Validity of the 12-item French version of the Tobacco Craving Questionnaire in treatment-seeking smokers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The French version of the Tobacco Craving Questionnaire (FTCQ) is a valid and reliable 47-item self-report instrument that assesses tobacco craving in four factors: emotionality, expectancy, compulsivity, and purposefulness. For use in research and clinical settings, we constructed a 12-item version of the FTCQ (FTCQ-12). METHOD: The FTCQ-12 was administered to treatment-seeking French smokers (n = 310) enrolled in the Adjustment of DOses of NIcotine in Smoking Cessation (ADONIS) trial. We conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and examined congruence in factor loadings between the FTCQ and FTCQ-12 to determine the validity and reliability of the FTCQ-12. Measures of tobacco craving, withdrawal, smoking patterns, and smoking history were included to explore the concurrent validity of the FTCQ-12. We used craving scores to distinguish participants who were highly dependent on nicotine from those less dependent on nicotine. RESULTS: CFA indicated excellent fit for a four-factor model, with congruence coefficients indicating moderate similarity in factor patterns and loadings between the FTCQ and FTCQ-12. Individual factors of the FTCQ-12 correlated positively with smoking history and withdrawal variables. Participants who were highly dependent on nicotine were nearly six times more likely to score >5 on the General Craving Score (maximum: 7) than those less dependent on nicotine. DISCUSSION: Findings suggest that the FTCQ-12 measures the same four factors as the FTCQ and TCQ, and these four constructs have unique properties. The FTCQ-12 yields valid and reliable indices of tobacco craving and has potential clinical utility for rapid assessment of tobacco craving in smokers seeking treatment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".