The influence of web-versus paper-based formats on the assessment of tobacco dependence: Evaluating the measurement invariance of the dimensions of tobacco Dependence Scale

Substance Abuse: Research and Treatment

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 1-14

  Richardson, Chris G ^a   Johnson, Joy L ^a   Ratner, Pamela A ^a   Zumbo, Bruno D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Adolescent; Internet; Measurement invariance; Psychometrics; Tobacco dependence; Validity; Web based survey

Indexed keywords

EID: 70350069192     PISSN: None     EISSN: 11782218     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4137/sart.s960     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Johnson JL, Ratner PA, Tucker RS, Zumbo B, Bottorff JL, Prkachin KM, et al. Development of a multidimensional measure of tobacco dependence in adolescence. Addictive Behaviors. 2005;30:501-15.
2. Stanton WR. DSM-III-R tobacco dependence and quitting during late adolescence. Addictive Behaviors. 1995;20:595-603.
3. Tiffany ST, Conklin CA, Shiffman S, Clayton RR. What can dependence theories tell us about assessing the emergence of tobacco dependence? Addiction. 2004;99(Suppl 1):78-86.
4. Johnson JL, Bottorff JL, Moffat B, Ratner PA, Shoveller JA, Lovato CY. Tobacco dependence: Adolescents' perspectives on the need to smoke. Social Science and Medicine. 2003;56:1481-92.
5. Richardson CG, Johnson JL, Ratner PA, Zumbo BD, Bottorff JL, Shoveller JA, et al. Validation of the Dimensions of Tobacco Dependence Scale for adolescents. Addictive Behaviors. 2007;32:1498-1504.
6. McCoy S, Marks P. Using electronic surveys to collect data: Experiences from the field. Proceedings of the 2001 Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston, MA. 2001.
7. Couper MP, Tourangeau R, Conrad FG, Crawford SD. What they see is what we get: Response options for Web surveys. Social Science Computer Review. 2004;22:111-127.
8. Conrad FG, Couper MP, Tourangeau R, Peytchev A. Use and non-use of clarification features in web surveys. Journal of Official Statistics. 2006;22:245-269.
9. Dillman DA, Tortora R, Bowker D. Principles for constructing Web surveys. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Social and Economic Sciences Research Center. 1998.
10. McCabe SE. Comparison of web and mail surveys in collecting illicit drug use data: A randomized experiment. Journal of Drug Education. 2004;34:61-72.
11. McCabe SE, Couper MP, Cranford JA, Boyd CJ. Comparison of Web and mail surveys for studying secondary consequences associated with substance abuse. Addictive Behaviors. 2006;31:162-168.
12. Levine S, Ancill RJ, Roberts AP. Assessment of suicide risk by computer-delivered self-rating questionnaire: Preliminary findings. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 1988;80:216-220.
13. Locke SD, Gilbert BO. Method of psychological assessment, self disclosure, and experiential differences: A study of computer, questionnaire and interview assessment formats. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. 1995;10:255-263.
14. McCoy S, Marks PV, Carr CL, and Mbarika V. Electronic versus paper surveys: Analysis of potential psychometric biases. Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 2004.
15. Meier S. The chronic crisis in psychological measurement and assessment: A historical survey. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1994.
16. Cronbach LJ. Essentials of psychological testing (5th ed.). New York: Harper Collins. 1990.
17. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, 1999.
18. Horn JL, McArdle JJ. A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research. 1992;18:117-144.
19. Steenkamp JEM, Baumgartner H. Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research. 1998;25:78-90.
20. Joreskog KG. Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika. 1971;36:409-426.
21. Horn JL, McArdle JJ, Mason R. When is invariance not invariant: A practical scientist's look at the ethereal concept of factor invariance. Southern Psychologist. 1983;1:179-188.
22. Rock DA, Werts CE, Flaugher RL. The use of analysis of covariance structures for comparing the psychometric properties of multiple variables across populations. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 1978;13:403-418.
23. Meredith W. Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika. 1993;58:525-543.
24. Zumbo BD. Does item-level DIF manifest itself in scale-level analyses? Implications for translating language tests. Language Testing. 2003;20:136-147.
25. Zumbo BD, Koh KH. Manifestation of differences in item-level characteristics in scale-level measurement invariance tests of multi-group confirmatory factor analyses. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods. 2005;4:275-282.
26. Johnson JL, Tucker RS, Ratner PA, Bottorff JL, Prkachin KM, Shoveller J, et al. Socio-demographic correlates of cigarette smoking among high school students: Results from the British Columbia Youth Survey on Smoking and Health. Canadian Journal of Public Health. 2004;95:268-271.
27. Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1998.
28. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling. 1999;6:1-55.
29. Kelloway EK. Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A researcher's guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998.
30. Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling. 2002;9:233-255.
31. LISREL. Version 8.54. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International. 2003.
32. Muthén LK, and Muthén BO. Mplus (Version 3.1) [Computer software]. Los Angeles, CA: Author, 1998.
33. Zumbo BD. A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF): Logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and Likert-type (ordinal) item scores. Ottawa, ON: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense, 1999.