Reliability and validity of Kano Test for Social Nicotine Dependence (KTSND), and development of its revised scale assessing the psychosocial acceptability of smoking among university students.

Masako Kitada, Manabu Musashi, Masato Kano
{"title":"Reliability and validity of Kano Test for Social Nicotine Dependence (KTSND), and development of its revised scale assessing the psychosocial acceptability of smoking among university students.","authors":"Masako Kitada,&nbsp;Manabu Musashi,&nbsp;Masato Kano","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To examine reliability and validity of Kano Test for Social Nicotine Dependence (KTSND), a scale assessing the psychosocial acceptability of smoking, and to develop a new version when validity or reliability of KTSND was not acceptable.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We carried out a self-administered cross-sectional survey on undergraduate university students. The participants completed the KTSND, and supplemented three questions on the attitudes toward tobacco control policies and smoking states. Using daily smokers, we examined the relationship between the KTSND and Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND). In each study, we examined test-retest reliability and construct validity, discriminant and convergent validity, and factor validity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Although the KTSND had high internal consistency (Cronbach's a 0.82) and high test-retest reliability (r=0.72), the results of factor analysis were unacceptable; we expected three factors to be extracted, however, only two factors of \"Overestimate of smoking usefulness\" and \"Allege smoking as a taste and/or culture\" were extracted. Using the Kano's Test for Assessing Acceptability of Smoking (KTAAS), the new version of KTSND in which a question was replaced with another one, the third factor of \"Neglect of harm of tobacco smoking\" was extracted adding to the above-mentioned two. KTAAS had also both high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.82) and test-retest reliability (r=0.66). Overall, the KTSND and the KTAAS score differed according to smoking states, and the nonsmokers' scores were the lowest.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The KTSND was a popular questionnaire in Japan, however, its validity assessed using factor analysis was not acceptable, while KTAAS had sufficient reliability and validity, and might assess the cognition and attitude affirming or accepting tobacco smoking among university students.</p>","PeriodicalId":6338,"journal":{"name":"[Hokkaido igaku zasshi] The Hokkaido journal of medical science","volume":"86 4-5","pages":"209-17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"[Hokkaido igaku zasshi] The Hokkaido journal of medical science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To examine reliability and validity of Kano Test for Social Nicotine Dependence (KTSND), a scale assessing the psychosocial acceptability of smoking, and to develop a new version when validity or reliability of KTSND was not acceptable.

Methods: We carried out a self-administered cross-sectional survey on undergraduate university students. The participants completed the KTSND, and supplemented three questions on the attitudes toward tobacco control policies and smoking states. Using daily smokers, we examined the relationship between the KTSND and Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND). In each study, we examined test-retest reliability and construct validity, discriminant and convergent validity, and factor validity.

Results: Although the KTSND had high internal consistency (Cronbach's a 0.82) and high test-retest reliability (r=0.72), the results of factor analysis were unacceptable; we expected three factors to be extracted, however, only two factors of "Overestimate of smoking usefulness" and "Allege smoking as a taste and/or culture" were extracted. Using the Kano's Test for Assessing Acceptability of Smoking (KTAAS), the new version of KTSND in which a question was replaced with another one, the third factor of "Neglect of harm of tobacco smoking" was extracted adding to the above-mentioned two. KTAAS had also both high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.82) and test-retest reliability (r=0.66). Overall, the KTSND and the KTAAS score differed according to smoking states, and the nonsmokers' scores were the lowest.

Conclusion: The KTSND was a popular questionnaire in Japan, however, its validity assessed using factor analysis was not acceptable, while KTAAS had sufficient reliability and validity, and might assess the cognition and attitude affirming or accepting tobacco smoking among university students.

社会尼古丁依赖卡诺测验(KTSND)的信度和效度及其修订量表的编制评估大学生吸烟的社会心理可接受性。
目的:研究吸烟社会心理可接受性量表Kano Social Nicotine Dependence Test (KTSND)的信度和效度,并在信度和效度不理想的情况下开发新的版本。方法:对大学生进行自我管理的横断面调查。参与者完成了KTSND,并补充了三个关于对烟草控制政策和吸烟国家的态度的问题。使用日常吸烟者,我们检查了KTSND和Fagerström尼古丁依赖测试(FTND)之间的关系。在每项研究中,我们检验了重测信度和构念效度、判别效度和收敛效度以及因子效度。结果:虽然KTSND具有较高的内部一致性(Cronbach’s a = 0.82)和较高的重测信度(r=0.72),但因子分析结果不可接受;我们期望提取三个因素,然而,只提取了“高估吸烟有用性”和“声称吸烟是一种品味和/或文化”两个因素。利用KTAAS(卡诺吸烟可接受性测试),即将一个问题替换为另一个问题的新版本的KTSND,在上述两个因素的基础上提取出第三个因素“忽视吸烟的危害”。KTAAS具有较高的内部一致性(Cronbach’s alpha = 0.82)和重测信度(r=0.66)。总的来说,吸烟州的KTSND和KTAAS得分不同,非吸烟者的得分最低。结论:KTSND问卷在日本较为流行,但因子分析对其效度评价不合格,而KTAAS具有足够的信度和效度,可用于评价大学生对吸烟的肯定或接受认知和态度。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信