Abstinence expectancies and quit attempts. (December 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hughes, John R.; Naud, Shelly
• Is Part Of: Addictive behaviors. Volume 63(2016)
• Page Start: 93
• Page End: 96
• Publication Date: 2016-12
• Subjects: Expectancy -- Psychometrics -- Smoking cessation; Substance abuse -- Periodicals; Alcoholism -- Periodicals; Drug addiction -- Periodicals; Nicotine addiction -- Periodicals; Smoking -- Periodicals; Gambling -- Psychological aspects -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 362.29
• DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.07.009
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0306-4603

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Several scales have been developed to measure expectancies about smoking cessation. This secondary analysis tested the reliability and validity of one of the most commonly used expectancy measures - the Perceived Risks and Benefits of Quitting Scale (PRBQ). Methods: Smokers (n = 143) who planned to quit at some point in the next 3 months entered an observational study in which they called an Interactive Voice Response system nightly for 3 months to report quit attempts and abstinence. They completed the PRBQ at baseline and the end of 1, 2 and 3 months. No treatment was provided. Results: The Risks scores and Benefit scores of the PRBQ had high internal reliability (alpha = 0.88–0.96 across administrations) and high test-retest stability (ICC = 0.67–0.80), but poor to moderate concurrent validity (correlation with other cessation measures = 0.09–0.52), and poor predictive validity (no significant prediction of quit attempts or duration of abstinence). Results were similar for men and women. Conclusions: The PRBQ appears to be reliable but, similar to other scales of cessation expectancies, its validity appears to be poor. The face valid notion that expectations influence quitting requires further testing. Highlights: Whether expectancies about quitting influence the ability to quit is unclear The Perceived Risks and Benefits of Quitting scale had good internal, test-retest and concurrent validity, but did not predict making a quit attempt or duration of abstinence. Further development of quitting expectancy scales and predictive validity tests are needed.