Development of the PROMIS® Social Motivations for Smoking Item Banks

Published In: Nicotine and Tobacco Research, v. 16, suppl. 3, Sep. 2014, p. S241-S249

Posted on RAND.org on August 22, 2014

by Joan S. Tucker, William G. Shadel, Maria Orlando Edelen, Brian D. Stucky, Megan Kuhfeld, Mark Hansen, Li Cai

Read More

Access further information on this document at Oxford University Press

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking behavior is influenced by social motivations such as the expected social benefits of smoking and the social cues that induce craving. This paper describes development of the PROMIS® Social Motivations for Smoking item banks, which will serve to standardize assessment of these social motivations among daily and nondaily smokers. METHODS: Daily (N = 4,201) and nondaily (N =1,183) smokers completed an online survey. Item factor analyses, item response theory analyses, and differential item functioning analyses were conducted to identify a unidimensional set of items for each group. Short forms (SFs) and computer adaptive tests (CATs) were evaluated as tools for more efficiently assessing this construct. RESULTS: A total of 15 items were included in the item banks (9 items common to daily and nondaily smokers, 3 unique to daily, 3 unique to nondaily). Scores based on full item banks are highly reliable (reliability = 0.90–0.91). Additionally, the item banks are strongly unidimensional and perform similarly across gender, age, and race/ethnicity groups. A fixed SF for use with both daily and nondaily smokers consists of 4 items (reliability = 0.80). Results from simulated CATs showed that, on average, fewer than 5 items are needed to assess this construct with adequate precision using the item banks. CONCLUSIONS: A new set of items has been identified for assessing the social motivations for smoking in a reliable, standardized manner for daily and nondaily smokers. In addition to using the full item banks, efficient assessment can be achieved by using SFs, employing CATs, or selecting items tailored to specific research or clinical purposes.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/principles.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.