Cross-Cultural Investigation of the Questionnaire of Smoking Urges in American and Spanish Smokers

Abstract

This study evaluated the factor structure of the Questionnaire of Smoking Urges (QSU) across American and Spanish smokers. Using confirmatory factor analyses, the fits of one-, two-, and four-factor models of smoking craving in American and Spanish data sets were compared. The two-factor model provided the best fit in both samples. However, negatively worded items confounded the interpretation of the two-factor structure in both the American and Spanish data. The first factor had positively and negatively worded items, whereas the second had only positively worded items. The two-factor structure was reexamined, removing either the positively or the negatively worded items. Using only positively worded items resulted in a loss of fit, whereas using only negatively worded items improved model fit substantially. Thus, the results supported the generalization of smoking craving across Spanish and American smokers and suggested that negatively worded items play a larger role in the two-factor structure of the QSU than originally thought.

Probing smoking craving with a multidimensional approach: validation of the 12-item French-language version of the Questionnaire on Smoking Urges

“…While some authors have restricted the meaning of craving to the experience of a strong desire to use a drug,13,14 other have proposed conceptions that encompass various affective and cognitive components. Indeed, some have considered the anticipation of the drug’s consequences, the intentions to use drugs, mental images, and drug-related affects and cognitions as part of the concept of craving 4,15–17. This latter conception highlights the multidimensional nature of craving.…”

Development of a Brief Questionnaire of Smoking Urges--Spanish.

“…In addition, a few of the studies that have addressed the construct validity of the QSU (e.g., Willner, Hardman, & Eaton, 1995) have reported findings that support the two-dimensional structure proposed by Tiffany and Drobes (1991; for a more detailed account of the strengths and weaknesses of the QSU see Cepeda-Benito, Henry, Gleaves, & Fernandez, 2004). Cepeda-Benito et al (2004) used confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) to compare the fits of one-, two-, and four-factor models of the QSU in two separate data sets: the original data from U.S. American smokers collected by Tiffany and Drobes (1991) and a new data set obtained from a sample of Spanish smokers. The two-factor model provided the best fit in both the American and Spanish samples, supporting the generalizability of the bidimensionality of the QSU across Spanish and American smokers.…”

“…The original QSU and other briefer versions of the instrument have been used successfully to track craving changes in a wide variety of research manipulations, for example, smoking deprivation, alcohol consumption, nicotine replacement, and exposure to smoking-related cues (e.g., Burton & Tiffany, 1997;Cepeda-Benito & Tiffany, 1996;Conklin, Tiffany, & Vrana, 2000;Cox, Tiffany, & Christen, 2001;Drobes & Tiffany, 1997;King & Meyer, 2000;Teneggi et al, 2002). In addition, a few of the studies that have addressed the construct validity of the QSU (e.g., Willner, Hardman, & Eaton, 1995) have reported findings that support the two-dimensional structure proposed by Tiffany and Drobes (1991; for a more detailed account of the strengths and weaknesses of the QSU see Cepeda-Benito, Henry, Gleaves, & Fernandez, 2004). Cepeda-Benito et al (2004) used confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) to compare the fits of one-, two-, and four-factor models of the QSU in two separate data sets: the original data from U.S. American smokers collected by Tiffany and Drobes (1991) and a new data set obtained from a sample of Spanish smokers.…”

“…However, given that 10 out of the 15 items in the positive reinforcement factor (Factor 1) of the QSU were negatively worded (e.g., "I don't want to smoke now"), but all 11 items in the negative reinforcement factor (Factor 2) were positively worded (e.g., "My desire to smoke seems overpowering"), Cepeda-Benito et al (2004) also examined the extent to which the two-factor solution could have been an artifact of the directionality of the items. That is, these authors examined the two-factor structure of the QSU after excluding either the positively or the negatively worded items of Factor 1.…”

Coping strategies for craving management in nicotine dependent patients

“…[27][28][29][30] It contains 32 items that consist of 19 affirmative and 13 negative statements related to different concepts of tobacco craving. Its scoring is based on a seven-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree), and it can be assessed by its total score and by the score on Factor 1 (which assesses the elements of craving: smoking desire, relief of abstinence symptoms or negative affect and, less intensely, the intention of smoking) and Factor 2 (which assesses the following elements of craving: anticipation of positive effect, smoking desire, and intention of smoking, which is more relevant for the first factor).…”