ArticleNicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco2024
Psychometric Properties of the FTCD and Brief WISDM: Support for Validity in a Legal-System-Involved Sample.
Article in Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe Fagerström test for cigarette dependence (FTCD) and Brief Wisconsin index of smoking dependence motives (WISDM) are widely used measures of smoking dependence. The FTCD was previously found to have 1-factor and 2-factor structures and Brief WISDM has been found to have an 11-factor and 11-factor hierarchical structure. As such, the current study sought to further investigate the psychometric properties of the FTCD and Brief WISDM with a novel criminal-legal system-involved sample using both a factor-analytic and an item response theory (IRT) approach. AIMS AND
methodsData from 517 criminal-legal system-involved adults (ie, 18 years of age or older) who smoke from Alabama, USA were analyzed. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted on 1-factor and 2-factor structures of the FTCD and 1-factor, 11-factor, and 11-factor hierarchical structures of the Brief WISDM. IRT analyses investigating item discrimination and threshold parameters were also conducted on the brief WISDM.
resultsThe CFA showed poor fit for a single-factor structure and mixed results for two 2-factor results for the FTCD. CFA also showed poor fit for a single-factor and mixed results for the 11-factor model. Initial IRT investigations using the 11-factor model showed strong item discrimination, but non-ordered threshold parameters.
conclusionsTwo-factor structures for the FTCD and the 11-factor model for the Brief WISDM were partially supported in a criminal-legal population, suggesting continued support for the multidimensional structure of the measures. Additionally, exploratory IRT analyses suggested good discrimination across the use spectrum for the Brief WISDM. IMPLICATIONS: The Fagerström Test of Cigarette Dependence (FTCD) and Brief Wisconsin index of smoking dependence motives (WISDM) are two widely used measures of nicotine dependence, though previous research has shown mixed results for their internal consistency and factor structure. The current study used a unique sample of criminal-legal-involved participants who generally have moderate to high levels of nicotine dependence. The current study found that the FTCD displayed poor internal consistency, a poor fit for a single-factor model, but mixed support for two two-factor models. The Brief-WISDM was found to have strong internal consistency, a poor fit for a single-factor model, but mixed fit for an 11-factor model and good item discrimination.
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.