Cargando…

Predicting tobacco product initiation from intentions to use: Comparing the validity of item analysis methods

Items measuring tobacco use intentions are used to predict future use. Researchers combine items using different methods; however, no research has compared these methods’ predictive validity. Here, we compare how well six methods of analyzing four intention items predict initiation of cigarettes, e-...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Persoskie, Alexander, O'Brien, Erin Keely
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9249798/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35789624
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101855
_version_ 1784739667625639936
author Persoskie, Alexander
O'Brien, Erin Keely
author_facet Persoskie, Alexander
O'Brien, Erin Keely
author_sort Persoskie, Alexander
collection PubMed
description Items measuring tobacco use intentions are used to predict future use. Researchers combine items using different methods; however, no research has compared these methods’ predictive validity. Here, we compare how well six methods of analyzing four intention items predict initiation of cigarettes, e-cigarettes, snus pouches, and other smokeless tobacco one year later. We analyzed youth and young adult never users from the US Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study. We compared six methods of analyzing Wave 3 intention items in predicting Wave 4 use: susceptibility scoring (susceptible is not answering “definitely no” to all items); dichotomizing the four-item average using two cut-points on the 1–4 response scale; and dichotomizing one item (next year use intention) with three cut-points. Analyses (1) tested whether each single-item predicted initiation; and (2) compared each method’s (a) true positive rate (rate of correctly identifying future initiators), (b) true negative rate (rate of correctly identifying future non-initiators), and (c) model fit. Results were similar across products and age groups. Averaging items best predicted initiation in regression. Susceptibility scoring had the highest true positive rate but lowest true negative rate. False positives (incorrectly identifying someone as a future initiator) were best minimized by averaging items with a cutoff of 3, or using the single item with a 3 or 4 cutoff. Findings suggest researchers predicting tobacco use initiation using regression should average the four items; and researchers seeking to identify likely initiators should use different analytic methods depending on if they seek to maximize true positives or minimize false positives.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9249798
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92497982022-07-03 Predicting tobacco product initiation from intentions to use: Comparing the validity of item analysis methods Persoskie, Alexander O'Brien, Erin Keely Prev Med Rep Regular Article Items measuring tobacco use intentions are used to predict future use. Researchers combine items using different methods; however, no research has compared these methods’ predictive validity. Here, we compare how well six methods of analyzing four intention items predict initiation of cigarettes, e-cigarettes, snus pouches, and other smokeless tobacco one year later. We analyzed youth and young adult never users from the US Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study. We compared six methods of analyzing Wave 3 intention items in predicting Wave 4 use: susceptibility scoring (susceptible is not answering “definitely no” to all items); dichotomizing the four-item average using two cut-points on the 1–4 response scale; and dichotomizing one item (next year use intention) with three cut-points. Analyses (1) tested whether each single-item predicted initiation; and (2) compared each method’s (a) true positive rate (rate of correctly identifying future initiators), (b) true negative rate (rate of correctly identifying future non-initiators), and (c) model fit. Results were similar across products and age groups. Averaging items best predicted initiation in regression. Susceptibility scoring had the highest true positive rate but lowest true negative rate. False positives (incorrectly identifying someone as a future initiator) were best minimized by averaging items with a cutoff of 3, or using the single item with a 3 or 4 cutoff. Findings suggest researchers predicting tobacco use initiation using regression should average the four items; and researchers seeking to identify likely initiators should use different analytic methods depending on if they seek to maximize true positives or minimize false positives. 2022-06-09 /pmc/articles/PMC9249798/ /pubmed/35789624 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101855 Text en © 2022 Published by Elsevier Inc. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Regular Article
Persoskie, Alexander
O'Brien, Erin Keely
Predicting tobacco product initiation from intentions to use: Comparing the validity of item analysis methods
title Predicting tobacco product initiation from intentions to use: Comparing the validity of item analysis methods
title_full Predicting tobacco product initiation from intentions to use: Comparing the validity of item analysis methods
title_fullStr Predicting tobacco product initiation from intentions to use: Comparing the validity of item analysis methods
title_full_unstemmed Predicting tobacco product initiation from intentions to use: Comparing the validity of item analysis methods
title_short Predicting tobacco product initiation from intentions to use: Comparing the validity of item analysis methods
title_sort predicting tobacco product initiation from intentions to use: comparing the validity of item analysis methods
topic Regular Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9249798/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35789624
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101855
work_keys_str_mv AT persoskiealexander predictingtobaccoproductinitiationfromintentionstousecomparingthevalidityofitemanalysismethods
AT obrienerinkeely predictingtobaccoproductinitiationfromintentionstousecomparingthevalidityofitemanalysismethods