A unified framework for smoking assessment: the PROMIS Smoking Initiative.
A unified framework for smoking assessment: the PROMIS Smoking Initiative.
复制标题
吸烟评估的统一框架：PROMIS 吸烟倡议。
DOI：
10.1093/ntr/ntq253
复制
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Tucker,JoanS
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Shadel,WilliamG;Edelen,Maria;Tucker,JoanS
在吸烟研究和临床实践中评估的重要理论结构得到了很好的阐述（例如，尼古丁依赖，渴望，自我效能）。然而，决定如何测量这些结构是复杂的，因为已经开发了几种不同的量表来评估每一个（见Shadel & Shiffman，2005），并且几乎没有指导可以用来评估特定结构的量表。吸烟评估文献的大多数综述描述了可用于评估结构的量表的优点和缺点，但通常不会推荐特定的量表（例如，Shadel & Shiffman，2005）。比较用于评估特定结构（例如尼古丁依赖）的不同量表的预测效用的少数研究结果是混合的，这使得纯粹基于经验的量表选择变得复杂（例如，Courvoisier & Etter，2010; Etter，2008）。在任何情况下，考虑到评估的结果对选择更有效的戒烟治疗没有帮助（卡塞尔和耶茨，2002），任何花费在决定应该选择哪个量表上的努力，特别是为了这个目的，很可能是浪费。除非该领域打算放弃评估（这是不现实的），否则需要一种根本不同的评估方法。理想情况下，这种方法将侧重于核心结构，利用一套经过选择的可靠和验证的项目来评估这些结构，使项目广泛可用，并就应该选择哪些项目提供明确的指导。
The theoretical constructs that are important to assess in smoking research and clinical practice are well articulated (eg, nicotine dependence, craving, self-efficacy). However, deciding how to measure these constructs is complicated by the fact that several different scales have been developed to assess each one (see Shadel & Shiffman, 2005), and there is almost no guidance available as to which scale one should choose to assess a specific construct. Most reviews of the smoking assessment literature describe strengths and weaknesses of the scales available to assess a construct but typically stop short of recommending a specific scale (eg, Shadel & Shiffman, 2005). Findings from the few studies that compare the predictive utility of different scales used to assess particular constructs (eg, nicotine dependence) are mixed, which complicates efforts to choose scales on purely empirical grounds (eg, Courvoisier & Etter, 2010; Etter, 2008). In any case, given that the results of assessment are not helpful in selecting more effective smoking cessation treatments (Kassel & Yates, 2002), any effort expended over deciding which scale one should choose, particularly for this purpose, may well be wasted.Unless the field is going to abandon assessment (which is unrealistic), a fundamentally different approach to assessment is needed. Ideally, this approach would focus on core constructs, utilize a select set of reliable and validated items designed to assess those constructs, make the items widely available, and offer clear guidance as to which items one should select.