Adolescents’ Understanding of Smoking and Vaping Risk Language: Cognitive Interviews to Inform Scale Development

Abstract

Introduction Perceived message effectiveness (PME) is a common metric to understand receptivity to tobacco prevention messages, yet most measures have been developed with adults. We examined adolescents’ interpretation of language within candidate items for a new youth-targeted PME measure using cognitive interviewing. We sought to understand the meaning adolescents’ assigned to our candidate PME items to improve item wording. Methods Participants were 20 adolescents ages 13-17 from the United States. Cognitive interviews used a structured guide to elicit feedback on comprehension, answer retrieval, and language regarding a set of Reasoned Action Approach-based survey items that assessed the PME of smoking and vaping prevention ads. We employed thematic analysis to synthesize findings from the interviews. Results Interviews identified three main issues related to survey items: ambiguity of language, word choice (risk and other terminology), and survey item phrasing. Adolescents preferred direct, definitive language over more ambiguous phrasing which they saw as less serious (e.g., “will” instead of “could”). For risk terminology, they preferred terms such as “harmful” and “dangerous” over “risky,” which was viewed as easy to discount. The term “negative effects” was interpreted as encompassing a broader set of tobacco harms than “health effects.” Adolescents said that the term “vape” was preferable to “e-cigarette,” and identified ways to simplify item wording for greater clarity. Conclusions Tobacco risk terms that appear similar differ in meaning to adolescents, and more direct and unambiguous language is preferred. Our findings informed changes to the PME scale items to improve clarity and reduce measurement error. Implications This study adds to the literature on how adolescents interpret tobacco prevention language. Adolescents may interpret terminology differently than adults, which could lead to ambiguity in meaning and thus measurement error. Through cognitive interviewing, we identified and improved the language in a youth-focused perceived message effectiveness (PME) measure for tobacco and vaping prevention.

Identifying Promising Themes for Adolescent Vaping Warnings: A National Experiment

“…We opted to use causal language in the framing of the text of the warning messages (e.g., “vaping causes coughing and wheezing”) to increase comparability across message themes and to enhance understanding of the warning text. 38–40 While some of the statements go beyond the evidence from the 2018 NASEM report, we justify this decision based on the fact that this experiment is a test of the relative efficacy of warning themes rather than specific product warnings being proposed for implementation on packaging and advertising. After exposure to all three warnings, participants filled out assessments of perceived message effectiveness (PME) (primary outcome), negative affect, attention, social interactions, and message novelty (secondary outcomes).…”

Building a 4E interview-grounded theory model: A case study of demand factors for customized furniture

“…Structured interviews limit the content of questions and the format of answers. The information obtained is simple to process and analyze, but it is difficult to obtain information beyond the questions [ 27 ]. Unstructured interviews only set topics and are free to develop around them without the constraints of guides and formats, but are more difficult to conceptualize when used for qualitative analysis in the later stage [ 28 ].…”

Synthetic nicotine descriptors: awareness and impact on perceptions of e-cigarettes among US youth

“…All products included the word ‘vape’ after the descriptor (eg, ‘synthetic nicotine vape’). The survey referenced ‘vapes’ and ‘vaping’ in the experimental stimuli and measures since those terms are used and understood by youth 17. We tested both ‘tobacco-free’ and ‘synthetic’ nicotine descriptors since these were common terms to describe synthetic nicotine products at the time of the study 10…”