Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40537924›Full record

ArticleJournal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England)2025

Development and validation of the Comprehensive Cannabis Motives Questionnaire (CCMQ).

John Moffitt, Carl Roberts, Paul Christiansen

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

John MoffittDepartment of Psychology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9088-3593
Carl RobertsDepartment of Psychology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Paul ChristiansenDepartment of Psychology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExisting scales that measure cannabis use motives have failed to incorporate the full range of motives that underpin cannabis consumption, especially with the increased use of medical cannabis. The current research aimed to develop a novel, psychometrically robust scale that comprehensively measures cannabis use motives. Here, we report the development and validation of the Comprehensive Cannabis Motives Questionnaire (CCMQ).

methodCannabis users completed a 45-item questionnaire measuring a range of cannabis use motives. A UK English-speaking sample (

resultsExploratory and subsequent confirmatory factor analysis provided an eight-factor solution. The eight factors were food, medicinal, sleep, social, high, coping, conformity and creative. All the factors had good to excellent internal reliability with McDonald's ω ranging between 0.85 and 0.97. Test-retest reliability was obtained for the revised 41-item questionnaire (Intraclass correlation's 0.5+ for Total Cannabinoid Eating Experience Questionnaire and each subscale). The eight factors were correlated with Cannabis Use Disorder Identification Test - Revised to assess relationships with problematic use. Finally, strict measurement invariance was achieved in comparisons between males and females and a UK sample against a US sample.

conclusionThe CCMQ provided a valid, reliable assessment of the motivations that underlie cannabis use.

Indexed as

Marijuana SmokingMarijuana UseMotivationAdolescentAdultFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomUnited StatesYoung AdultCannabis motivesconfirmatory factor analysisexploratory factor analysismeasurement invariancestructural equation modelling

Identifiers

PMID40537924
PMCPMC12267866

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.