Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
International Journal of Behavioral Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Prochaska JO, Velicer WF. The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. Am J Health Promot. 1997;12:38–48.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hau KT, Wen Z, Cheng Z. Structural equation model and its applications. 2nd ed. Beijing: Educational Science; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociol Methods Res. 1993;21:230–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hagenaars JA, McCutcheon AL. Applied latent class analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kaplan D. Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions. London: Sage; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Vandenberg RJ. Toward a further understanding of and improvement in measurement invariance methods and procedures. Organ Res Methods 2002;5:139–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Brannick MT. Critical comments on applying covariance structure modelling. J Organ Behav. 1995;16:201–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling 2002;9:233–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kelloway EK. Structural equation modelling in perspective. J Organ Behav 1995;16:215–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Cancer Research UK grant C9278/A5639. Paul Aveyard is supported by a National Institute for Health Research Career Scientist Award.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Primary Care & Public Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK

    Boliang Guo & Paul Aveyard

  2. Department of Economics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK

    Antony Fielding

  3. Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Institute of Public Health, University Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 2SR, UK

    Stephen Sutton

Authors
  1. Boliang Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul Aveyard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Antony Fielding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stephen Sutton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Aveyard.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplement 1

Caption of ESM (DOC 349 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Guo, B., Aveyard, P., Fielding, A. et al. The Factor Structure and Factorial Invariance for the Decisional Balance Scale for Adolescent Smoking. Int.J. Behav. Med. 16, 158–163 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-008-9021-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-008-9021-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation