4.4 Article

Comparing the validity of the Cigarette Dependence Scale and the Fagerstrom test for Nicotine Dependence

Journal

DRUG AND ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE
Volume 95, Issue 1-2, Pages 152-159

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.01.017

Keywords

tobacco use disorder; nicotine dependence; smoking; validation studies; epidemiologic measurements; internet

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: We compared the validity of the Cigarette Dependence Scale (CDS-12) and of the Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND) in daily cigarette smokers. Methods: Internet survey in 2004-2007. Eight days and 6 weeks after answering these two dependence questionnaires, participants indicated their smoking status and answered the Cigarette Withdrawal Scale and the Smoking Self-Efficacy Questionnaire. We used the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) to assess nicotine dependence as defined in DSM-IV. Results: There were 13,697 participants at baseline, 1113 (8%) after 8 days and 435 (3%) after 6 weeks. CDS-12, but not FIFND, predicted smoking cessation after 8 days (odds ratio = 1.20 per standard deviation unit, p = 0.03) and 6 weeks (odds ratio = 1.34, p = 0.01). In participants who had quit smoking after 8 days, CDS- 12 was a better predictor of craving (beta = 0.30, p < 0.001), than FTND (beta = 0.14, p < 0.01). After 8 days, self-efficacy in quitters was predicted by CDS- 12 (beta = -0.16, p = 0.02), but not by FIFND (beta = -0.05, p = 0.3). CDS-12 was more strongly associated than FTND with DSM-defined dependence measured by MINI: area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve = 0.72 (95% confidence interval = 0.70-0.73). For FTND, the area under ROC = 0.64 (0.63-0.66). Conclusions: CDS-12 performed better than FTND on tests of predictive and construct validity. (c) 2008 Elsevier Ireland 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

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available