Skip to main content

Table 1 Overview of Instruments

From: Instruments to measure e-cigarette related constructs: a systematic review

Broad categories of constructs

Constructs

Theory

Instruments

Reference articles

Target age

Reliability (Cronbach’s alpha > 0.70)

Validity

# of items

Content

Construct

Criterion

Beliefs/ perception/attitudes

Outcome expectancies

Motivation theories

Revised youth e-cigarette outcome expectancies

Pokhrel et al., 2018 [18]

18–25

O

–

O

O

43

Motivation theories

Revised youth EC outcome expectancies (short)

Pokhrel et al., 2018 [18]

18–25

O

–

O

O

12

–

Adolescent E-Cigarette Consequences Questionnaire (AECQ)

Cristello et al., 2020 [19]

High school students (Mean = 14.90)

–

–

O

–

18

Vaping expectancies, sensory expectancies

–

Sensory E-cigarette Expectancies Scale (SEES)

Morean et al., 2019 [20]

≥18

O

–

O

O

9

Social learning theory

Short Form Vaping Consequences Questionnaire (S-VCQ)

Morean & L’Insalata, 2017 [21]

≥18

O

–

O

O

21

Perceived risk and benefits of e-cigarettes

–

Perceived Risk and Benefits of E-cigarette use (RABE)

Copeland et al., 2017 [22]

≥18

O

–

O

–

30

–

Conditional Risk Assessment of Electronic Cigarette Perceptions

Chaffee et al., 2015 [23]

13–18

–

–

O

O

19

Comparative beliefs of e-cig use and cigarette smoking

Theory of planned behavior (TPB)

Comparing E-Cigarette and Cigarettes Questionnaire (CEAC)

Hershberger et al., 2017 [24]; Kale et al., 2020 [25]

≥18

O

–

O

O

10

E-cigarette expectancies compared to cigarette smoking

–

E-cigarette-specific Brief Smoking Consequences Questionnaire-Adult (BSCQ-A)

Hendricks et al., 2015 [26]

≥19

O (>.67)

–

O

O

25

Perceived harms compared with cigarettes

–

Direct and indirect measures of perceived harm of e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco compared with smokeless tobacco

Persoskie et al., 2017 [27]

12–17

–

–

–

O

2

Perceived harms and social norms in the use of e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco

TPB & integrated model of behavior change

Perceived harms and social norms in the use of electronic cigarettes

Waters et al., 2017 [28]

≥18

O

–

O

O

15

Expectancies of combined e-cigarette and alcohol use

–

Nicotine and Other Substance Interaction Expectancy Questionnaire E-cig Revised version (NOSIE-ER)

Hershberger et al., 2016 [29]

≥21

O

–

O

O

8

Attitudes toward e-cig use

–

Electronic cigarette attitudes survey (ECAS)

Diez et al., 2019 [30]

14–19

O

–

O

–

12

Motives

Motivations for e-cigarette experimentation

–

Motivations for e-cigarette experimentation**

Penzes et al., 2016 [31]

≥18 (non-users; young adults)

O (>.68)

–

O

O

27

Use

Susceptibility to future use

–

Susceptibility scale

Cole et al., 2019 [32]

14–17

–

–

–

O

3

–

Susceptibility to four product classes (e-cigarettes, cigars, hookah and cigarettes)

Carey et al., 2018 [33]

10–18

O

–

O

O

3

Habitual e-cigarette use

–

Self-report Habit Index (SRHI)

Morean et al., 2018 [34]

≥18

O

–

O

O

12

Symptoms

E-cigarette craving

–

Questionnaire of Vaping Craving (QVC)

Dowd et al., 2019 [35]

≥18

O

–

O

–

10

E-cigarette dependence

–

Penn State Electronic Cigarette Dependence Index (PS-ECDI).

Piper et al., 2019 [36]; Foulds et al., 2015 [37]

≥18

O

O

O

O

10

–

E-cigarette Fagerström Test of Cigarette Dependence (e-FTCD)

Piper et al., 2019 [36]

≥18

–

–

O

–

6

–

E-cigarette Wisconsin Inventory of Smoking Dependence Motives (e-WISDM)

Piper et al., 2019 [36]

≥18

O

–

O

O

37

–

Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence applied to Vaping (FTND-V)

Browne & Todd, 2018 [38]

≥17

–

–

O

–

9

  1. Abbreviations: TPB Theory of planned behavior
  2. O = indicates the studies addressed reported reliability or validity
  3. ** = freshman/sophmore was reported