Karin Hummel1, Math J J M Candel2, Gera E Nagelhout1,3, Jamie Brown4, Bas van den Putte5,6, Daniel Kotz3,7,8, Marc C Willemsen1,9, Geoffrey T Fong10,11,12, Robert West8, Hein de Vries1. 1. Department of Health Promotion, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Methodology and Statistics, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 4. Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, United Kingdom. 5. Department of Communication, University of Amsterdam (ASCoR), Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Trimbos Institute, Netherlands Institute for Mental Health and Addiction, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 7. Institute of General Practice, Addiction Research and Clinical Epidemiology unit, Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany. 8. Cancer Research UK Health Behaviour Research Centre, University College London, London, United Kingdom. 9. Dutch Alliance for a Smokefree Society, The Hague, The Netherlands. 10. Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada. 11. Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, ON, Canada. 12. School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
Abstract
Introduction: The aim of the study was to compare the construct validity and the predictive validity of three instruments to measure intention to quit smoking: a Stages of Change measure, the Motivation To Stop Scale (MTSS), and a Likert scale. We used the Theory of Planned Behavior as theoretical framework. Methods: We used data from the International Tobacco Control Netherlands Survey. We included smokers who participated in three consecutive survey waves (n = 980). We measured attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control in 2012, intention to quit with three instruments in 2013, and having made a quit attempt in the last year in 2014. We conducted Structural Equation Modeling with three models for the instruments of intention separately and with one model that included the three instruments simultaneously. Results: All three instruments of intention were significantly and positively related to attitude and perceived behavioral control but none was related to subjective norm. All three instruments were significantly and positively related to making a quit attempt. The relation of the Likert scale with making a quit attempt (β = 0.38) was somewhat stronger than that of the Stages of Change measure (β = 0.35) and the MTSS (β = 0.22). When entering the three instruments together into one model, only the Likert scale was significantly related to making a quit attempt. Conclusions: All three instruments showed reasonable construct validity and comparable predictive validity. Under the studied conditions, the Likert scale performed slightly better than the Stages of Change measure and the MTSS. Implications: An assessment of the Stages of Change, the Motivation To Stop Scale, and a Likert scale showed comparable predictive and construct validity as measures for intention to quit smoking. All three instruments can be used in future research; however, under the studied theoretical framework, that is, the Theory of Planned Behavior, the Likert scale performed slightly better than the other two instruments.
Introduction: The aim of the study was to compare the construct validity and the predictive validity of three instruments to measure intention to quit smoking: a Stages of Change measure, the Motivation To Stop Scale (MTSS), and a Likert scale. We used the Theory of Planned Behavior as theoretical framework. Methods: We used data from the International Tobacco Control Netherlands Survey. We included smokers who participated in three consecutive survey waves (n = 980). We measured attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control in 2012, intention to quit with three instruments in 2013, and having made a quit attempt in the last year in 2014. We conducted Structural Equation Modeling with three models for the instruments of intention separately and with one model that included the three instruments simultaneously. Results: All three instruments of intention were significantly and positively related to attitude and perceived behavioral control but none was related to subjective norm. All three instruments were significantly and positively related to making a quit attempt. The relation of the Likert scale with making a quit attempt (β = 0.38) was somewhat stronger than that of the Stages of Change measure (β = 0.35) and the MTSS (β = 0.22). When entering the three instruments together into one model, only the Likert scale was significantly related to making a quit attempt. Conclusions: All three instruments showed reasonable construct validity and comparable predictive validity. Under the studied conditions, the Likert scale performed slightly better than the Stages of Change measure and the MTSS. Implications: An assessment of the Stages of Change, the Motivation To Stop Scale, and a Likert scale showed comparable predictive and construct validity as measures for intention to quit smoking. All three instruments can be used in future research; however, under the studied theoretical framework, that is, the Theory of Planned Behavior, the Likert scale performed slightly better than the other two instruments.
Authors: Dennis Zethof; Gera E Nagelhout; Mark de Rooij; Pete Driezen; Geoffrey T Fong; Bas van den Putte; Karin Hummel; Hein de Vries; Mary E Thompson; Marc C Willemsen Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2016-04-09 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Esther C Bakker; Marjan D Nijkamp; Caroline Sloot; Nadine C Berndt; Catherine A W Bolman Journal: J Cardiovasc Nurs Date: 2015 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.083
Authors: Azieb W Kidanu; Rui Shi; Raul Cruz-Cano; Robert H Feldman; James Butler; Typhanye V Dyer; Craig S Fryer; Amitabh Varshney; Eric Lee; Pamela I Clark Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2022-08-06 Impact factor: 5.825
Authors: Karin Hummel; Gera E Nagelhout; Geoffrey T Fong; Constantine I Vardavas; Sophia Papadakis; Aleksandra Herbeć; Ute Mons; Bas van den Putte; Ron Borland; Esteve Fernández; Hein de Vries; Ann McNeill; Shannon Gravely; Krzysztof Przewoźniak; Piroska Kovacs; Antigona C Trofor; Marc C Willemsen Journal: Tob Induc Dis Date: 2018 Impact factor: 2.600
Authors: Dirk-Jan A van Mourik; Math J J M Candel; Gera E Nagelhout; Marc C Willemsen; Geoffrey T Fong; Karin Hummel; Bas van den Putte; Hein de Vries Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Karin Hummel; Bas van den Putte; Ute Mons; Marc C Willemsen; Geoffrey T Fong; Raphaël Andler; Hein de Vries; Gera E Nagelhout Journal: Tob Prev Cessat Date: 2019-11-19
Authors: Anna K M Blackwell; Katie De-Loyde; Laura A Brocklebank; Olivia M Maynard; Theresa M Marteau; Gareth J Hollands; Paul C Fletcher; Angela S Attwood; Richard W Morris; Marcus R Munafò Journal: BMC Res Notes Date: 2020-01-15