Cited by 165Smoking Behavior and CessationMental Health Research TopicsSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

How many cigarettes did you smoke? Assessing cigarette consumption by global report, time-line follow-back, and ecological momentary assessment

Open access
Shiffman, Saul·2009·Health Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated and compared several methods of assessing daily cigarette consumption. DESIGN: Comparison of measures of daily cigarette consumption from several sources, from 232 smokers entering a smoking cessation program. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Global reports of average smoking, Time-Line Follow-Back (TLFB) recall for the week preceding the study (premonitoring TLFB), 2 weeks' cigarette recordings using electronic diaries and ecological momentary assessment (EMA), and TLFB recall of smoking during EMA (monitored TLFB). RESULTS: Global reports and premonitoring TLFB showed severe digit bias: six times as many values as expected were rounded at 10. Monitored TLFB also showed substantial digit bias (four times). EMA data showed none. EMA averaged 2.6 cigarettes lower than monitored TLFB, but exceeded TLFB on 32% of days. Across days, EMA and TLFB only correlated 0.29. Daily variations in TLFB did not correlate with variations in carbon monoxide (CO) measures taken on 3 days, but EMA measures did; among participants whose CO varied, r = .69. CO correlated with EMA cigarettes recorded in the preceding 2 hours, suggesting timely recording of cigarettes. CONCLUSION: TLFB measures are limited for precise assessment of cigarette consumption. EMA measures appear to be useful for tracking smoking, and likely other health-relevant events.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0015197

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Shryock HS Siegel JS Methods and Materials of Demography 1976 New York Academic Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shiffman, S.
Affiliations
University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Shiffman, Saul
Venue
Health Psychology
Published
2009-09
Volume
28
Issue
5
Pages
519-526
ISSN
  • 0278-6133 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-7810
OpenAlex
W2149841178
Cited by
165
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 19
FWCI
7.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (DA 06084; DA 02074)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
cigarette consumption, ecological momentary assessment, electronic diary, carbon monoxide, smoking cessation, self-report accuracy
MeSH terms
Adult, Breath Tests, Carbon Monoxide, Cotinine, Cross-Sectional Studies, Data Collection, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Mental Recall, Saliva, Smoking, Social Environment, Global Health, Bias, Smoking Cessation, Computers, Handheld

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review