The Influence of Web- versus Paper-Based Formats on the Assessment of Tobacco Dependence: Evaluating the Measurement Invariance of the Dimensions of Tobacco Dependence Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of mode of administration (internet-based, web survey format versus pencil-and-paper format) on responses to the Dimensions of Tobacco Dependence Scale (DTDS). Responses from 1,484 adolescents that reported using tobacco (mean age 16 years) were examined; 354 (23.9%) participants completed a web-based version and 1,130 (76.1%) completed a paper-based version of the survey. Both surveys were completed in supervised classroom environments. Use of the web-based format was associated with significantly shorter completion times and a small but statistically significant increase in the number of missing responses. Tests of measurement invariance indicated that using a web-based mode of administration did not influence the psychometric functioning of the DTDS. There were no significant differences between the web- and paper-based groups' ratings of the survey's length, their question comprehension, and their response accuracy. Overall, the results of the study support the equivalence of scores obtained from web- and paper-based versions of the DTDS in secondary school settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.188 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".