Cited by 71Smoking Behavior and CessationSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

A comparison of self-report measures of nicotine dependence among male drug/alcohol-dependent cigarette smokers

Seidner Burling, Andrea, Burling, Thomas·2003·Nicotine & Tobacco Research

Abstract

This study examined the psychometric properties and validity of the Fagerström Tolerance Questionnaire (FTQ), the Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND), and the Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI) when used as self-report measures of nicotine dependence among male drug/alcohol-dependent smokers (n=191 participants in a large stop-smoking study). All three measures had fairly low internal consistency. The FTQ and FTND had similar two-factor structures, but the FTND factor structure accounted for a greater percentage of the item variance. All three measures were significantly correlated in the expected directions with several independent self-report and biochemical indicators of nicotine dependence (e.g., cigarette pack-years, cotinine) and with baseline measures of smoking topography. The FTND outperformed the FTQ on several correlations, and the HSI outperformed both the FTQ and the FTND. Results concerning correlations between each of the three measures and indicators of compensation in response to reductions in nicotine availability were equivocal. The HSI and FTND were predictive of at least 4 weeks of biochemically verified postquit abstinence among a subsample of individuals receiving smoking treatment (n=93). All three measures had mediocre psychometric properties, and the magnitudes of their relationships with independent indicators were generally modest. All three measures appeared to be valid as self-report measures of nicotine dependence among male drug/alcohol-dependent individuals. The HSI appeared to be the best of the three measures; thus, studies of drug/alcohol-dependent smokers should be sure to report the results from this measure. Efforts to develop self-report measures of nicotine dependence with better properties and performance in this population should continue to be pursued.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/1462220031000158708

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Seidner Burling, A., & Burling, T.
Affiliations
VA Palo Alto Health Care System (US)
Venue
Nicotine & Tobacco Research
Published
2003-10-01
Volume
5
Issue
5
Pages
625-633
ISSN
  • 1462-2203 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-994X
OpenAlex
W2056811566
Cited by
71
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
FWCI
0.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nicotine & Tobacco Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01da007426-04)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA07426)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
nicotine dependence, self-report measures, Fagerström Tolerance Questionnaire, Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence, Heaviness of Smoking Index, psychometric properties, validity, internal consistency, factor structure, male smokers, smoking cessation, cotinine, smoking topography
MeSH terms
Adult, Cotinine, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self-Assessment, Sensitivity and Specificity, Tobacco Use Disorder, Reproducibility of Results, Substance-Related Disorders

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