E8-LWDS: Factorial Structure and Psychometric Properties of the Lebanese Waterpipe Dependence Scale-11 in 1490 Egyptian Waterpipe Tobacco Smokers—A Critical Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is no universal scale for assessing waterpipe tobacco (WT) dependence. We examined the factorial structure and psychometric properties of the Waterpipe Dependence Scale-11 (LWDS-11) among Egyptian WT smokers. METHODS: We administered the LWDS-11 during face-interview questionnaires in two cross-sectional surveys among 1490 current WT smokers recruited via purposive quota sampling. Exploratory factor analysis was performed on half of the sample. Confirmatory factor analysis of the resulting model was done using structural equation modelling on the other half. Scale reliability was examined. We assessed convergent construct validity using regression models to examine the association between the adapted dependence scale and factors conceptually expected to be associated with WT dependence. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis of the scale yielded eight items (E8-LWDS) supporting a three-factor structure: physical dependence (three items); psychological dependence (three items); and psychological craving (two items). Cronbach's α were 0.635 for the total scale and 0.823, 0.654, and 0.785 for the three subscales. E8-LWDS was confirmed to have good model fit (comparative fit index = 0.995; root mean squared error of approximation = 0.027). E8-LWDS was independently associated with daily WT smoking, rural residence, being a skilled worker, non-exclusive WTS, smoking ≥ eight WT hagars/day, and measures of perceived behavioral control (self-reported addiction to WT, perceived ability to quit, and previous quit attempts). CONCLUSION: E8-LWDS showed adequate psychometric properties among this sample of Egyptian current WT smokers, which makes it appropriate for use by researchers and practitioners. Adding items related to perceived behavioral control might enhance the scale robustness.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".