Harris Kari Jo, Golbeck Amanda L, Cronk Nikole J, Catley Delwyn, Conway Kathrene, Williams Karen B
School of Public and Community Health Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, USA.
Psychol Addict Behav. 2009 Jun;23(2):368-72. doi: 10.1037/a0015270.
Methods assessing nondaily smoking are of concern because biochemical measures cannot verify self-reports beyond 7 days. This study compared 2 self-reported smoking measures for nondaily smokers. A total of 389 college students (48% women, 96% White, mean age=19 years) smoking between 1 and 29 days out of the past 30 completed computer assessments in 3 cohorts, with the order of administration of the measures counterbalanced. Values from the 2 measures were highly correlated. Comparisons of timeline follow-back (TLFB) with the global questions for the total sample of nondaily smokers yielded statistically significant differences (p<.001), albeit small, between measures with the TLFB resulting on average in 2.38 more total cigarettes smoked out of the past 30 days, 0.46 fewer smoking days, and 0.21 more cigarettes smoked per day. Analyses by level of smoking showed that the discordance between the measures differed by frequency of smoking. Global questions of days smoked resulted in frequent reporting in multiples of 5 days, suggesting digit bias. Overall, the 2 measures of smoking were highly correlated and equally effective for identifying any smoking in a 30-day period among nondaily smokers.
评估非每日吸烟情况的方法令人担忧，因为生化检测无法核实超过7天的自我报告。本研究比较了两种针对非每日吸烟者的自我报告吸烟量测量方法。共有389名大学生（48%为女性，96%为白人，平均年龄 = 19岁）在过去30天内吸烟1至29天，分3个队列完成了计算机评估，测量方法的施测顺序相互平衡。两种测量方法的值高度相关。对非每日吸烟者总样本进行的时间线追溯法（TLFB）与整体问题的比较显示，各测量方法之间存在统计学显著差异（p <.001），尽管差异较小，TLFB测量结果显示，过去30天内平均多吸了2.38支香烟，吸烟天数少了0.46天，每天多吸了0.21支香烟。按吸烟水平进行的分析表明，两种测量方法之间的不一致因吸烟频率而异。吸烟天数的整体问题导致经常以5天的倍数进行报告，表明存在数字偏差。总体而言，这两种吸烟测量方法高度相关，在识别非每日吸烟者30天内的任何吸烟情况方面同样有效。
