Psychometric Evaluation of the E-cigarette Dependence Scale. Issue 11 (2nd January 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Morean, Meghan E; Krishnan-Sarin, Suchitra; Sussman, Steve; Foulds, Jonathan; Fishbein, Howard; Grana, Rachel; O'Malley, Stephanie S
• Is Part Of: Nicotine & tobacco research. Volume 21:Issue 11(2019)
• Page Start: 1556
• Page End: 1564
• Publication Date: 2018-01-02
• Subjects: Nicotine -- Periodicals; Tobacco -- Research -- Periodicals; Tobacco habit -- Periodicals; Nicotine -- Periodicals; Tobacco -- Periodicals; Smoking -- Periodicals; 613.85
• DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntx271
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1462-2203

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Psychometrically sound measures of e-cigarette dependence are lacking. Methods: We modified the PROMIS Item Bank v1.0—Smoking: Nicotine Dependence for All Smokers for use with e-cigarettes and evaluated the psychometrics of the 22-, 8-, and 4-item adapted versions, referred to as The E-cigarette dependence scale (EDS). Adults (1009) who reported using e-cigarettes at least weekly completed an anonymous survey in summer 2016 (50.2% male, 77.1% White, mean age 35.81 [10.71], 66.4% daily e-cigarette users, 72.6% current cigarette smokers). Psychometric analyses included confirmatory factor analysis, internal consistency, measurement invariance, examination of mean-level differences, convergent validity, and test-criterion relationships with e-cigarette use outcomes. Results: All EDS versions had confirmable, internally consistent latent structures that were scalar invariant by sex, race, e-cigarette use (nondaily/daily), e-liquid nicotine content (no/yes), and current cigarette smoking status (no/yes). Daily e-cigarette users, nicotine e-liquid users, and cigarette smokers reported being more dependent on e-cigarettes than their counterparts. All EDS versions correlated strongly with one another, evidenced convergent validity with the Penn State E-cigarette Dependence Index and time to first e-cigarette use in the morning, and evidenced test-criterion relationships with vaping frequency, e-liquid nicotine concentration, and e-cigarette quit attempts. Similar results were observed when analyses were conducted within subsamples of exclusive e-cigarette users and duals-users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes. Conclusions: Each EDS version evidenced strong psychometric properties for assessing e-cigarette dependence in adults who either use e-cigarette exclusively or who are dual-users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes. However, results indicated little benefit of the longer versions over the 4-item EDS, which provides an efficient assessment of e-cigarette dependence. Implications: The availability of the novel, psychometrically sound EDS can further research on a wide range of questions related to e-cigarette use and dependence. In addition, the overlap between the EDS and the original PROMIS that was developed for assessing nicotine dependence to cigarettes provides consistency within the field.