Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Validity of a Functional Assessment for Smoking Treatment Recommendations Questionnaire
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Validity of a Functional Assessment for Smoking Treatment Recommendations Questionnaire
Do you wish to request the book?
Validity of a Functional Assessment for Smoking Treatment Recommendations Questionnaire
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Validity of a Functional Assessment for Smoking Treatment Recommendations Questionnaire
2020
Overview
Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States and imposes a substantial economic cost. Despite the well-established potential harm, relapse rates remain high during quit attempts. In the realm of applied behavior analysis, functional assessment has long been recognized as a reliable method to increase effectiveness of treatments for a variety of problem behaviors. Functional assessment may aid in designating targeted treatment for smokers based on the maintaining function(s) of the behavior. The current study (N = 414) sought to assess the reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Smoking for Treatment Recommendations (FASTR) and provide preliminary evidence towards a hypothesized factor structure. The full FASTR included five subscales derived from the field of functional behavior assessment: 1) Automatic Positive Reinforcement, 2) Social Positive Reinforcement, 3) Automatic Negative Reinforcement, 4) Social Negative Reinforcement, and 5) Antecedent Stimuli. The full battery of subscales was found to be adequately reliable and valid, with overall sample reliability coefficients ranging from α = 0.69 to α = 0.90. Confirmatory factor analysis of the five-factor model produced acceptable fit indices (CFI = 0.908, TLI = 0.896, RMSEA = 0.059, SRMR = 0.071). A five-factor model performed favorably across several fit indices, providing preliminary validity for the FASTR. Further research should aim to replicate the observed factor structure in other samples and establish the clinical utility of the FASTR.
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V
Subject
