Background
Methods
Search strategy
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Selection process
Data extraction
Broad categories of constructs | Constructs | Theory | Instruments | Reference articles | Target age | Reliability (Cronbach’s alpha > 0.70) | Validity | # of items | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Content | Construct | Criterion | ||||||||
Beliefs/ perception/attitudes | Outcome expectancies | Motivation theories | Revised youth e-cigarette outcome expectancies | Pokhrel et al., 2018 [18] | 18–25 | O | – | O | O | 43 |
Motivation theories | Revised youth EC outcome expectancies (short) | Pokhrel et al., 2018 [18] | 18–25 | O | – | O | O | 12 | ||
– | Adolescent E-Cigarette Consequences Questionnaire (AECQ) | Cristello et al., 2020 [19] | High school students (Mean = 14.90) | – | – | O | – | 18 | ||
Vaping expectancies, sensory expectancies | – | Sensory E-cigarette Expectancies Scale (SEES) | Morean et al., 2019 [20] | ≥18 | O | – | O | O | 9 | |
Social learning theory | Short Form Vaping Consequences Questionnaire (S-VCQ) | Morean & L’Insalata, 2017 [21] | ≥18 | O | – | O | O | 21 | ||
Perceived risk and benefits of e-cigarettes | – | Perceived Risk and Benefits of E-cigarette use (RABE) | Copeland et al., 2017 [22] | ≥18 | O | – | O | – | 30 | |
– | Conditional Risk Assessment of Electronic Cigarette Perceptions | Chaffee et al., 2015 [23] | 13–18 | – | – | O | O | 19 | ||
Comparative beliefs of e-cig use and cigarette smoking | Theory of planned behavior (TPB) | Comparing E-Cigarette and Cigarettes Questionnaire (CEAC) | ≥18 | O | – | O | O | 10 | ||
E-cigarette expectancies compared to cigarette smoking | – | E-cigarette-specific Brief Smoking Consequences Questionnaire-Adult (BSCQ-A) | Hendricks et al., 2015 [26] | ≥19 | O (>.67) | – | O | O | 25 | |
Perceived harms compared with cigarettes | – | Direct and indirect measures of perceived harm of e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco compared with smokeless tobacco | Persoskie et al., 2017 [27] | 12–17 | – | – | – | O | 2 | |
Perceived harms and social norms in the use of e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco | TPB & integrated model of behavior change | Perceived harms and social norms in the use of electronic cigarettes | Waters et al., 2017 [28] | ≥18 | O | – | O | O | 15 | |
Expectancies of combined e-cigarette and alcohol use | – | Nicotine and Other Substance Interaction Expectancy Questionnaire E-cig Revised version (NOSIE-ER) | Hershberger et al., 2016 [29] | ≥21 | O | – | O | O | 8 | |
Attitudes toward e-cig use | – | Electronic cigarette attitudes survey (ECAS) | Diez et al., 2019 [30] | 14–19 | O | – | O | – | 12 | |
Motives | Motivations for e-cigarette experimentation | – | Motivations for e-cigarette experimentation** | Penzes et al., 2016 [31] | ≥18 (non-users; young adults) | O (>.68) | – | O | O | 27 |
Use | Susceptibility to future use | – | Susceptibility scale | Cole et al., 2019 [32] | 14–17 | – | – | – | O | 3 |
– | Susceptibility to four product classes (e-cigarettes, cigars, hookah and cigarettes) | Carey et al., 2018 [33] | 10–18 | O | – | O | O | 3 | ||
Habitual e-cigarette use | – | Self-report Habit Index (SRHI) | Morean et al., 2018 [34] | ≥18 | O | – | O | O | 12 | |
Symptoms | E-cigarette craving | – | Questionnaire of Vaping Craving (QVC) | Dowd et al., 2019 [35] | ≥18 | O | – | O | – | 10 |
E-cigarette dependence | – | Penn State Electronic Cigarette Dependence Index (PS-ECDI). | ≥18 | O | O | O | O | 10 | ||
– | E-cigarette Fagerström Test of Cigarette Dependence (e-FTCD) | Piper et al., 2019 [36] | ≥18 | – | – | O | – | 6 | ||
– | E-cigarette Wisconsin Inventory of Smoking Dependence Motives (e-WISDM) | Piper et al., 2019 [36] | ≥18 | O | – | O | O | 37 | ||
– | Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence applied to Vaping (FTND-V) | Browne & Todd, 2018 [38] | ≥17 | – | – | O | – | 9 |
Instrument | Author & year | Country | Age range | Theory | Mode of administration | Completion time | Final number of items | Response options |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adolescent E-Cigarette Consequences Questionnaire (AECQ) | Cristello et al., 2020 [19] | USA | High school students (Mean = 14.90) | NR | In person | NRa | 18 | 1–5 Likert |
Electronic cigarette attitudes survey (ECAS) | Diez et al., 2019 [30] | USA | 14–19 | NR | In-person | NRa | 12 | 1–5 Likert |
Sensory E-cigarette Expectancies Scale (SEES) | Morean et al., 2019 [20] | USA | ≥18 | NR | Online | NRa | 9 | 1–5 Likert |
E-cigarette Fagerström Test of Cigarette Dependence (e-FTCD) | Piper et al., 2019 [36] | USA | ≥18 | NR | NR | NR | 6 | NR |
E-cigarette Wisconsin Inventory of Smoking Dependence Motives (e-WISDM) | Piper et al., 2019 [36] | USA | ≥18 | NR | NR | NR | 37 | NR |
Penn State Electronic Cigarette Dependence Index (PS-ECDI). | USA | ≥18 | NR | Online | NR | 10 | Mixed | |
Questionnaire of Vaping Craving (QVC) | Dowd et al., 2019 [35] | USA | ≥18 | NR | Online | > 10 min. | 10 | 1–7 Likert |
Susceptibility to future use | Cole et al., 2019 [32] | Canada | 14–17b | NR | NR | NR | 3 | NR |
Revised youth EC outcome expectancies | Pokhrel et al., 2018 [18] | USA | 18–25 | Motivation Theories | NR | NR | 43 | 1–10 Likert |
Revised youth EC outcome expectancies (Short version) | Pokhrel et al., 2018 [18] | USA | 18–25 | Motivation Theories | NR | NR | 12 | 1–10 Likert |
Self-report habit index (SRHI e-cigarette) | Morean et al., 2018 [34] | USA | ≥18 | NR | Online | NR | 12 | 1–2 Likert |
Susceptibility to four product classes (EC, cigars, hookah and cigarettes) | Carey et al., 2018 [33] | USA | 10–18 | NR | Online | NRa | 3 | 1–4 Likert |
Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence applied to Vaping (FTND-V) | Browne & Todd, 2018 [38] | Australia | ≥17 | NR | Online | NR | 9 | Mixed |
Comparing EC and Cigarettes Questionnaire (CEAC) | USA; England | ≥18 | Theory of Planned Behavior | Online | NR | 10 | 1–5 Likert | |
Perceived harms and social norms in the use of e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco | Waters et al., 2017 [28] | USA | ≥18 | Theory of planned behavior & integrated model of behavior change | Online | NR | 15 | 1–9 Likert |
Perceived harm of EC and smokeless tobacco with cigarettes | Persoskie et al., 2017 [27] | USA | 12–17 | NR | NR | NR | 2 | 1–4 Likert |
Risk and Benefits of E-cigarettes (RABE) | Copeland et al., 2017 [22] | USA | ≥18 | NR | Online | NR | 30 | 1–7 Likert |
Short Form Vaping Consequences Questionnaire (S-VCQ) | Morean & L’Insalata, 2017 [21] | USA | ≥18 | Social learning theory | Online | NR | 21 | NR |
Motivations of intention to try EC among non-EC users | Penzes et al., 2016 [31] | Hungary | ≥18 | NR | Online | NR | 27 | 1–4 Likert |
Nicotine and Other Substance Interaction Expectancies-E-cig Revised version (NOSIE-ER) | Hershberger et al.,2016 [29] | USA | ≥21 | NR | Online | NR | 8 | True/False |
e-cigarette-specific Brief Smoking Consequences Questionnaire (e-cigarette-specific BSCQ-A) | Hendricks et al., 2015 [26] | USA | ≥19 | Expectancy theory | Online | NR | 25 | 0–9 Likert |
Conditional Risk Assessment | Chaffee et al., 2015 [23] | USA | 13–18 | Social learning theory & health belief model | Online | NR | 19 | NR |
Quality appraisal and risk of Bias
Results
Search results
Overview of instruments
Country and language
Participants
Administration, number of items, and responses
Theoretical background
Constructs
Psychometric properties of instruments
Author & year | Name of instrument | Construct | Number of sub constructs/sub domains | Reliability | Validity | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Internal consistency (subscales) | Test-retest reliability | Construct validity | Content validity | Criterion validity | ||||
Cristello et al., 2020 [19] | Adolescent E-Cigarette Consequences Questionnaire (AECQ) | Vaping expectancies, sensory expectancies | 7 (negative affect reduction, taste and sensorimotor manipulation, social facilitation, weight control, negative physical feelings, boredom reduction, negative social impression) | NR | NR | Test Dimensionality (CFA); Convergent and discriminant validity | NR | NR |
Diez et al., 2019 [30] | Electronic Cigarette Attitudes Survey (ECAS) | Attitudes toward e-cig use | 1 (attitudes) | 0.93 | NR | Test Dimensionality (EFA & CFA); Test differences by e-cigarette use status; | NR | NR |
Morean et al., 2019 [20] | Sensory E-cigarette Expectancies Scale (SEES) | Sensory vaping expectancies | 3 (taste/smell, pleasure/satisfaction, vapor cloud Production) | Subscales: .85–.90 | NR | Test Dimensionality (EFA & CFA); Measurement invariance; Convergence with dependence | NR | Concurrent validity (associated with vaping frequency and habitual e-cigarette use) |
Piper et al., 2019 [36] | E-cigarette Fagerström Test of Cigarette Dependence (e-FTCD) | E-cigarette dependence measure | 1 (dependence) | .51 | NR | Test Dimensionality (CFA); Correlation with e-cigarette use measures and; e-cigarette dependence measures | NR | Predictive validity (associated with e-cigarette use) |
Piper et al., 2019 [36] | E-cigarette Wisconsin Inventory of Smoking Dependence Motives (e-WISDM) | E-cigarette dependence measure | 11 (affiliative attachment, affective enhancement, automaticity, loss of control, cognitive enhancement, craving, cue exposure, social/environmental goals, taste, tolerance, weight control) | .80 (Subscales > 0.80) | NR | Test Dimensionality (CFA); Correlation with e-cigarette use measures and; e-cigarette dependence measures | NR | Predictive validity (associated with e-cigarette use) |
Penn State Electronic Cigarette Dependence Index (PS-ECDI). | E-cigarette dependence measure | 1 (dependence) | .74 | NR | Test Dimensionality (CFA); Correlation with e-cigarette use measures and; e-cigarette dependence measures; Test differences by nicotine concentration of products used | Participant Interviews | Predictive validity (associated with e-cigarette use) | |
Dowd et al., 2019 [35] | Questionnaire of Vaping Craving (QVC) | Craving for e-cigarette measure | 3 (desire, intention, positive outcome) | .96 | NR | Test Dimensionality (PFA & CFA); Correlation with e-cigarette use, and cigarette use measures; Convergent and discriminant validity | NR | NR |
Cole et al., 2019 [32] | Susceptibility scale | Susceptibility to future tobacco products or e-cigarettes use | 1 (susceptibility) | NR | NR | NR | NR | Predictive validity (associated with e-cigarette use) |
Pokhrel et al., 2018 [18] | Revised youth e-cigarette outcome expectancies | E-cigarette use outcome expectancies | 8 (social enhancement, affect regulation, positive sensory experience, negative health consequences, addiction concern, negative sensory experience, positive “smoking” experience, negative social experience) | Subscales: .77–.94 | NR | Test Dimensionality (EFA & CFA); Convergence and divergence validity | NR | Concurrent validity (associated with e-cigarette use susceptibility, current e-cigarette use, e-cigarette use dependence) |
Pokhrel et al., 2018 [18] | Revised youth EC outcome expectancies (short) | Outcome expectancies | 2 (positive outcome expectancies, negative outcome expectancies) | .87–.92 | NR | Test Dimensionality (EFA & CFA) | NR | Concurrent validity (associated with e-cigarette use susceptibility, current e-cigarette use, e-cigarette use dependence); construct validity (associated with e-cigarette outcome expectancy factors) |
Morean et al., 2018 [34] | Self-report habit index (SRHI) | Habitual e-cigarette use | 1 (habitual use) | 0.91 | NR | Test Dimensionality (CFA & EFA); Measurement invariance | NR | Concurrent validity (associated with increased frequency of e-cigarette use) |
Carey et al., 2018 [33] | Susceptibility to four product classes (EC, cigars, hookah and cigarettes) | Susceptibility to four product classes (e-cigarette, cigarettes, hookah and cigars) | 4 (e-cigarettes, cigarettes, hookah, cigars) | 0.74 | NR | Test Dimensionality (CFA) | NR | Concurrent validity (associated with e-cigarette ever use) |
Browne & Todd, 2018 [38] | Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence applied to Vaping (FTND-V)– | E-cigarette dependence and consumption | 1 | .54 | NR | Test Dimensionality (CFA) | NR | NR |
Comparing E-Cigarette and Cigarettes Questionnaire (CEAC) | Comparative beliefs of e-cig use and cigarette smoking | 3 (general benefits, general effects; health benefits | 0.94 Subscales: .80–.88 | NR | Test Dimensionality (EFA & CFA); Measurement invariance; Test differences by e-cigarette use status; Associated with impulsive personality traits | NR | Concurrent validity (associated with e-cigarette use) | |
Waters et al., 2017 [28] | Perceived harms and social norms in the use of electronic cigarettes | Perceived harms and social norms | 1 (perceived harms), 1 (social norm) | 0.87 (perceived harms) .93 (social norm) | NR | Test Dimensionality (EFA) | NR | Concurrent validity (associated with e-cigarette use) |
Persoskie et al., 2017 [27] | Direct and indirect measures of perceived harm of e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco | Perceived harm of e-cigarettes | 2 (direct and indirect) | NR | NR | NR | NR | Concurrent validity (associated with e-cigarette use) |
Copeland et al., 2017 [22] | Risk and Benefits of E-cigarettes (RABE) | Perceived risk and benefits of e-cigarette use (RABE) | 2 (perceived risks, perceived benefits) | Subscales: .89–.92 | NR | Test Dimensionality (CFA); Test differences by e-cigarette use status); Correlation with Cigarette Dependent Index | NR | NR |
Morean & L’Insalata, 2017 [21] | Short Form Vaping Consequences Questionnaire (S-VCQ) | Sensory vaping expectancies | 4 (Negative consequences, Positive reinforcement, Negative reinforcement, Appetite/weight control) | Subscale: .85–.94 | NR | Test Dimensionality (CFA); Measurement invariance; Correlation with smoking expectancy scale | NR | Concurrent validity (associated with frequency of e-cigarette use) |
Penzes et al., 2016 [31] | Motivations of intention to try EC | Motivations of intention to try e-cigarette | 6 (health benefits/smoking cessation; curiosity/taste variety; perceived social norms; convenience; chemical hazards; danger of dependence) | subscale: .68–.90 | NR | Test Dimensionality (EFA) | NR | Concurrent validity (subscales (curiosity/taste) associated with e-cigarette experimentation) |
Hershberger et al., 2016 [29] | Nicotine and Other Substance Interaction Expectancy Questionnaire E-cig Revised version (NOSIE-ER) | Expectancies of combined e-cig and alcohol use | 2 (alcohol use leads to e-cigarette use, e-cigarette use leads to alcohol use) | Subscale:.84–.88 Subscale: .85–.94 | NR | Test Dimensionality (EFA & CFA) | NR | Concurrent validity (associated with alcohol use disorder) |
Hendricks et al., 2015 [26] | E-cigarette-specific Brief Smoking Consequences Questionnaire-Adult (BSCQ-A) | Hospitalized smokers’ expectancies for electronic cigarettes | 10 (negative affect reduction, stimulation/state enhancement, health risks, taste/sensorimotor manipulation, social facilitation, weight control, craving/addiction, negative physical feelings, boredom reduction, negative social impression) | .67–.88 | NR | Test Dimensionality (CFA); Correlations with tobacco use, and e-cigarette exposure and use | NR | Concurrent validity (associated with intention to use e-cigarettes) |
Chaffee et al., 2015 [23] | Conditional Risk Assessment of Adolescents’ Electronic Cigarette Perceptions | Perceived risk and benefits for use of e-cigarette | 2 (perceived risks and benefits) | NR | NR | Test differences by e-cigarette use status; Correlation with Cigarette Dependent Index | NR | Concurrent validity (associated with e-cigarette use) |
Reliability
Validity
Quality appraisal
PROM design | Content validity | Structural validity | Internal consistency | Cross-cultural validity/ Measurement invariance | Reliability | Measurement error | Criterion Validity | Hypotheses Testing for Construct Validity | Responsiveness | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cristello et al., 2020 [19] | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Inadequate |
Diez et al., 2019 [30] | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Very good | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Inadequate |
Morean et al., 2019 [20] | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Very good | Very good | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Very good | Inadequate |
Piper et al., 2019 [36] (e-FTCD) | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Very good | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Very good | Inadequate |
Piper et al., 2019 [36] (e-WISDM) | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Very good | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Very good | Inadequate |
Piper et al., 2019 [36] (PS-ECDI) | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Very good | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Very good | Inadequate |
Foulds et al., 2015 [37] | Inadequate | Very good | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Very good | Inadequate |
Dowd et al., 2019 [35] | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Very good | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Inadequate |
Dowd et al., 2019(short) [35] | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Very good | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Inadequate |
Cole et al., 2019 [32] | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Inadequate | Inadequate |
Pokhrel et al., 2018 [18] | Adequate | Inadequate | Very good | Very good | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Very good | Inadequate |
Pokhrel et al., 2018(short) [18] | Adequate | Inadequate | Very good | Very good | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Very good | Inadequate |
Morean et al., 2018 [34] | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Very good | Very good | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Very good | Inadequate |
Carey et al., 2018 [33] | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Very good | Inadequate |
Browne & Todd, 2018 [38] | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Very good | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Inadequate |
Adequate | Inadequate | Very good | Very good | Very good | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Very good | Inadequate | |
Waters et al., 2017 [28] | Adequate | Inadequate | Adequate | Very good | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Inadequate | Inadequate |
Persoskie et al., 2017 [27] | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Inadequate | Inadequate |
Copeland et al., 2017 [22] | Inadequate | Inadequate | Doubtful | Very good | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Inadequate |
Morean & L’Insalata, 2017 [21] | Adequate | Inadequate | Very good | Very good | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Very good | Inadequate |
Penzes et al., 2016 [31] | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Inadequate | Inadequate |
Hershberger et al.,2016 [29] | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Very good | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Very good | Inadequate |
Hendricks et al., 2015 [26] | Adequate | Very good | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Very good | Inadequate |
Chaffee et al., 2015 [23] | Adequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Inadequate | Very good | Very good | Inadequate |