The LWDS-10J: Reliability and validity of the Lebanon waterpipe dependence scale among university students in Jordan
Nicotine and Tobacco Research, ISSN: 1469-994X, Vol: 16, Issue: 7, Page: 915-922
2014
- 31Citations
- 41Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations31
- Citation Indexes27
- 27
- CrossRef13
- Policy Citations4
- 4
- Captures41
- Readers41
- 41
Article Description
Introduction: While the Lebanon Waterpipe Dependence Scale (LWDS-11) has shown promise in assessing dependence on waterpipe tobacco smoking (WTS) in Lebanon among adult users, it would be valuable to identify WTS addiction earlier and to explore reliability and validity of these items in other populations. Methods: In 2010-2012, we conducted a multiyear survey of 5,853 students from 4 Jordanian universities. We measured WTS, sociodemographic data, and the LWDS-11 items. We conducted exploratory factor analysis with half of the sample and confirmed the resulting model using confirmatory factor analysis with the other half. We examined construct validity with regression models assessing associations between the modified scale and 5 constructs conceptually expected to be associated with dependence. Results: WTS rates were 35% in the past 30 days and 56% ever. Principal-components analysis of LWDS items in the first half of the sample yielded 10 items representing 3 factors labeled physical dependence, relaxation/pleasure, and social aspects. Cronbach's a was .77 for the total scale and was .75, .70, and .67 for each individual subscale. Confirmatory factor analysis in a structural equation modeling framework confirmed good fit (root mean squared error of approximation = 0.068, and comparative fit index = 0.937). Dependence according to the resulting scale (LWDS-10J) was strongly associated with each of the 5 expected constructs, whether the dependent variable was treated as categorical or continuous. Conclusions: The LWDS-11 items exhibited a different factor structure in our sample. However, the modified scale (LWDS- 10J) showed promising reliability and construct validity in this population. © The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84902466847&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntu002; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24571810; https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/ntr/ntu002; https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntu002; https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article-abstract/16/7/915/1196871?redirectedFrom=fulltext; https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article-pdf/16/7/915/9193155/ntu002.pdf; https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article/16/7/915/1196871; http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/7/915; http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/lookup/doi/10.1093/ntr/ntu002; http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/doi/10.1093/ntr/ntu002; https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article/16/7/915/1196871/The-LWDS10J-Reliability-and-Validity-of-the
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know