Karla Gonzalez; Damon J Vidrine; Jennifer I Vidrine; David W Wetter Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2014-06-09 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Megan E Piper; Danielle E McCarthy; Daniel M Bolt; Stevens S Smith; Caryn Lerman; Neal Benowitz; Michael C Fiore; Timothy B Baker Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: John R Hughes; Alison H Oliveto; Raine Riggs; Michael Kenny; Anthony Liguori; Janine L Pillitteri; Mark A MacLaughlin Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Aleksandras Radzius; Joseph J Gallo; David H Epstein; David A Gorelick; Jean Lud Cadet; George E Uhl; Eric T Moolchan Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Sam N Cwalina; Anuja Majmundar; Jennifer B Unger; Jessica L Barrington-Trimis; Mary Ann Pentz Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Jessica M Powers; Emily L Zale; Alexa G Deyo; Dana Rubenstein; Ellen L Terry; Bryan W Heckman; Joseph W Ditre Journal: J Racial Ethn Health Disparities Date: 2022-09-28
Authors: Sydney A Martinez; Samantha L Quaife; Afsheen Hasan; Kathryn A McMillan; Laura A Beebe; Fiona Muirhead Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2020-06-11
Authors: Krista M Lisdahl; Kenneth J Sher; Kevin P Conway; Raul Gonzalez; Sarah W Feldstein Ewing; Sara Jo Nixon; Susan Tapert; Hauke Bartsch; Rita Z Goldstein; Mary Heitzeg Journal: Dev Cogn Neurosci Date: 2018-02-21 Impact factor: 5.811