Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Research

Instruments to measure e-cigarette related constructs: a systematic review

Authors: Eunhee Park, Misol Kwon, Thomas Chacko, Yanjun Zhou, Chiahui Chen, Maciej L. Goniewicz, Chin-Shang Li, Yu-Ping Chang

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2022

Abstract

Background

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are relatively new tobacco products that are attracting public attention due to their unique features, especially their many flavor options and their potential as an alternative to cigarettes. However, uncertainties remain regarding the determinants and consequences of e-cigarette use because current research on e-cigarettes is made more difficult due to the lack of psychometrically sound instruments that measure e-cigarette related constructs. This systematic review therefore seeks to identify the instruments in the field that are designed to assess various aspects of e-cigarette use or its related constructs and analyze the evidence presented regarding the psychometric properties of the identified instruments.

Methods

This systematic review utilized six search engines: PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and EMBASE, to identify articles published in the peer-reviewed journals from inception to February 2022 that contained development or validation processes for these instruments.

Results

Eighteen articles describing the development or validation of 22 unique instruments were identified. Beliefs, perceptions, motives, e-cigarette use, and dependence, were the most commonly assessed e-cigarette related constructs. The included studies reported either construct or criterion validity, with 14 studies reporting both. Most studies did not report the content validity; for reliability, most reported internal consistencies using Cronbach’s alpha, with 15 instruments reporting Cronbach’s alpha > 0.70 for the scale or its subscales.

Conclusions

Twenty-two instruments with a reported development or validation process to measure e-cigarette related constructs are currently available for practitioners and researchers.

This review provides a guide for practitioners and researchers seeking to identify the most appropriate existing instruments on e-cigarette use based on the constructs examined, target population, psychometric properties, and instrument length. The gaps identified in the existing e-cigarette related instruments indicate that future studies should seek to extend the validity of the instruments for diverse populations, including adolescents. Instruments that explore additional aspects of e-cigarette use and e-cigarette related constructs to help build a strong theoretical background and expand our current understanding of e-cigarette use and its related constructs, should also be developed.

McMillen RC, Gottlieb MA, Shaefer RM, Winickoff JP, Klein JD. Trends in electronic cigarette use among U.S. adults: use is increasing in both smokers and nonsmokers. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015;17:1195–202.CrossRef

Schoenborn CA, Clarke TC. QuickStats: percentage of adults who ever used an e-cigarette and percentage who currently use e-cigarettes, by age group—National Health Interview Survey, United States, 2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66(33):892.CrossRef

Schoenborn CA, Gindi RM. Electronic cigarette use among adults: United States, 2014. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics; 2015.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). About electronic cigarettes (E-Cigarettes). https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/about-e-cigarettes.html. Accessed 12 March 2021.

Cullen KA, Ambrose BK, Gentzke AS, Apelberg BJ, Jamal A, King BA. Notes from the field: increase in use of electronic cigarettes and any tobacco product among middle and high school students — United States, 2011–2018. MMWR Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018;67(45):1276–7.CrossRef

Dinakar C, O’Connor GT. The health effects of electronic cigarettes. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(14):1372–81.CrossRef

Etter JF, Bullen C. Electronic cigarettes: users profile, utilization, satisfaction and perceived efficacy. Addiction. 2011;106(11):2017–28.CrossRef

Goniewicz ML, Knysak J, Gawron M, Kosmider L, Sobczak A, Kurek J, et al. Levels of selected carcinogens and toxicants in vapour from electronic cigarettes. Tob Control. 2014;23(2):133–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050859.CrossRefPubMed

Stratton K, Kwan LY, Eaton DL. Public health consequences of e-cigarettes: consensus study report: National Academies Press; 2018. http://www.cascobaycan.org/cbcwp/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Public-Health-Consequences-of-E-Cigarettes.pdf. Accessed 1 Feb 2021CrossRef

10.

Livingston JA, Chen CH, Kwon M, Park E. Physical and mental health outcomes associated with adolescent E-cigarette use [published online ahead of print, 2022 Feb 1]. J Pediatr Nurs. 2022;64:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2022.01.006.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Cross J, Linker KE, Leslie FM. Sex-dependent effects of nicotine on the developing brain. J Neurosci Res. 2017;95(1–2):422–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/jnr.23878.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Goniewicz ML, Knysak J, Gawron M, Kosmider L, Sobczak A, Kurek J, et al. Levels of selected carcinogens and toxicants in vapour from electronic cigarettes. Tob Control. 2014;23:133–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050859.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Kosmider L, Sobczak A, Fik M, Knysak J, Zaciera M, Kurek J, et al. Carbonyl compounds in electronic cigarette vapors: effects of nicotine solvent and battery output voltage. Nicotine Tob Res. 2014;16:1319–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntu078.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Lavacchi D, Roviello G, Rodriquenz MG. Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS): not still ready to put on END. J Thorac Dis. 2020;12(7):3857–65. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2019.12.124.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Elangovan N, Sundaravel E. Method of preparing a document for survey instrument validation by experts. MethodsX. 2021;8:101326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2021.101326.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

McCoach DB, Gable RK, Madura JP. Instrument development in the affective domain: school and corporate applications. 3rd ed. USA: Springer; 2013.CrossRef

17.

Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1–9.CrossRef

18.

Pokhrel P, Lam TH, Pagano I, Kawamoto CT, Herzog TA. Young adult e-cigarette use outcome expectancies: validity of a revised scale and a short scale. Addict Behav. 2018;78:193–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.11.019.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Cristello JV, Sutherland MT, Trucco EM. A preliminary validation of the adolescent e-cigarette consequences questionnaire [published online ahead of print, 2020 Jun 12]. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2020;213:108118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.108118.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Morean ME, Krishnan-Sarin S, Sussman S, et al. Development and psychometric validation of a novel measure of sensory expectancies associated with e-cigarette use. Addict Behav. 2019;91:208–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.08.031.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Morean ME, L’Insalata A. The short form vaping consequences questionnaire: psychometric properties of a measure of vaping expectancies for use with adult e-cigarette users. Nicotine Tob Res. 2017;19(2):215–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntw205.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Copeland AL, Peltier MR, Waldo K. Perceived risk and benefits of e-cigarette use among college students. Addict Behav. 2017;71:31–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.02.005.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Chaffee BW, Gansky SA, Halpern-Felsher B, Couch ET, Essex G, Walsh MM. Conditional risk assessment of adolescents’ electronic cigarette perceptions. Am J Health Behav. 2015;39(3):421–32. https://doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.39.3.14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Hershberger AR, Karyadi KA, VanderVeen JD, Cyders MA. Beliefs about the direct comparison of e-cigarettes and cigarettes. Subst Use Misuse. 2017;52(8):982–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2016.1268628.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Kale D, Pickering A, Cooper A. Examining the psychometric properties of the CEAC (Comparing e-Cigarette and Cigarette) Questionnaire and its usefulness as a predictor of e-cigarette use. Subst Use Misuse. 2020;55(1):147–55.CrossRef

26.

Hendricks PS, Cases MG, Thorne CB, et al. Hospitalized smokers’ expectancies for electronic cigarettes versus tobacco cigarettes. Addict Behav. 2015;41:106–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.09.031.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Persoskie A, O’Brien EK, Nguyen AB, Tworek C. Measuring youth beliefs about the harms of e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco compared to cigarettes. Addict Behav. 2017;70:7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.01.033.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Waters EA, Mueller-Luckey G, Levault K, Jenkins WD. Perceived harms and social norms in the use of electronic cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. J Health Commun. 2017;22(6):497–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2017.1311972.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Hershberger AR, Karyadi KA, VanderVeen JD, Cyders MA. Combined expectancies of alcohol and e-cigarette use relate to higher alcohol use. Addict Behav. 2016;52:13–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.08.005.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Diez SL, Cristello JV, Dillon FR, De La Rosa M, Trucco EM. Validation of the electronic cigarette attitudes survey (ECAS) for youth. Addict Behav. 2019;91:216–21.CrossRef

31.

Pénzes M, Foley KL, Balázs P, Urbán R. Intention to experiment with e-cigarettes in a cross-sectional survey of undergraduate university students in Hungary. Subst Use Misuse. 2016;51(9):1083–92.CrossRef

32.

Cole AG, Kennedy RD, Chaurasia A, Leatherdale ST. Exploring the predictive validity of the susceptibility to smoking construct for tobacco cigarettes, alternative tobacco products, and e-cigarettes. Nicotine Tob Res. 2019;21(3):323–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntx265.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Carey FR, Wilkinson AV, Harrell MB, Cohn EA, Perry CL. Measurement and predictive value of susceptibility to cigarettes, e-cigarettes, cigars, and hookah among Texas adolescents. Addict Behav Rep. 2018;8:95–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep.2018.08.005.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Morean ME, DeMartini KS, Foster D, et al. The self-report habit index: assessing habitual marijuana, alcohol, e-cigarette, and cigarette use. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018;186:207–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.01.014.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Dowd AN, Motschman CA, Tiffany ST. Development and validation of the questionnaire of vaping craving. Nicotine Tob Res. 2019;21(1):63–70. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/nty046.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Piper ME, Baker TB, Benowitz NL, Smith SS, Jorenby DE. E-cigarette dependence measures in dual users: reliability and relations with dependence criteria and e-cigarette cessation. Nicotine Tob Res. 2020;22(5):756–63.CrossRef

37.

Foulds J, Veldheer S, Yingst J, et al. Development of a questionnaire for assessing dependence on electronic cigarettes among a large sample of ex-smoking e-cigarette users. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015;17(2):186–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntu204.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Browne M, Todd DG. Then and now: consumption and dependence in e-cigarette users who formerly smoked cigarettes. Addict Behav. 2018;76:113–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.07.034.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Mokkink LB, de Vet HC, Prinsen CA, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, et al. COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1171–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4.CrossRefPubMed

40.

41.

42.

Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, Melgar-Quinonez HR, Young SL. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Front Public Health. 2018;6:149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149.

43.

Oducado RM. Survey instrument validation rating scale. SSRN Electron J. 2020. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3789575.

44.

Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006;29(5):489–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147.CrossRefPubMed

45.

DeVellis RF, Thorpe CT. Scale development : theory and applications. 3rd ed. SAGE; 2012.

46.

Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.

47.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (Eds.). Standards for educational and psychological testing: American Educational Research Association; 2014.

Title: Instruments to measure e-cigarette related constructs: a systematic review
Authors: Eunhee Park
Misol Kwon
Thomas Chacko
Yanjun Zhou
Chiahui Chen
Maciej L. Goniewicz
Chin-Shang Li
Yu-Ping Chang
Publication date: 01-12-2022
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13510-4

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Instruments to measure e-cigarette related constructs: a systematic review

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Socioeconomic differences in metabolic syndrome development: examining the mediating role of chronic stress using the Lifelines Cohort Study

The clustering of physical activity and screen time behaviours in early childhood and impact on future health-related behaviours: a longitudinal analysis of children aged 3 to 8 years

Achieving health equity in US suicides: a narrative review and commentary

Public health perinatal promotion during COVID-19 pandemic: a social media analysis

The effectiveness of raising Hong Kong parents’ awareness of antimicrobial resistance through an education program with peer support on social media: a randomized, controlled pilot study

Barriers and facilitators to cervical cancer screening among under-screened women in Cuenca, Ecuador: the perspectives of women and health professionals