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.
Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 470-476 |
Number of pages | 7 |
Journal | Nicotine and Tobacco Research |
Volume | 18 |
Issue number | 4 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Apr 1 2016 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:Funding for this research was provided by a cooperative agreement with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) (U19 CA157345). The NCI did not contribute to the study design, data collection, analysis or interpretation of the data, or to composing and submitting the manuscript.
Funding Information:
Funding for this research was provided by a cooperative agreement with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) (U19 CA157345). The NCI did not contribute to the study design, data collection, analysis or interpretation of the data, or to composing and submitting the manuscript.
Publisher Copyright:
© The Author 2015.