Skip Navigation


Nicotine & Tobacco Research Advance Access originally published online on June 11, 2009
Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2009 11(7):896-903; doi:10.1093/ntr/ntp083
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Article Summary
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
11/7/896    most recent
ntp083v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Blank, M. D.
Right arrow Articles by Eissenberg, T.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Blank, M. D.
Right arrow Articles by Eissenberg, T.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Comparison of methods for measurement of smoking behavior: Mouthpiece-based computerized devices versus direct observation

Melissa D. Blank, Steven Disharoon and Thomas Eissenberg

Melissa D. Blank, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA
Steven Disharoon, Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA
Thomas Eissenberg, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University and Institute for Drug and Alcohol Studies, Richmond, VA

Corresponding Author: Thomas Eissenberg, Ph.D., Department of Psychology and Institute for Drug and Alcohol Studies, Virginia Commonwealth University, PO Box 980205, Richmond, VA 23298-0205, USA. Telephone: 804-827-4617; Fax: 804-828-7862; E-mail: teissenb{at}vcu.edu


  Abstract

Introduction: Understanding factors that influence tobacco use often involves detailed assessment of smoking behavior (i.e., puff topography) via mouthpiece-based, computerized devices. Research suggests that the use of a mouthpiece to evaluate topography may alter natural smoking behavior. This study was designed to compare topography measurement using mouthpiece-based methods (i.e., desktop and portable computerized devices) to methods that do not use a mouthpiece (i.e., direct observation).

Methods: A total of 30 smokers (≥15 full-flavor or light cigarettes/day) participated in six Latin square–ordered, 2.5-hr experimental sessions that were preceded by at least 8 hr of objectively verified tobacco abstinence (carbon monoxide level ≤ 10 ppm). Each session consisted of participants smoking four cigarettes (own brand or Merit ultra-light) ad libitum, conventionally or using a desktop or portable device. Sessions were videotaped using a digital camcorder.

Results: All three measurement methods were sensitive to oft-reported brand- and bout-induced changes. Topography measurement differed little between methods (across methods, all r values > .68), and each method was reliable (across bouts within each condition, most r values > .78). In contrast, participants perceived the use of either mouthpiece-based device to alter aspects of their smoking behavior (e.g., increased smoking difficulty, reduced enjoyment, altered cigarette taste; p < .05), relative to video recording only.

Discussion: Although direct observational methods may be optimal for measuring certain smoking characteristics, logistical challenges posed by this method likely limit its usefulness. Together, these results suggest that mouthpiece-based devices offer a convenient and useful tool for researchers examining smoking topography.

Received: June 20, 2008; Accepted: January 26, 2009
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.