Development of the PROMIS® Negative Psychosocial Expectancies of Smoking Item Banks

Published In: Nicotine and Tobacco Research, v. 16, suppl. 3, Sep. 2014, p. S232-S240

Posted on on August 22, 2014

by Brian D. Stucky, Maria Orlando Edelen, Joan S. Tucker, William G. Shadel, Jennifer L. Cerully, 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: Negative psychosocial expectancies of smoking include aspects of social disapproval and disappointment in oneself. This paper describes analyses conducted to develop and evaluate item banks for assessing psychosocial expectancies among daily and nondaily smokers. METHODS: Using data from a sample of daily (N = 4,201) and nondaily (N =1,183) smokers, we conducted a series of item factor analyses, item response theory analyses, and differential item functioning analyses (according to gender, age, and race/ethnicity) to arrive at a unidimensional set of psychosocial expectancies items for daily and nondaily smokers. We also evaluated performance of short forms (SFs) and computer adaptive tests (CATs) to efficiently assess psychosocial expectancies. RESULTS: A total of 21 items were included in the Psychosocial Expectancies item banks: 14 items are common across daily and nondaily smokers, 6 are unique to daily, and 1 is unique to nondaily. For both daily and nondaily smokers, the Psychosocial Expectancies item banks are strongly unidimensional, highly reliable (reliability = 0.95 and 0.93, respectively), and perform similarly across gender, age, and race/ethnicity groups. A SF common to daily and nondaily smokers consists of 6 items (reliability = 0.85). Results from simulated CATs showed that, on average, fewer than 8 items are needed to assess psychosocial expectancies with adequate precision when using the item banks. CONCLUSIONS: Psychosocial expectancies of smoking can be assessed on the basis of these item banks via the SF, by using CAT, or through a tailored set of items selected for a specific research purpose.

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

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.