2001
DOI: 10.1016/s0306-4603(00)00144-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Stage of change, decisional balance, and temptations for smoking

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

7
43
0
1

Year Published

2003
2003
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 122 publications
(51 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
7
43
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Psychosocial measures included the 8-item brief sensation seeking scale (Sargent et al 2010) (range 8–40; Cronbach’s α = 0.78 in this sample); the 20-item Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (Stevens et al 2013) which assesses frequency of depressive symptoms and has been validated in Romania, (range 0–60 with higher scores indicating more frequent symptoms; Cronbach’s α = 0.87); and the decisional balance scale (Plummer et al 2001). This scale consists of three subscales: coping pros of smoking, including items referring to perceived emotional regulatory effects of smoking (e.g., smoking cigarettes relieves tension); social pros of smoking, referring to perceived social advantages of smoking (e.g., kids who smoke have more friends); and the cons of smoking subscale, with items about the negative health impact of smoking (Sargent et al 2010).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 94%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Psychosocial measures included the 8-item brief sensation seeking scale (Sargent et al 2010) (range 8–40; Cronbach’s α = 0.78 in this sample); the 20-item Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (Stevens et al 2013) which assesses frequency of depressive symptoms and has been validated in Romania, (range 0–60 with higher scores indicating more frequent symptoms; Cronbach’s α = 0.87); and the decisional balance scale (Plummer et al 2001). This scale consists of three subscales: coping pros of smoking, including items referring to perceived emotional regulatory effects of smoking (e.g., smoking cigarettes relieves tension); social pros of smoking, referring to perceived social advantages of smoking (e.g., kids who smoke have more friends); and the cons of smoking subscale, with items about the negative health impact of smoking (Sargent et al 2010).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 94%
“… # The range of number of closest friends is between 0 and 3 ## Based on a three-factor model (Plummer et al 2001), and the means of items are provided here a, b, c, d Means sharing a common superscript are not statistically different at p < 0.05 according to Games–Howell post hoc test …”
Section: Figmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[23][24][25] Participants rated six items describing perceived pros (eg, 'Kids who smoke have more friends') and six items describing perceived cons of smoking (eg, 'Smoking makes teeth yellow') on 5-point scales. Scale reliability for both subscales was high (α pros =0.81; α pros =0.87).…”
Section: Tobacco Cigarette-related Measuresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At the second session, youths completed the situational temptations inventory for smokers (Plummer et al, 2001; α = .77). At the third session, participants reported on their commitment to quitting by responding to the Commitment to Quitting Smoking Scale (Kahler et al, 2007; α = .85).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%