The Factor Structure and Factorial Invariance for the Decisional Balance Scale for Adolescent Smoking

  • Boliang Guo
  • Paul Aveyard
  • Antony Fielding
  • Stephen Sutton
Article

Abstract

Background

The transtheoretical model is a framework to explain smoking uptake and cessation in adolescence. Decisional balance is proposed as a driver of stage movement.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine the factor structure and measurement equivalence/invariance (ME/I) of the decisional balance scale.

Methods

In this study, we used confirmatory factor analysis followed by measurement equivalence/invariance testing to examine the factorial validity of the decisional balance scale in adolescent smokers and nonsmokers.

Results

Unlike previous studies, we found that a four-factor solution splitting cons into esthetic and health cons significantly improved the fit of model to the data. ME/I testing showed that the same structure and measurement model held for both smokers and nonsmokers, girls and boys, and across the three occasions the scale was administered.

Conclusions

Cons showed strong evidence that it constituted two separate first order factors. Decisional balance for smoking in adolescence has good evidence of factorial validity.

Keywords

Decisional balance scale TTM Factor structure Measurement invariance test Longitudinal study 

Supplementary material

12529_2008_9021_MOESM1_ESM.doc (350 kb)
Supplement 1Caption of ESM (DOC 349 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Prochaska JO, Velicer WF. The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. Am J Health Promot. 1997;12:38–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Velicer WF, Diclemente CC, Prochaska JO, Brandenburg N. Decisional balance measure for assessing and predicting smoking status. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1985;48:1279–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Prochaska JO, Velicer WF, Rossi JS, Goldstein MG, Marcus BH, Rakowski W, et al. Stages of change and decisional balance for 12 problem behaviors. Health Psychol. 1994;13:39–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stern RA, Prochaska JO, Velicer WF, Elder JP. Stages of adolescent cigarette smoking acquisition: measurement and sample profiles. Addict Behav. 1987;12:319–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pallonen UE, Prochaska JO, Velicer WF, Prokhorov AV, Smith NF. Stages of acquisition and cessation for adolescent smoking: an empirical integration. Addict Behav. 1998;23:303–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Plummer BA, Velicer WF, Redding CA, Prochaska JO, Rossi JS, Pallonen UE, et al. Stage of change, decisional balance, and temptations for smoking—measurement and validation in a large, school-based population of adolescents. Addict Behav. 2001;26:551–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hau KT, Wen Z, Cheng Z. Structural equation model and its applications. 2nd ed. Beijing: Educational Science; 2005.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vandenberg RJ, Lance CE. A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organ Res Methods 2000;3:4–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Prochaska JO. Strong and weak principles for progressing from precontemplation to action on the basis of 12 problem behaviors. Health Psychol 1994;13:47–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aveyard P, Cheng KK, Almond J, Sherratt E, Lancashire R, Lawrence T, et al. Cluster randomised controlled trial of expert system based on the transtheoretical (“stages of change”) model for smoking prevention and cessation in schools. Br Med J. 1999;319:948–53.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aveyard P, Sherratt E, Almond J, Lawrence T, Lancashire R, Griffin C, et al. The change-in-stage and updated smoking status results from a cluster-randomized trial of smoking prevention and cessation using the transtheoretical model among British adolescents. Prev Med 2001;33:313–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wen Z, Hau KT, Marsh HW. Structural equation model testing: cutoff criteria for goodness of fit indices and chi-square test. Acta Psychol Sin. 2004;36:186–94.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociol Methods Res. 1993;21:230–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hu L, Bentler PM. Cut off criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 1999;6:1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hagenaars JA, McCutcheon AL. Applied latent class analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2002.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kaplan D. Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions. London: Sage; 2000.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vandenberg RJ. Toward a further understanding of and improvement in measurement invariance methods and procedures. Organ Res Methods 2002;5:139–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brannick MT. Critical comments on applying covariance structure modelling. J Organ Behav. 1995;16:201–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling 2002;9:233–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kelloway EK. Structural equation modelling in perspective. J Organ Behav 1995;16:215–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC, Velicer WF, Rossi JS. Standardized, individualized, interactive, and personalized self-help programs for smoking cessation. Health Psychol. 1993;12:399–405.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ward RM, Velicer WF, Rossi JS, Fava JL, Prochaska JO. Factorial invariance and internal consistency for the decisional balance inventory—short form. Addict Behav. 2004;29:953–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Guo B, Aveyard P, Fielding A, Sutton S. Testing the convergent and discriminant validity of decisional balance scale of the transtheoretical model using the multi-trait multi-method approach. Psychol Addict Behav 2008;22(2):288–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of Behavioral Medicine 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Boliang Guo
    • 1
  • Paul Aveyard
    • 1
  • Antony Fielding
    • 2
  • Stephen Sutton
    • 3
  1. 1.Division of Primary Care & Public HealthUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  3. 3.Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Institute of Public HealthUniversity Forvie SiteCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations