Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32978471›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Confirmatory factor analysis comparing incentivized experiments with self-report methods to elicit adolescent smoking and vaping social norms.

Jennifer M Murray, Erik O Kimbrough, Erin L Krupka, Abhijit Ramalingam, Rajnish Kumar, Joanna McHugh Power, Sharon Sanchez-Franco, Olga L Sarmiento, Frank Kee, Ruth F Hunter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Built environment in programs to promote physical activity among Latino children and youth living in the United States and in Latin America.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Jennifer M MurrayCentre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Block B, Royal Victoria Hospital, Grosvenor Road, Belfast, BT12 6BA, UK. Jennifer.Murray@qub.ac.uk.
Erik O KimbroughSmith Institute for Political Economy and Philosophy, Chapman University, One University Drive, Orange, CA, 92866, USA.
Erin L KrupkaSchool of Information, University of Michigan, 4322 North Quad, 105 S. State St., Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-1285, USA.
Abhijit RamalingamDepartment of Economics, Appalachian State University, 416 Howard Street, ASU Box 32051, Boone, NC, 28608, USA.
Rajnish KumarQueen's Management School, Queen's University Belfast, Riddel Hall, 185 Stranmillis Road, Belfast, BT9 5EE, UK.
Joanna McHugh PowerDepartment of Psychology, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland.
Sharon Sanchez-FrancoSchool of Medicine, University of the Andes, Carrera 1 No 18 A - 10, Bloque Q Piso 8, 57, Bogotá, Colombia.
Olga L SarmientoSchool of Medicine, University of the Andes, Carrera 1 No 18 A - 10, Bloque Q Piso 8, 57, Bogotá, Colombia.
Frank KeeCentre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Block A, Royal Victoria Hospital, Grosvenor Road, Belfast, BT12 6BA, UK.
Ruth F HunterCentre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Block B, Royal Victoria Hospital, Grosvenor Road, Belfast, BT12 6BA, UK. ruth.hunter@qub.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R011176/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many adolescent smoking prevention programmes target social norms, typically evaluated with self-report, susceptible to social desirability bias. An alternative approach with little application in public health are experimental norms elicitation methods. Using the Mechanisms of Networks and Norms Influence on Smoking in Schools (MECHANISMS) study baseline data, from 12-13 year old school pupils (n = 1656) in Northern Ireland and Bogotá (Colombia), we compare two methods of measuring injunctive and descriptive smoking and vaping norms: (1) incentivized experiments, using monetary payments to elicit norms; (2) self-report scales. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) examined whether the methods measured the same construct. Paths from exposures (country, sex, personality) to social norms, and associations of norms with (self-reported and objectively measured) smoking behavior/intentions were inspected in another structural model. Second-order CFA showed that latent variables representing experimental and survey norms measurements were measuring the same underlying construct of anti-smoking/vaping norms (Comparative Fit Index = 0.958, Tucker Lewis Index = 0.951, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.030, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual = 0.034). Adding covariates into a structural model showed significant paths from country to norms (second-order anti-smoking/vaping norms latent variable: standardized factor loading [β] = 0.30, standard error [SE] = 0.09, p < 0.001), and associations of norms with self-reported anti-smoking behavior (β = 0.40, SE = 0.04, p < 0.001), self-reported anti-smoking intentions (β = 0.42, SE = 0.06, p < 0.001), and objectively measured smoking behavior (β = - 0.20, SE = 0.06, p = 0.001). This paper offers evidence for the construct validity of behavioral economic methods of eliciting adolescent smoking and vaping norms. These methods seem to index the same underlying phenomena as commonly-used self-report scales.

Indexed as

Factor Analysis, StatisticalIntentionMotivationSelf ReportSocial NormsAdolescentChildColombiaFemaleHumansMaleSmokingSurveys and QuestionnairesVaping

Identifiers

PMID32978471
PMCPMC7519107

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.