Development and validation of the Comprehensive Cannabis Motives Questionnaire (CCMQ).

IF 4.5 3区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
John Moffitt, Carl Roberts, Paul Christiansen
{"title":"Development and validation of the Comprehensive Cannabis Motives Questionnaire (CCMQ).","authors":"John Moffitt, Carl Roberts, Paul Christiansen","doi":"10.1177/02698811251341371","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Existing scales that measure cannabis use motives have failed to incorporate the full range of motives that underpin cannabis consumption, especially with the increased use of medical cannabis. The current research aimed to develop a novel, psychometrically robust scale that comprehensively measures cannabis use motives. Here, we report the development and validation of the Comprehensive Cannabis Motives Questionnaire (CCMQ).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Cannabis users completed a 45-item questionnaire measuring a range of cannabis use motives. A UK English-speaking sample (<i>n</i> = 450) provided data for exploratory factor analysis. A second UK English-speaking sample (<i>n</i> = 200) was used for confirmatory factor analysis. Test-retest reliability was based on a third English-speaking sample (<i>n</i> = 45) who completed the revised, 41-item CCMQ twice across 2 weeks. A US-based sample (<i>N</i> = 216) was used to test measurement invariance of the scale across countries.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Exploratory and subsequent confirmatory factor analysis provided an eight-factor solution. The eight factors were food, medicinal, sleep, social, high, coping, conformity and creative. All the factors had good to excellent internal reliability with McDonald's ω ranging between 0.85 and 0.97. Test-retest reliability was obtained for the revised 41-item questionnaire (Intraclass correlation's 0.5+ for Total Cannabinoid Eating Experience Questionnaire and each subscale). The eight factors were correlated with Cannabis Use Disorder Identification Test - Revised to assess relationships with problematic use. Finally, strict measurement invariance was achieved in comparisons between males and females and a UK sample against a US sample.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The CCMQ provided a valid, reliable assessment of the motivations that underlie cannabis use.</p>","PeriodicalId":16892,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Psychopharmacology","volume":" ","pages":"2698811251341371"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Psychopharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02698811251341371","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Existing scales that measure cannabis use motives have failed to incorporate the full range of motives that underpin cannabis consumption, especially with the increased use of medical cannabis. The current research aimed to develop a novel, psychometrically robust scale that comprehensively measures cannabis use motives. Here, we report the development and validation of the Comprehensive Cannabis Motives Questionnaire (CCMQ).

Method: Cannabis users completed a 45-item questionnaire measuring a range of cannabis use motives. A UK English-speaking sample (n = 450) provided data for exploratory factor analysis. A second UK English-speaking sample (n = 200) was used for confirmatory factor analysis. Test-retest reliability was based on a third English-speaking sample (n = 45) who completed the revised, 41-item CCMQ twice across 2 weeks. A US-based sample (N = 216) was used to test measurement invariance of the scale across countries.

Results: Exploratory and subsequent confirmatory factor analysis provided an eight-factor solution. The eight factors were food, medicinal, sleep, social, high, coping, conformity and creative. All the factors had good to excellent internal reliability with McDonald's ω ranging between 0.85 and 0.97. Test-retest reliability was obtained for the revised 41-item questionnaire (Intraclass correlation's 0.5+ for Total Cannabinoid Eating Experience Questionnaire and each subscale). The eight factors were correlated with Cannabis Use Disorder Identification Test - Revised to assess relationships with problematic use. Finally, strict measurement invariance was achieved in comparisons between males and females and a UK sample against a US sample.

Conclusion: The CCMQ provided a valid, reliable assessment of the motivations that underlie cannabis use.

制定和验证大麻动机综合调查问卷。
背景:衡量大麻使用动机的现有量表未能纳入支持大麻消费的各种动机,特别是随着医用大麻使用的增加。目前的研究旨在开发一种新颖的、心理测量学上强大的量表,以全面衡量大麻使用动机。在这里,我们报告了综合大麻动机问卷(CCMQ)的开发和验证。方法:大麻使用者完成了一份45项问卷,测量了一系列大麻使用动机。一个英国说英语的样本(n = 450)为探索性因素分析提供了数据。第二个英国英语样本(n = 200)被用于验证性因素分析。重测信度基于第三个说英语的样本(n = 45),他们在两周内完成了两次修改后的41项CCMQ。采用美国样本(N = 216)来检验量表在不同国家间的测量不变性。结果:探索性因子分析和后续的验证性因子分析提供了一个八因素的解决方案。这八个因素分别是食物、药物、睡眠、社交、高、应对、从众和创造性。各因子的内部信度均为良至优,麦当劳的ω在0.85 ~ 0.97之间。修订后的41项问卷获得重测信度(总大麻素饮食体验问卷与各子量表的类内相关系数为0.5+)。八个因素与大麻使用障碍鉴定测试相关-修订以评估与问题使用的关系。最后,在男性和女性之间以及英国样本与美国样本之间的比较中实现了严格的测量不变性。结论:CCMQ对大麻使用的动机进行了有效、可靠的评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Psychopharmacology
Journal of Psychopharmacology 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
4.90%
发文量
126
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Psychopharmacology is a fully peer-reviewed, international journal that publishes original research and review articles on preclinical and clinical aspects of psychopharmacology. The journal provides an essential forum for researchers and practicing clinicians on the effects of drugs on animal and human behavior, and the mechanisms underlying these effects. The Journal of Psychopharmacology is truly international in scope and readership.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信