Indicators of Tobacco Dependence Among Youth: Findings From Wave 1 (2013–2014) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prior work established a measure of tobacco dependence (TD) among adults that can be used to compare TD across different tobacco products. We extend this approach to develop a common, cross-product metric for TD among youth. METHODS: One thousand one hundred and forty-eight youth aged 12-17 who used a tobacco product in the past 30 days were identified from 13 651 youth respondents in Wave 1 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study. FINDINGS: Analyses confirmed a single primary latent construct underlying responses to TD indicators for all mutually exclusive tobacco product user groups. Differential Item Functioning analyses supported the use of 8 of 10 TD indicators for comparisons across groups. With TD levels anchored at 0.0 (standard deviation [SD] = 1.0) among cigarette only (n = 265) use group, mean TD scores were more than a full SD lower for e-cigarette only (n = 150) use group (mean = -1.09; SD = 0.64). Other single product use group (cigar, hookah, pipe, or smokeless; n = 262) on average had lower TD (mean = -0.60; SD = 0.84), and the group with the use of multiple tobacco products (n = 471) experienced similar levels of TD (mean = 0.14; SD = 0.78) as the cigarette only use group. Concurrent validity was established with product use frequency among all user groups. A subset of five TD items comprised a common metric permitting comparisons between youth and adults. CONCLUSION: The PATH Study Youth Wave 1 Interview provided psychometrically valid measures of TD that enable future regulatory investigations of TD across tobacco products and comparisons between youth and adult tobacco product use group. IMPLICATIONS: A measure of tobacco dependence (TD) has been established previously among adults to compare TD across tobacco products. This study established the validity of a similar, cross-product measure of TD among youth. Findings suggest a single latent TD construct underlying this measure, concurrent validity of the scale with product use frequency across different types of tobacco users, and a subset of common items that can be used to compare TD between youth and adults who use tobacco.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".