Abstract
Background
The tendency of women to smoke has increased in recent years and the prevalence of smoking among women is increasing. The purpose of this study was to design and evaluation the psychometric properties of the smoking tendency questionnaire for Iranian female adolescents.
Methods
This cross-sectional study was performed on 604 female adolescents in Iran in 2021. The bank of questions was designed based on the qualitative study concepts and review of the literature. To perform the psychometric evaluation, steps such as face validity (qualitative), content validity (qualitative and quantitative) and construct validity (confirmatory factor analysis) were performed. The reliability of the instrument was assessed using McDonald’s omega coefficient and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient.
Results
Based on the results of psychometrics (face, content, and construct validity), the number of questions was reduced from 102 to 52, and 50 questions were removed. Finally, a questionnaire with 52 questions and 5 subscales of the tendency to experience smoking (14 items), re-experience smoking (8 items), cigarette dependence (9 items), intention to quit smoking (9 items), and smoking cessation (12 items) was approved. The content validity ratio (CVR) and content validity index (CVI) for all questions were 0.770 and 0.938, respectively. The Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega coefficients for all questions were 0.903 and 0.904, respectively.
Conclusion
Based on the results of this questionnaire, 52 questions, and 5 subscales can be used to assess the tendency of female adolescents to cigarette smoking.
Keywords: Validity and reliability, Psychometric, Cigarette smoking, Tobacco
Background
Tobacco use is one of the major public health issues, concerns and threats to global health [1, 2]. Tobacco smoking causes the death of 8 million people a year and is the leading cause of preventable death in the world [3]. Smoking is considered as one of the risk factors, increasing the overall burden of diseases in the world, especially those related to chronic diseases and non-communicable diseases (such as cardiovascular, respiratory system, cancer and stroke) [4].
There are more than 1.1 billion smokers and at least 367 million smokeless tobacco users worldwide [3]. Tobacco smoking has been identified as a negative health factor including cancer, vascular, and respiratory diseases [5], and has been responsible for approximately 11.5% of all deaths in 2015 [6]. Approximately 1 out of 25 people (187 to 280 million people) undergo major surgery to treat diseases or injuries caused by smoking every year [7, 8]. The prevalence of cigarette smoking has been steadily increasing in developing countries over the past 20 years and declining in developed countries [9]. Based on the research results, 70% of smoking in the world is in developing countries [10]. Among smoker, 85% cigarettes smoking, and one of the top 10 causes of death in the world is related to smoking [3, 10].
Based on the World Health Organization (WHO) report, 8.5% of girls have used tobacco, of which 5.5 and 4.8% are currently using tobacco and cigarette respectively [3]. The results of a meta-analysis study conducted in 2020 showed that the current and ever prevalence of cigarette smoking in Iranian adolescent girls were 6 and 12%, respectively [11]. The prevalence of cigarette smoking in women increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke, shortness of breath, cervical cancer, and breast cancer [12–15]. Also, smoking in pregnant women can causes problems for mother and fetus, such as stillbirth, fetal measurements, neonatal death, perinatal death, placental abruption, miscarriage, preterm birth, premature pulmonary aging, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [16–18].
Based on the results of various studies, reasons such as smoking parents, smoking by family members, alcohol consumption, low self-esteem, curiosity, low parental education, parental divorce, or living with a parent, lack of appropriate choices to reduce stress, low-income family, belongs to the smokers group, have a friend who smokes, peer group pressure, tobacco company advertisements, smoking by celebrities, smoking attraction, and positive attitude to smoking are effective in adolescents’ tendency to cigarette smoking [19–26].
The smoking prevalence of Iranian women has increased in recent years and is becoming a normal social phenomenon. Previously, smoking was regarded as a taboo for women in Iranian society [11, 27]. Based on the literature, various questionnaires related to smoking have been designed and implemented. In Iran and other countries, there was not any tool that comprehensively examines all aspects of adolescent tendency to smoking, especially in adolescent girls. The available questionnaires only examined some aspects of smoking, such as quit Smoking, attitude toward smoking, prevention of smoking, intention to smoking, and dependence on smoking [28–34]. However, since this phenomenon is new in Iran, there have been few studies in this field and in females. Also, a suitable tool to examine the reasons for adolescent girls’ tendency to smoke, not observed.
Due to the increasing smoking rate among female adolescents and the lack of many tools, it is necessary to design a reliable and valid tool in this field to assess the current situation and evaluate intervention programs. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to design and evaluate the psychometric properties of the smoking tendency questionnaire for Iranian female adolescents.
Methods
This cross-sectional study was conducted among 604 female adolescents in Mashhad, Iran in 2021.
Sample size
Based on a confidence level of 0.95%, a proportion of 0.12, an accuracy of 0.03, and a sample loss of 25%, the sample size was estimated to be 604 subjects [11].
Sampling
Participants were selected by the multi-stage method. At first, Mashhad city was divided into four parts: north, south, east, and west. Then, four girls’ high schools were selected from each region as a cluster (n = 16 schools). Then, about 38 female adolescents from each school entered the study by simple random sampling. Inclusion criteria were a female student in high school (tenth, eleventh and twelfth grades), resident of Mashhad, consent to participate in the study, fill out written informed consent from by students and their parents. Exclusion criteria also included questionnaires with distorted and incomplete.
Instruments
In this study, two questionnaires of demographic and the tendency of female adolescents to cigarette smoking (CTQFA) were used for data gathering.
The demographic questionnaire
This section was surveyed with questions such as education grad, age, education level of parents, and employment status of parents.
Cigarette smoking tendency questionnaire for female adolescents (CTQFA)
This questionnaire has 52 questions and 5 subscales of the tendency to experience smoking (14 items), re-experience smoking (8 items), cigarette dependence (9 items), intention to quit smoking (9 items) and smoking cessation (12 items). All questions were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree = 1, disagree = 2, neither agree nor disagree = 3, agree = 4, and strongly agree = 5).
Design of instrument
Qualitative stage
At this stage, a grounded theory study was conducted among adolescent girls who smoked. For the interviews, we went to parks, places where tobacco is used, etc., and the interviews continued until the data was saturated. Data were collected by unstructured and in-depth interviews with adolescent female smokers in different stages of smoking (n = 23), parents of female smokers and non-smokers (n = 2), clinical psychologist (n = 2), sociologist (n = 1), and tobacco seller (n = 1). The code extraction step was performed by MAXQADA software version 10. The analysis process was based on the Corbin & Strauss 2008, which is divided into three stages of open, axial and selective coding [35].
Quantitative stage
At this stage of the research, a series of questions were designed according to the concept of qualitative research and literature review. For psychometric evaluation, steps such as face validity (qualitative), content validity (qualitative and quantitative) and construct validity (confirmatory factor analysis) were performed. The reliability of the instrument was assessed using McDonald’s omega coefficient and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The details of these steps are as follows.
Validity
Face validity
To assess the qualitative face validity, a questionnaire was sent to 6 experts to examine the questionnaire in terms of the desirability of expressions in terms of clarity (use of simple and understandable words), use of common language (avoidance of using technical and specialized words). Then, based on the comments received, the necessary amendments were made to the questionnaire. Also, an interview was conducted with the target group to discover the possibility of difficulties in understanding phrases and words, proper matching and relevance of items, ambiguity and inaccurate interpretation of phrases, or insufficient meaning of words.
Content validity
To determine the qualitative content validity, the questionnaire was provided to 12 experts and specialists in the field of health education and health promotion and clinical psychology to evaluate the items such as grammar, use of appropriate words, the importance of items, placement of items in the appropriate part, and the time required to complete the tool. To evaluate quantitative content validity, two methods were used, content validity ratio (CVR) and content validity index (CVI) [36].
CVR
The questionnaire was provided to 12 experts/specialists in the field of health education and health promotion and clinical psychology and who were asked to rate each item of the tool with three levels “essential”, “useful but it is not necessary”, and “it is not necessary”. The answers were calculated based on the following formula. To calculate the CVR, the Lawshe formula was used (in this formula, nE is the number of experts selected item of “essential” and N is the number of total experts) [37].
CVI
In this section, experts were asked to comment on each item of the tool based on the following three criteria (relevance or specificity, simplicity and fluency, clarity or transparency) on a four-point Likert scale. The CVI was calculated using the following formula. A CVI score of 0.78 and above is considered acceptable [38].
Construct validity
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to evaluate the construct validity. Before performing the CFA, the outliers and the normality of data were examined. The outliers were examined with the help of Mahalanobis distance statistics and were deleted if necessary. Skewness and kurtosis were used to evaluate the data normality. Also, the maximum likelihood method was used to estimate the parameters. CFA was conducted using AMOS software version 24, and questions with poor regression coefficient (factor loading) were removed from the questionnaire. The model was evaluated using fit indices of chi-square ratio to the degree of freedom (× 2/df < 5); root means the square error of approximation (RMSEA ≤0.08); root means square residual (RMR ≤ 0.08); goodness of fit index (GFI > 0.9); parsimony comparative fit index (PCFI > 0.5); parsimonious normed fit index (PNFI > 0.5); parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI > 0.5); and comparative fit index (CFI > 0.9) [39–42].
Reliability
In this study, two methods of McDonald’s omega coefficient and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient were used to evaluate the reliability of the questionnaire. The software’s of SPSSv22 and JASP (Version 0.11.1) were used to calculate the amount of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and McDonald’s omega coefficient. Results showed that McDonald’s omega coefficient provides a more accurate reliability coefficient than Cronbach’s alpha [43]. Reliability coefficient value exceeding 0.70 is considered acceptable [44].
Results
The characteristics of the participants
In the present study, the mean (± standard deviation) age of female adolescents was 16.47 (±1.06). Most students (n = 271, 44.9%) were in the twelfth grade. The level of education of most fathers (n = 310, 51.3%) and mothers (n = 249, 41.3%) was associate or bachelor’s degree. Forty-two percent (n = 255) of the adolescent fathers were employed and most of the adolescent mothers were housewives (n = 342, 56.7%) (Table 1).
Table 1.
Frequency distribution of demographic characteristics (n = 604)
| Variables | N | % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grade | Tenth | 171 | 28.3 |
| Eleventh | 162 | 26.8 | |
| Twelfth | 271 | 44.9 | |
| Father’s education level | Illiterate | 16 | 2.6 |
| Elementary | 15 | 2.5 | |
| Middle school | 37 | 6.1 | |
| High school or diploma | 142 | 23.5 | |
| Associate or Bachelor’s Degree | 310 | 51.3 | |
| Master’s degree or High degree | 84 | 13.9 | |
| Mother’s education level | Illiterate | 33 | 5.5 |
| Elementary | 24 | 4 | |
| Middle school | 35 | 5.8 | |
| High school or diploma | 220 | 36.5 | |
| Associate or Bachelor’s Degree | 249 | 41.3 | |
| Master’s degree or High degree | 42 | 7 | |
| Father’s occupation | Unemployed | 25 | 4.1 |
| Self-employed | 217 | 36 | |
| Labor | 50 | 8.3 | |
| Employed | 255 | 42.3 | |
| Retired | 56 | 9.3 | |
| Mother’s occupation | Housewife | 342 | 56.7 |
| Self-employed | 62 | 10.3 | |
| Employed | 176 | 29.2 | |
| Retired | 23 | 3.8 | |
Qualitative phase
The qualitative phase was based on the grounded theory method and in-depth unstructured interviews. Factors influencing the tendency of female adolescents were identified, which included 5 stages of the tendency to experience smoking, re-experience smoking, cigarette dependence, intention to quit smoking, and smoking cessation. In this phase, 102 questions were designed based on the qualitative phase and review of the literature (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1.

Schematic process of the reduction of the items of questionnaire
Quantitative phase
In this phase, the questionnaire was examined in terms of face validity, content validity, and construct validity.
Face validity
Based on the opinion of experts in qualitative face validity, 30 questions were corrected. In the quantitative face validity section, 8 questions were deleted and 12 questions were corrected. Finally, in this section, 94 questions remained and entered the content validity stage (Fig. 1).
Content validity
Based on the opinion of experts, 19 questions were corrected in qualitative content validity. In the quantitative content validity section, 35 questions were deleted and 14 questions were corrected. Finally, in this section, 59 questions remained and entered the construct validity stage (Fig. 1). The CVR and CVI for all questions were 0.770 and 0.938, respectively.
Construct validity
The CFA was used to evaluate the construct validity of the questionnaire. In this stage, questions with low regression coefficients (factor loading) were deleted to achieve an acceptable model. Based on the results of the CFA analysis, the CR value per question was higher than 1.96, and with a significance level of < 0.001. The goodness of fit the model for five subscales was acceptable (X2 = 3686.168, df = 1255, X2/df = 2.93, RMSEA = 0.057, RMR = 0.031, GFI = 0.901, PCFI = 0.772, PNFI = 0.706, PGFI = 0.730, CFI = 0.901). In this section, 7 questions were deleted (Fig. 1). Finally, the questionnaire with 52 questions and 5 subscales of the tendency to experience smoking (14 items), re-experience smoking (8 items), cigarette dependence (9 items), intention to quit smoking (9 items), and smoking cessation (12 items) was approved (Fig. 2, Table 2).
Fig. 2.
Standardized parameter estimates for the factor structure of the questionnaire (CTQFA); (F1: Tendency to experience smoking; F2: Re-experience smoking; F3: Cigarette dependence; F4: Intention to quit smoking; F5: Smoking cessation)
Table 2.
Factor loadings of the questionnaire of factors affecting the tendency of female adolescents to cigarette smoking (CTQFA) in the CFA stage
| Subscales | Items | Factor loadings | CVR | CVI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1: Tendency to experience smoking | Q1: Curiosity is very effective for the tendency to smoke. | 0.422 | 1 | 0.93 |
| Q2: Smoking of cigarettes and tobacco like a hookah by a family member (father, mother, brother, etc.) encourages smoking. | 0.423 | 0.6 | 1 | |
| Q3: Experiencing unpleasant events in life (parental differences, parental divorce, suicide, sexual abuse, etc.) can lead to a tendency to smoke. | 0.591 | 0.8 | 0.86 | |
| Q4: Smoking friends are encouraged to smoke. | 0.490 | 0.8 | 1 | |
| Q5: Approval from friends for the experience of smoking can be important. | 0.648 | 0.8 | 0.93 | |
| Q6: The favorable opinion of smokers (friends, colleagues and relatives) about the benefits of smoking causes adolescents tendency to smoke. | 0.641 | 0.8 | 0.93 | |
| Q7: Parents’ strictness or inattention to various issues is important in the adolescents’ tendency to smoke. | 0.534 | 1 | 0.90 | |
| Q8: Having religious beliefs can prevent the tendency to smoke. | 0.539 | 0.8 | 0.83 | |
| Q9: School education programs in the field of smoking (skills of saying no, controlling anger, etc.) reduce the tendency to smoke. | 0.548 | 0.6 | 0.96 | |
| Q10: Communication networks such as Telegram, Instagram, etc. are effective in encouraging adolescents to smoke. | 0.500 | 1 | 1 | |
| Q11: Parents’ advice and counseling is a barrier to smoking. | 0.482 | 1 | 1 | |
| Q12: Smoking of celebrities (artists, athletes, etc.) or people who are important to adolescents (such as friends, relatives, etc.) is an incentive to experience smoking. | 0.477 | 0.8 | 0.96 | |
| Q13: Gender dissatisfaction, like dissatisfaction with being a girl, is important in the tendency to smoke. | 0.510 | 0.8 | 1 | |
| Q14: Attractive appearance and beautiful packaging of cigarettes are important in the tendency to smoke. | 0.528 | 0.6 | 1 | |
| F2: Re-experience smoking | Q15: Compared with other tobaccos, cigarettes are easy to use and easy to obtain, leading to continuous smoking. | 0.652 | 0.6 | 0.96 |
| Q16: Proving yourself to friends to gain social popularity is an effective factor in continuing to smoke | 0.644 | 0.8 | 0.93 | |
| Q17: The normalization of smoking by women in society is a stimulus for continued smoking. | 0.750 | 0.6 | 0.86 | |
| Q18: Lack of proper facilities to discharge of emotions, has led to continued smoking. | 0.762 | 0.6 | 0.80 | |
| Q19: The media and social networks have an impact on continued smoking. | 0.683 | 1 | 0.96 | |
| Q20: Smoking by famous artists is an effective factor for adolescents to continued smoking. | 0.645 | 0.6 | 1 | |
| Q21: Not banning smoking in most places in the community (parks, coffee shops, etc.) has an effect on the continuation of smoking. | 0.448 | 0.6 | 1 | |
| Q22: The improper relationship between the parents and child/children has causes adolescents who have experienced cigarette smoking before, continue to smoke. | 0.476 | 0.6 | 1 | |
| F3: Cigarette dependence | Q23: Addiction to smoking makes it difficult to quit. | 0.422 | 0.8 | 1 |
| Q24: Due to dependence on cigarettes, the presence of a smoker in the group of non-smokers is tolerated. | 0.431 | 1 | 0.90 | |
| Q25: Dependence on smoking, reduces its physical and psychological risks. | 0.702 | 0.8 | 0.93 | |
| Q26: People who are addicted to cigarettes will smoke in any mood (happy or sad). | 0.825 | 0.6 | 0.93 | |
| Q27: People addicted to smoking, if they do not smoke one day, will suffer from nervous tension | 0.800 | 1 | 0.96 | |
| Q28: Cigarette addicts cannot do their daily activities well if they do not smoke for a day. | 0.642 | 1 | 1 | |
| Q29: Dependence on smoking, reduce social personality. | 0.594 | 0.6 | 0.90 | |
| Q30: Cigarette addiction restricts social activities (such as going out with family, attending in family gatherings, etc.) | 0.544 | 0.8 | 0.90 | |
| Q31: Addiction to smoking makes people always have cigarettes in their bags. | 0.474 | 0.8 | 1 | |
| F4: Intention to quit smoking | Q32: With the increase in the price of cigarettes, adolescent smokers only change their type of cigarette and it has no effect on reducing their smoking. | 0.582 | 0.6 | 0.78 |
| Q33: Maintaining a social personality is an obstacle to smoking anywhere. | 0.778 | 1 | 0.86 | |
| Q34: Having a purpose in life (such as educational and career goals, etc.) is a barrier to smoking. | 0.819 | 0.8 | 0.93 | |
| Q35: Choosing non-smoking friends reduces smoking in smokers | 0.841 | 0.8 | 1 | |
| Q36: Reducing the relationship with the smokers’ friends can reduces smoking. | 0.800 | 0.6 | 1 | |
| Q37: Anxiety and anger management skills are effective in reducing smoking. | 0.739 | 0.6 | 0.93 | |
| Q38: Choosing alternative behaviors (such as exercising, reading, watching movies, listening to music, etc.) can reduces smoking when upset and angry. | 0.539 | 0.6 | 0.96 | |
| Q39: Buying a cigarette instead of a pack of cigarettes can effectively reduce smoking. | 0.527 | 0.6 | 1 | |
| Q40: The skill of saying no to the suggestion of friends to smoke, reduces smoking. | 0.490 | 0.8 | 0.96 | |
| F5: Smoking cessation | Q41: Having a non-smoking friend/friends encourages adolescents to quit smoking. | 0.414 | 1 | 0.96 |
| Q42: The motivation to get better work and social opportunities in the future encourages smoking cessation. | 0.659 | 0.6 | 0.80 | |
| Q43: Comparing a smoker with a non-smoker can encourage a person to quit smoking. | 0.558 | 0.6 | 0.80 | |
| Q44: Encouraging important people in life’s person is effective in quit smoking. | 0.687 | 0.6 | 0.93 | |
| Q45: Negative reactions from others encourage smoking cessation. | 0.706 | 0.8 | 0.90 | |
| Q46: Watching videos and educational content about the dangers of smoking in the media (such as TV and social networks) can encourage adolescents to quit smoking. | 0.646 | 0.8 | 1 | |
| Q47: Appropriate alternatives to smoking (such as participating in sports, artistic activities, etc.) can effectively quit smoking. | 0.693 | 0.8 | 1 | |
| Q48: Training courses on the dangers of cigarette smoking in schools can encourage adolescents to quit smoking. | 0.643 | 0.8 | 1 | |
| Q49: Adolescents’ belief in their ability to control smoking can reduce or eliminate smoking. | 0.620 | 0.6 | 0.78 | |
| Q50: Observing the consequences of smoking in the people around can encourage that person to quit smoking. | 0.537 | 1 | 0.93 | |
| Q51: Rising cigarette prices will have a major impact on smoking cessation | 0.479 | 0.8 | 1 | |
| Q52: Feeling fear of tendency toward the use of other drugs or tobacco is effective in quitting smoking. | 0.431 | 1 | 0.93 |
Reliability
Based on the results of Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for 5 subscales of tendency to experience smoking, re-experience smoking, cigarette dependence, intention to quit smoking, and smoking cessation were 0.840, 0.844, 0.890, 0.849, and 0.867, respectively. The McDonald’s omega coefficients for the 5 subscales of the tendency to experience smoking, re-experience smoking, cigarette dependence, intention to quit smoking, and smoking cessation were 0.845, 0.849, 0.892, 0.854, and 0.871, respectively. Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega coefficients for all questions were 0.903 and 0.904, respectively. According to the results, the reliability of all 5 subscales and the entire questionnaire was acceptable (Table 3).
Table 3.
Descriptive statistics of the subscales of questionnaire
| Subscales | Item | Range | Cronbach’s alpha coefficients | McDonald’s omega coefficients |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1: Tendency to experience smoking | 14 | 14–70 | 0.840 | 0.845 |
| F2: Re-experience smoking | 8 | 8–40 | 0.844 | 0.849 |
| F3: Cigarette dependence | 9 | 9–45 | 0.849 | 0.854 |
| F4: Intention to quit smoking | 9 | 9–45 | 0.890 | 0.892 |
| F5: Smoking cessation | 12 | 12–60 | 0.867 | 0.871 |
| Total CTQFA | 52 | 52–260 | 0.903 | 0.904 |
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to design and evaluate the psychometric properties of the smoking tendency questionnaire for Iranian female adolescents. The results of this study showed that the instrument had acceptable validity and reliability. The validity of the questionnaire was evaluated using face validity, content validity, and construct validity. The CVR and CVI for all questions were 0.770 and 0.938, respectively. To perform the reliability of the instrument, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, and McDonald’s omega coefficient were used, which were 0.903 and 0.904 for all questions, respectively. Finally, a questionnaire with 52 questions and 5 subscales of the tendency to experience smoking (14 items), re-experience smoking (8 items), cigarette dependence (9 items), intention to quit smoking (9 items) and smoking cessation (12 items) was approved. Based on the results, it is acceptable for CVR and CVI to be greater than 0.6 and 0.78 respectively, [37, 38]. Cronbach’s alpha value above 0.7 is acceptable and indicates strong internal consistency of the questions [45].
The first subscale of this questionnaire was “tendency to experience smoking”. This subscale was confirmed with 14 questions, CVR 0.6 to 1, CVI 0.83 to 1, regression coefficient (factor loading) 0.422 to 0.648, Cronbach’s alpha 0.840, and Omega McDonald 0.845. The tendency to experience smoking refers to “an individual’s inner desire and tendency to perform behavior primarily based on understanding the meanings of interpersonal and interpersonal communication”. Based on the Barati’s study, the results of the CFA showed that the belief-based tobacco smoking scale with 34-item and 4 subscales had an acceptable construct validity (RMSEA = 0.057; CFI = 0.933; IFI = 0.934; TLI = 0.918; GFI = 0.908 > 0.9). Also, Cronbach’s alpha of this questionnaire was between 0.55 to 0.92, CVI and CVR of the questionnaire were 0.89 and 0.80, respectively [46]. Based on the results of the Sterling study, the questionnaire of scales of smoking related self-efficacy, beliefs, and intention had acceptable construct validity (CFI = 0.96, NNFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.08) [28].
The second subscale of this questionnaire was “re-experience smoking”. This subscale was confirmed with 8 questions, CVR 0.6 to 1, CVI 0.80 to 1, regression coefficient (factor loading) 0.448 to 0.762, Cronbach’s alpha 0.844, and Omega McDonald 0.849. Re-experience smoking refers to “a person’s strong desire to perform a secondary behavior based on the experiences gained from performing the primary behavior”. In the Villalobos-Gallegos study, the results of CFA showed that the nicotine craving questionnaire with 12 items and three factors had acceptable construct validity. Also, the Cronbach’s alpha value of this questionnaire was between 0.86 and 0.90 for three factors, which indicated the reliability of the instrument [29]. Based on the results of the Dethier’s study, the construct validity of the on smoking urges questionnaire indicated that the questionnaire was confirmed by CFA (GFI = 0.984; AGFI = 0.972; PGFI = 0.569) [47]. The results of instrument reliability also showed that Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.9 [47].
The third subscale of this questionnaire was “cigarette dependence”. This subscale was confirmed with 9 questions, CVR 0.6 to 1, CVI 0.80 to 1, regression coefficient (factor loading) 0.422 to 0.825, Cronbach’s alpha 0.849, and Omega McDonald 0.854. Cigarette dependence refers to “habits for doing behavior due to excessive repetition of behavior, physical and psychological dependence on performing the behavior”. Psychometrics of the cigarette dependence questionnaire by Etter showed that the correlation value of the test-retest was 0.83, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.84, and the instrument had acceptable reliability [30]. In the Morean study, Cronbach’s alpha for questionnaires of 22 questions, 8 questions, and 4 questions were 0.98, 0.93, and 0.86, respectively. Also, construct validity was verified by CFA (CFI > 0.90, RMSEA and SRMR < 0.08) [48].
The fourth subscale of this questionnaire was “intention to quit smoking”. This subscale was approved with 9 questions, CVR 0.6 to 1, CVI 0.78 to 1, regression coefficient (factor loading) 0.490 to 0.841, Cronbach’s alpha 0.890, and Omega McDonald 0.892. The intention to quit smoking refers to “motivation and inner desire to reduce behavior in the near future”. Based on the Blake’s study, the psychometric results of the smoking restraint questionnaire showed that the goodness of fit indices of the model had standard values (RMSEA =0.038, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99) and the construct validity of the questionnaire was verified [31]. In Soleimani’s study, psychometric results of the situational temptation scale for smoking cessation with 9 questions showed that the CVI and CVR for each question were more than 0.71. The results of CFA showed that the construct validity of the questionnaire was acceptable (RMSEA = 0.006, GFI = 0.973, AGFI = 0.955). Also, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.80 and the reliability of the instrument was confirmed [49]. The results of the CFA in Can’s study showed that the questionnaire of challenges to stopping smoking with 21 items and two factors had the acceptable goodness of fit indices (RMSEA = 0.078, RMR = 0.011, CFI = 0.94, NFI = 0.90, IFI = 0.94). Also, the value of Cronbach’s alpha for two factors was 0.84 and 0.83, which indicated that the reliability of the questionnaire was acceptable [50].
The fifth subscale of this questionnaire was “smoking cessation”. This subscale was approved with 12 questions, CVR 0.6 to 1, CVI 0.78 to 1, regression coefficient (factor loading) 0.414 to 0.706, Cronbach’s alpha 0.867, and Omega McDonald 0.871. Smoking cessation refers to “the process of complete cessation of behavior”. In Liu’s study, the psychometric results of the smoking cessation counseling scale with 24 questions and four factors showed that this tool had good convergent validity. Also, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.95, which confirmed the reliability of the instrument [32]. Based on the psychometric results of the adolescent reasons for quitting smoking scale questionnaire, the 55 questions questionnaire in the CFA section explained 55% of the variance and had acceptable construct validity. Also, the results showed that Cronbach’s alpha of the questionnaire was between 0.72 and 0.87 and was confirmed [51].
One of the limitations of this study was that it coincides with the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, which makes the research process difficult. Another limitation of this study was the concern of schools and students’ parents to the subject of the study, which was resolved by providing explanations about study objectives.
Conclusion
Due to the increasing prevalence of smoking among female adolescents, it is necessary to determine the reasons for their tendency to smoke, and design and implement appropriate educational programs in this field. This questionnaire with 52 questions and 5 subscales is a valid and reliable tool. The results of this study showed that the questionnaire of the tendency of female adolescents to cigarette smoking can be used as a valid tool to assess the current situation and evaluate programs related to smoking prevention in girls.
Acknowledgments
This article is a part of the Ph.D. thesis in the field of Health Education and Health Promotion sponsored by Mashhad University of Medical Science and research project approved by Ethics Committee of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences with the code of ethics IR.MUMS.REC.1398.153 (Cod: 980103). The authors of the study express their sincere gratitude to all authorities of the Student Research Committee of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences. Before the study written consent to participate in the study was obtained from students and the appropriate parents/legal guardians all students that took part in the study.
Abbreviations
- CVR
Content validity ratio
- CVI
Content validity index
- CFA
Confirmatory factor analysis
- CTQFA
Cigarette smoking tendency questionnaire for female adolescents
- × 2/df
Chi-square ratio to the degree of freedom
- RMSEA
Root means the square error of approximation
- RMR
Root means square residual
- GFI
Goodness of fit index
- PCFI
Parsimony comparative fit index
- PNFI
Parsimonious normed fit index
- PGFI
Parsimony goodness-of-fit index
- CFI
Comparative fit index
Authors’ contributions
Authors AJ, HT, NP, MG and MM designed the study. AJ, HT and NP participated in the conception of the study. AJ and HT managed and conducted the statistical analyses and interpreted the data. AJ, HT, and NP wrote the first draft and AJ, MG, HT and MM revised it to make the final manuscript. All authors have approved the final manuscript.
Funding
No financial support was received for this study.
Availability of data and materials
The data generated or analyzed during this study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This article research project approved by Ethics Committee of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences with the code of ethics IR.MUMS.REC.1398.153 (Cod: 980103). All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Written informed consent from by students and their parents was obtained.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Contributor Information
Alireza Jafari, Email: Jafari.ar94@gmail.com.
Nooshin Peyman, Email: peymann@mums.ac.ir.
Mahdi Gholian-Aval, Email: GholianAM@mums.ac.ir.
Mehrsadat Mahdizadeh, Email: MahdizadehTM@mums.ac.ir.
Hadi Tehrani, Email: Tehranih@mums.ac.ir.
References
- 1.Wang Y, Qi F, Jia X, Lin P, Liu H, Geng M, Liu Y, Li S, Tan J. Mortality and burden of disease attributable to cigarette smoking in Qingdao, China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13(9):898. doi: 10.3390/ijerph13090898. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Rajabi A, Shojaei A, Janani L, Farjam M, Baradaran HR, Khosravi P, Motevalian SA. Cigarette smoking behavior a gateway to opium use disorder: a Mendelian randomization analysis. Behav Genet. 2021;51(4):385–393. doi: 10.1007/s10519-021-10052-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Organization WH . WHO global report on trends in prevalence of tobacco smoking 2000–2025. 2. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Benjamin EJ, Muntner P, Alonso A, Bittencourt MS, Callaway CW, Carson AP, et al. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2019 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2017;139(10):56-528. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 5.Münzel T, Hahad O, Kuntic M, Keaney JF, Jr, Deanfield JE, Daiber A. Effects of tobacco cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and waterpipe smoking on endothelial function and clinical outcomes. Eur Heart J. 2020;41(41):4057–4070. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa460. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Reitsma MB, Fullman N, Ng M, Salama JS, Abajobir A, Abate KH, Abbafati C, Abera SF, Abraham B, Abyu GY. Smoking prevalence and attributable disease burden in 195 countries and territories, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis from the global burden of disease study 2015. Lancet. 2017;389(10082):1885–1906. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30819-X. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Chao TE, Sharma K, Mandigo M, Hagander L, Resch SC, Weiser TG, Meara JG. Cost-effectiveness of surgery and its policy implications for global health: a systematic review and analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2014;2(6):e334–e345. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70213-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Weiser TG, Haynes AB, Molina G, Lipsitz SR, Esquivel MM, Uribe-Leitz T, Fu R, Azad T, Chao TE, Berry WR. Size and distribution of the global volume of surgery in 2012. Bull World Health Organ. 2016;94(3):201–209F. doi: 10.2471/BLT.15.159293. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Mathers C, Loncar D. Projections of Global Mortality and Burden of Disease from 2002 to 2030. PLoS Med. 2006;3(11):e442. 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030442. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 10.Degenhardt L, Stockings E, Patton G, Hall WD, Lynskey M. The increasing global health priority of substance use in young people. Lancet Psychiatry. 2016;3(3):251–264. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00508-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Ehsani-Chimeh E, Sajadi HS, Behzadifar M, Aghaei M, Badrizadeh A, Behzadifar M, Bragazzi NL. Current and former smokers among adolescents aged 12–17 years in Iran: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):155. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-8255-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Huxley RR, Woodward M. Cigarette smoking as a risk factor for coronary heart disease in women compared with men: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Lancet (London, England) 2011;378(9799):1297–1305. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60781-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Jayes L, Haslam PL, Gratziou CG, Powell P, Britton J, Vardavas C, Jimenez-Ruiz C, Leonardi-Bee J. SmokeHaz: systematic reviews and Meta-analyses of the effects of smoking on respiratory health. Chest. 2016;150(1):164–179. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2016.03.060. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Sollie M, Bille C. Smoking and mortality in women diagnosed with breast cancer—a systematic review with meta-analysis based on 400,944 breast cancer cases. Gland surgery. 2017;6(4):385–393. doi: 10.21037/gs.2017.04.06. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Sugawara Y, Tsuji I, Mizoue T, Inoue M, Sawada N, Matsuo K, Ito H, Naito M, Nagata C, Kitamura Y. Cigarette smoking and cervical cancer risk: an evaluation based on a systematic review and meta-analysis among Japanese women. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2019;49(1):77–86. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyy158. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Abraham M, Alramadhan S, Iniguez C, Duijts L, Jaddoe VW, Den Dekker HT, Crozier S, Godfrey KM, Hindmarsh P, Vik T. A systematic review of maternal smoking during pregnancy and fetal measurements with meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0170946. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170946. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Pineles BL, Hsu S, Park E, Samet JM. Systematic review and meta-analyses of perinatal death and maternal exposure to tobacco smoke during pregnancy. Am J Epidemiol. 2016;184(2):87–97. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwv301. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Marufu TC, Ahankari A, Coleman T, Lewis S. Maternal smoking and the risk of still birth: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1):239. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-1552-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Greaves L. The meanings of smoking to women and their implications for cessation. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015;12(2):1449–1465. doi: 10.3390/ijerph120201449. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Salvi D, Nagarkar A. A qualitative study exploring women’s journeys to becoming smokers in the social context of urban India. Tob Induc Dis. 2018;16(1). 10.18332/tid/83753. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 21.Oyewole BK, Animasahun VJ, Chapman HJ. Tobacco use in Nigerian youth: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2018;13(5):e0196362. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196362. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Wang M, Zhong J-M, Fang L, Wang H. Prevalence and associated factors of smoking in middle and high school students: a school-based cross-sectional study in Zhejiang Province, China. BMJ Open. 2016;6(1):e010379. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010379. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Joffer J, Burell G, Bergström E, Stenlund H, Sjörs L, Jerdén L. Predictors of smoking among Swedish adolescents. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1):1296. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-1296. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Leshargie CT, Alebel A, Kibret GD, Birhanu MY, Mulugeta H, Malloy P, Wagnew F, Ewunetie AA, Ketema DB, Aderaw A. The impact of peer pressure on cigarette smoking among high school and university students in Ethiopia: a systemic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2019;14(10):e0222572. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222572. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Dereje N, Abazinab S, Girma A. Prevalence and predictors of cigarette smoking among adolescents of Ethiopia: school based cross sectional survey. J Child Adolesc Behav. 2014;3(1):182. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Oh DL, Heck JE, Dresler C, Allwright S, Haglund M, Del Mazo SS, Kralikova E, Stucker I, Tamang E, Gritz ER, et al. Determinants of smoking initiation among women in five European countries: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Public Health. 2010;10(1):74. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-74. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Rahimzadeh M, Rastegar H, Fazel Kalkhoran J. Prevalence and causes of tendency to cigarette and water pipe smoking among male and female physical education students in University of Kurdistan. J Health. 2016;7(5):680–686. [Google Scholar]
- 28.Sterling KL, Ford KH, Park H, McAlister AL. Scales of smoking-related self-efficacy, beliefs, and intention: assessing measurement invariance among intermittent and daily high school smokers. Am J Health Promotion. 2014;28(5):310–315. doi: 10.4278/ajhp.121009-QUAN-490. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Villalobos-Gallegos L, Marín-Navarrete R, Templos-Nuñez L, Rosendo-Robles A. Nicotine craving questionnaire (CCN): psychometric properties on Mexican population. Salud Mental. 2012;35:273. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Etter J-F, Le Houezec J, Perneger TV. A self-administered questionnaire to measure dependence on cigarettes: the cigarette dependence scale. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2003;28(2):359–370. doi: 10.1038/sj.npp.1300030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Blake GA, Ferguson SG, Palmer MA, Shiffman S. Development and psychometric properties of the smoking restraint questionnaire. Psychol Addict Behav. 2016;30(2):238–245. doi: 10.1037/adb0000134. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Liu W, Johantgen M, Newhouse R. Psychometric testing of the smoking cessation counseling scale among magnet® hospital nurses. West J Nurs Res. 2018;40(4):562–581. doi: 10.1177/0193945917698689. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Panahi R, Javanmardi E, Ramezankhani A, Osmani F, Ahmadi A, Niknami S. Psychometric properties of the scale on the related factors to smoking prevention among students of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences based on Health Belief Model. J Behdasht dar Arseh (ie, Health in the Field) 2018;6(2):11–19. [Google Scholar]
- 34.Sarbandi F, Niknami S, Hidarnia A, Hajizadeh E, Montazeri A. Transtheoretical model (TTM) questionnaire for Iranian smoking cessation: validity and reliability. J North Khorasan Univ. 2015;7(3):611–621. [Google Scholar]
- 35.Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 3. USA: Sage publications; 2008. [Google Scholar]
- 36.Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006;29(5):489–497. doi: 10.1002/nur.20147. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity 1. Pers Psychol. 1975;28(4):563–575. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nursing Health. 2007;30(4):459–467. doi: 10.1002/nur.20199. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Henry JW, Stone RW. A structural equation model of end-user satisfaction with a computer-based medical information system. Inform Resources Management J (IRMJ) 1994;7(3):21–33. doi: 10.4018/irmj.1994070102. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Lomax RG, Schumacker RE. A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling: psychology press. 2004. [Google Scholar]
- 41.Kline R. Details of path analysis. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford; 2005. [Google Scholar]
- 42.Schreiber JB, Nora A, Stage FK, Barlow EA, King J. Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: a review. J Educ Res. 2006;99(6):323–338. doi: 10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Revelle W, Zinbarg RE. Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the glb: comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika. 2009;74(1):145–154. doi: 10.1007/s11336-008-9102-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Viladrich C, Angulo-Brunet A, Doval E. A journey around alpha and omega to estimate internal consistency reliability. Ann Psychol. 2017;33(3):755–782. doi: 10.6018/analesps.33.3.268401. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Taber KS. The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Res Sci Educ. 2018;48(6):1273–1296. doi: 10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Barati M, Allahverdipour H, Hidarnia A, Niknami S, Bashirian S. Belief-based tobacco smoking scale: evaluating the psychometric properties of the theory of planned Behavior's constructs. Health Promot Perspect. 2015;5(1):59–71. doi: 10.15171/hpp.2015.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Dethier V, Heeren A, Galanti L, Philippot P, Billieux J. Probing smoking craving with a multidimensional approach: validation of the 12-item French-language version of the questionnaire on smoking urges. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2014;10:1459. doi: 10.2147/NDT.S63090. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Morean ME, Krishnan-Sarin S, Sussman S, Foulds J, Fishbein H, Grana R, O’Malley SS. Psychometric evaluation of the E-cigarette dependence scale. Nicotine Tob Res. 2018;21(11):1556–1564. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntx271. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Soleimani L, Amin Shokravi F, Tavafian SS, Gholami Fesharaki M. Psychometric evaluation of the short form of situational temptation scale for smoking cessation among Iranian workers based on Transtheoretical model. Health Scope. 2018;7(4):e14561. doi: 10.5812/jhealthscope.14561. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Can Gür G. Psychometric properties of the Turkish version: the challenges to stopping smoking (CSS-21) scale. J Subst Abus. 2021;26(1):107-13. 10.1080/14659891.2020.1846090.
- 51.Myers M, MacPherson L. Adolescent reasons for quitting smoking: initial psychometric evaluation. Psychol Addict Behav. 2008;22(1):129–134. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.22.1.129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data generated or analyzed during this study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

