4.5 Article

Investigating the factor structure of the Questionnaire on Smoking Urges-Brief (QSU-Brief)

Journal

ADDICTIVE BEHAVIORS
Volume 31, Issue 7, Pages 1231-1239

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.09.008

Keywords

tobacco; smoking; urge; factor analysis; psychometric properties

Funding

  1. NIAAA NIH HHS [9 P50-AA15632, P50 AA015632, P50 AA015632-06] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDA NIH HHS [P50 DA013334, K12-DA00167, P50 DA013334-05, P50-DA13334, K12 DA000167-15, K12 DA000167] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study was designed to investigate the proposed two-factor structure of the 10-item Questionnaire on Smoking Urges-Brief (QSU-Brief) and to provide evidence for the psychometric proper-ties of this questionnaire using the seven-point scoring set from the original QSU study [Tiffany, S.T., Drobes, D.J. (1991). The development and initial validation of a questionnaire on smoking urges. British Journal of Addiction, 86, 14671476.]. The study sample (N = 576) was comprised of smokers presenting for treatment. Although an initial exploratory factor analysis appeared to replicate the original factor analytic findings of Cox et al. [Cox, L.S., Tiffany, S.T., Christen, A.G. (2001). Evaluation of the brief questionnaire of smoking urges (QSU-Brief) in laboratory and clinical settings. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 3, 7-16.], when subjected to confirmatory factor analyses, a five-item, two-factor model using the most robust items from the original QSU-Brief factor analysis was the best explanation of the data in the present study. Good internal consistency reliability estimates were also obtained with this model. These results suggest that this shortened form of the QSU-Brief can be used with the original seven-point scoring set as a reliable assessment of the dual nature of smoking urges in a treatment-seeking population. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available