ArticleSubstance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy2015
Internal consistency and measurement equivalence of the cannabis screening questions on the paper-and-pencil face-to-face ASSIST versus the online instrument.
Article in Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Web-Based Assessment of Mental Well-Being in Early Adolescence: A Reliability Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2016Trial
- Article
- Motives for Cannabis Use and Readiness to Change Among Users of the "Stop-Cannabis" Mobile App: Cluster Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Article
- Using a consistency check during data collection to identify invalid responding in an online cannabis screening survey.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
- Compulsive Health-Related Internet Use and Cyberchondria.European addiction research · 2021Article
- Online Survey of Gambling Participation and Problem Gambling in Chiba City: Problem Gambling Rates May be Strongly Influenced by the Administration Mode.Journal of gambling studies · 2020Article
- A Preliminary Study of Associations between Discomfort Intolerance, Pain Severity/Interference, and Frequency of Cannabis Use among Individuals with Chronic Pain.Addiction research & theory · 2020Article
- Editorial: Computers and Games for Mental Health and Well-Being.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2018Article
- Ecological Momentary Assessment and Smartphone Application Intervention in Adolescents with Substance Use and Comorbid Severe Psychiatric Disorders: Study Protocol.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2016Article
- Maximizing the Impact of e-Therapy and Serious Gaming: Time for a Paradigm Shift.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2016Review
- mHealth App for Cannabis Users: Satisfaction and Perceived Usefulness.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundValidated Internet-based screening tools for cannabis use and abuse are needed. The present study aimed to establish equivalence between the previously validated Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) as a paper-and-pencil (PaP)-administered questionnaire and its online use.
methodsTwo groups of cannabis users took part in this study and the results were analyzed using structural equation modeling. One group consisted of 150 participants and was assessed with the ASSIST PaP questionnaire in a face-to-face interview (the PaP group). They were recruited from three settings: a primary health care outpatient clinic, a general psychiatric facility, and an ambulatory specialized addiction treatment facility. The other group (the Web group) comprised 1382 persons who answered the online version of the same questionnaire. This sample was drawn from people who naturalistically visited a website dedicated to helping people with cannabis addiction.
resultsThe internal consistency was good for the online questionnaire (0.74) and high for the already validated PaP questionnaire (0.91). The Web group, however, had higher scores on cannabis use than did the PaP group. The results show support for configural invariance, meaning that the one-factor structure was preserved across groups, although measurement equivalence between these two survey modes was not achieved. However, when the Web group was split into two random subsamples, measurement invariance was demonstrated between them by cross-validation.
conclusionsMeasurement equivalence was not achieved between the two survey modes. Nonetheless, subanalyses of the Web group demonstrated that the cannabis screening questions of the ASSIST can be used for online screening. Differences in ASSIST scores between samples may be due to the sensitive nature of the information surveyed, with possible underreporting in face-to-face interviews, or to the different characteristics of the Web group because of the specialized nature of the website.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.