Validity and Reliability of Four Instruments for E-Cigarette Dependence and Sensory Factors in E-Cigarette Use and Correlations Between These Measurements

Abstract

The study aimed to examine the psychometric properties of Turkish versions of e-FTCD, PS-ECDI, EDS, and SEES. 1050 individuals aged 18+ included to assess validity, reliability, and interrelation among these scales. Scale psychometrics explored using statistical methods, including construct validity, confirmatory factor analysis, and reliability stats. The factor loadings for e-FTCD ranged from 0.528 to 0.939, PS-ECDI from 0.404 to 0.899, EDS from 0.779 to 0.897, and SEES from 0.733 to 0.849. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for e-FTCD, PS-ECDI, EDS (4-Item), EDS (8-Item), EDS (22-Item), and SEES were 0.561, 0.805, 0.905, 0.949, 0.984, and 0.934, respectively. The correlations were moderate between SEES and both e-FTCD (0.317) and PS-ECDI (0.394), e-FTCD was strongly correlated with PS-ECDI (0.750) and moderately with EDS versions (0.577–0.586). Correlations between the PS-ECDI and EDS versions ranged from 0.698–0.713. All four tools valid, reliable for 18+ in Türkiye. Also, positive correlation between sensory e-cigarette expectation and dependence.

Keywords

e-cigarette use vaping e-cigarette dependence e-cigarette addiction e-cigarette dependence scales sensory factors

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alpar

(2018). Applied statistics and validity-reliability (5th ed.) Detay publishing.

American Psychological Association . (2020). Studying vaping behavior to improve public health.

Buu

Cai

Wong

S. W.

Lin

H. C.

W. C.

Jorenby

D. E.

Piper

M. E.

(2021). Validating E-cigarette dependence scales based on dynamic patterns of vaping behaviors. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 23(9), 1484. https://doi.org/10.1093/NTR/NTAB050

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . (2020). Outbreak of lung injury associated with the use of E-cigarette, or vaping, products. https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/severe-lung-disease.html

Comrey

A. L.

Lee

H. B.

(1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.) Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

DeVellis

R. F.

(2017). Scale development theory and applications. In Totan

(Ed.), (3rd ed.) Nobel Academic Publishing Education Consultancy Trade Limited Company.

Dowd

A. N.

Motschman

C. A.

Tiffany

S. T.

(2019). Development and validation of the questionnaire of vaping craving. Nicotine & Tobacco Research: Official Journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 21(1), 63–70. https://doi.org/10.1093/NTR/NTY046

Foulds

Veldheer

Yingst

Hrabovsky

Wilson

S. J.

Nichols

T. T.

Eissenberg

(2015). Development of a questionnaire for assessing dependence on electronic cigarettes among a large sample of ex-smoking E-cigarette users. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 17(2), 186. https://doi.org/10.1093/NTR/NTU204

Francq

B. G.

Govaerts

(2016). How to regress and predict in a bland–altman plot? Review and contribution based on tolerance intervals and correlated-errors-in-variables models. Statistics in Medicine, 35(14), 2328–2358. https://doi.org/10.1002/SIM.6872

10.

Gades

M. S.

Alcheva

Riegelman

A. L.

Hatsukami

D. K.

(2022). The role of nicotine and flavor in the abuse potential and appeal of electronic cigarettes for adult current and former cigarette and electronic cigarette users: A systematic review. Nicotine & Tobacco Research: Official Journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 24(9), 1332–1343. https://doi.org/10.1093/NTR/NTAC073

11.

Goldenson

N. I.

Leventhal

A. M.

Simpson

K. A.

Barrington-Trimis

J. L.

(2019). A review of the use and appeal of flavored electronic cigarettes. Current Addiction Reports, 6(2), 98. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40429-019-00244-4

12.

Greco

L. M.

O’Boyle

E. H.

Cockburn

B. S.

Yuan

(2018). Meta-analysis of coefficient alpha: A reliability generalization study. Journal of Management Studies, 55(4), 583–618. https://doi.org/10.1111/JOMS.12328

13.

Hanewinkel

Niederberger

Pedersen

Unger

J. B.

Galimov

(2022). E-Cigarettes and nicotine abstinence: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. European Respiratory Review: An Official Journal of the European Respiratory Society, 31(163). https://doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0215-2021

14.

Hayes

J. E.

Baker

A. N.

(2022). Flavor science in the context of research on electronic cigarettes. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 16(918082), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/FNINS.2022.918082

15.

Hotelling

Pabst

M. R.

(1936). Rank correlation and tests of significance involving No assumption of normality. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 7(1), 29–43.

16.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

17.

Kalkhoran

Glantz

S. A.

(2016). E-Cigarettes and smoking cessation in real-world and clinical settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 4(2), 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(15)00521-4

18.

Kim

Davis

A. H.

Dohack

J. L.

Clark

P. I.

(2017). E-cigarettes use behavior and experience of adults: Qualitative research findings to inform E-cigarette use measure development. Nicotine & Tobacco Research: Official Journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 19(2), 190–196. https://doi.org/10.1093/NTR/NTW175

19.

Laestadius

L. I.

Wahl

M. M.

Pokhrel

Cho

Y. I.

(2019). From apple to werewolf: A content analysis of marketing for E-liquids on instagram. Addictive Behaviors, 91, 119. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ADDBEH.2018.09.008

20.

Manrique-Ruiz Tapia

M. A.

Macías-López

M. P.

Murcia-Casas

D. Z.

Ramírez

G. L.

Barreto

K. T.

Torres

L. C. B.

Munevar

F. R.

Soares-Filho

P. S. D.

(2022). Adaptation and psychometric properties of the electronic cigarette dependence index (ECDI) in a Colombian sample. International Journal of Psychological Research, 15(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.5297

21.

Massof

R. W.

(2004). Likert and Guttman scaling of visual function rating scale questionnaires. Ophthalmic Epidemiology, 11(5), 381–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/09286580490888771

22.

Meng

X. C.

Guo

X. X.

Peng

Z. Y.

Wang

Liu

(2023). Acute effects of electronic cigarettes on vascular endothelial function: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 30(5), 425–435. https://doi.org/10.1093/EURJPC/ZWAC248

23.

Milstred

A. R.

Douglas

A. E.

Romm

K. F.

Blank

M. D.

(2023). Evaluation of the psychometric properties of dependence measures for exclusive electronic cigarette users. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 25(3), 563. https://doi.org/10.1093/NTR/NTAC260

24.

Morean

Krishnan-Sarin

Sussman

Foulds

Fishbein

Grana

Halpern-Felsher

Kim

Weaver

S. R.

O’Malley

S. S.

(2019a). Development and psychometric validation of a novel measure of sensory expectancies associated with E-cigarette use. Addictive Behaviors, 91, 208–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ADDBEH.2018.08.031

25.

Morean

M. E.

Krishnan-Sarin

Sussman

Foulds

Fishbein

Grana

O’Malley

S. S.

(2019b). Psychometric evaluation of the E-cigarette dependence scale. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 21(11), 1556. https://doi.org/10.1093/NTR/NTX271

26.

Notley

Gentry

Cox

Dockrell

Havill

Attwood

A. S.

Smith

Munafò

M. R.

(2022). Youth use of e-liquid flavours—a systematic review exploring patterns of use of e-liquid flavours and associations with continued vaping, tobacco smoking uptake or cessation. Addiction, 117(5), 1258. https://doi.org/10.1111/ADD.15723

27.

Nunnally

J. C.

(1978). Psychometric theory (2d ed.): McGraw-Hill.

28.

Ozdamar

(2017). Scale and test development structural equation modeling. Sozkesen Printing House.

29.

Park

Kwon

Chacko

Zhou

Chen

Goniewicz

M. L.

C. S.

Chang

Y. P.

(2022). Instruments to measure e-cigarette related constructs: A systematic review. BMC Public Health, 22(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12889-022-13510-4/TABLES/4

30.

Piper

M. E.

Baker

T. B.

Benowitz

N. L.

Smith

S. S.

Jorenby

D. E.

(2020). E-Cigarette dependence measures in dual users: Reliability and relations with dependence criteria and E-cigarette cessation. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 22(5), 756. https://doi.org/10.1093/NTR/NTZ040

31.

Pisinger

Døssing

(2014). A systematic review of health effects of electronic cigarettes. Preventive Medicine, 69, 248–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.YPMED.2014.10.009

32.

Przulj

McRobbie

Hajek

(2012). The effect of sensorimotor replacement on smoking cessation and craving. The Open Addiction Journal, 5(1), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874941001205010041

33.

Shadel

W. G.

Edelen

M. O.

Tucker

J. S.

Stucky

B. D.

Hansen

Cai

(2014). Development of the PROMIS® nicotine dependence item banks. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 16(Suppl 3), S190. https://doi.org/10.1093/NTR/NTU032

34.

Skotsimara

Antonopoulos

A. S.

Oikonomou

Siasos

Ioakeimidis

Tsalamandris

Charalambous

Galiatsatos

Vlachopoulos

Tousoulis

(2019). Cardiovascular effects of electronic cigarettes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 26(11), 1219–1228. https://doi.org/10.1177/2047487319832975

35.

Stein

Rice

M. S.

Cutler

S. K.

(2013). Clinical research in occupational therapy (5th ed.). America Research Hospital.

36.

Streiner

D. L.

(2003). Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 99–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18

37.

Streiner

D. L.

Norman

G. R.

Cairney

(2015). Health measurement scales (5th ed.): Oxford University Press.

38.

Svicher

Cosci

Giannini

Pistelli

Fagerstrom

(2018). Item response theory analysis of Fagerstrom test for cigarette dependence. Addictive Behaviors, 77, 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ADDBEH.2017.09.005

39.

Tackett

A. P.

Dai

H. D.

Han

D. H.

Vogel

E. A.

Coreas

S. I.

Jafarzadeh

Gonzalez Anaya

M. J.

Patel

Peraza

Mason

T. B.

Leventhal

A. M.

(2023). Appeal of e-cigarette flavors: Differences between never and ever use of combustible cigarettes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 246(109849), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DRUGALCDEP.2023.109849

40.

Tavakol

Dennick

(2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53. https://doi.org/10.5116/IJME.4DFB.8DFD

41.

Tehrani

Rajabi

Ghelichi- Ghojogh

Nejatian

Jafari

(2022). The prevalence of electronic cigarettes vaping globally: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of Public Health 2022 80(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/S13690-022-00998-W

42.

Tinsley

H. E. A.

Tinsley

D. J.

(1987). Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34(4), 414–424.

43.

Vansickel

A. R.

Eissenberg

(2013). Electronic cigarettes: Effective nicotine delivery after acute administration. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 15(1), 267–270. https://doi.org/10.1093/NTR/NTR316

44.

Wang

J. W.

Cao

S. S.

Wang

H. Q.

R. Y.

(2016). Cigarette smoking and electronic cigarettes use: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(1), 120. https://doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH13010120

45.

Williams

Onsman

Brown

(2010). Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step guide for novices. Journal of Emergency Primary Health Care (JEPHC), 8(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.33151/AJP.8.3.93

46.

World Health Organization . (2022). Tobacco: E-Cigarettes. https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/tobacco-e-cigarettes

47.

Zhong

Cao

Gong

Fei

Wang

(2016). Electronic cigarettes use and intention to cigarette smoking among never-smoking adolescents and young adults: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(5), 465. https://doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH13050465

48.

Zimmerman

D. W.

Williams

R. H.

(1966). Generalızatıon of the spearman-Brown formula for test relıabılıty: The case of non-independence of true scores and error scores. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 19(2), 271–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.2044-8317.1966.TB00371.X