Therapy determined by assessment in the modification of smoking: A case study

Assessment of Smoking Behavior

“…Measurement error may, of course, enter into either (or both) of these steps. Recording procedures have differed on a number of potentially important dimensions including: (a) the nature of information recorded, e.g., number of cigarettes smoked (Barton and Barton, 1978;Lando, 1975a;McFall, 1970), time of each cigarette (Delahunt and Curran, 1976;Frederiksen and Frazier, 1977;McGrath and Hall, 1976), situational factors associated with smoking (Brockway, Kleinmann, Edleson, and Gruenewald, 1977;Dericco, Brigham, and Garlington, 1977;Epstein and Collins, 1977), (b) the nature of the recording device, e.g., wrist counters (Chapman, Smith, and Layden, 1971;Katz, Heiman, and Gordon, 1977), pocket counters (Levinson, Shapiro, Schwartz, and Tursky, 1971), index cards (Gordon and Hall, 1973), booklets (Lando, 1975a;Marston and McFall, 1971) and slips attached to cigarette wrappers (Brockway et al, 1977;McGrath and Hall, 1976), (c) the timing of recording, e.g., prior to lighting up (Frederiksen, Epstein, and Kosevsky, 1975;Rozensky, 1974), (d) the schedule of recording, e.g., continuous, daily, or weekly , and (e) the schedule of returning data to the experimenter, e.g., daily (Frederiksen and Simon, 1978a), weekly (Danaher, 1977;Katz et al, 1977) , or longer (McFall, 1970;Norton and Barske, 1977). It seems clear that variations in recording requirements and scheduling hold much potential for differential control of selfmonitoring accuracy and reactivity as previous research has already demonstrated (e.g., McFall, 1970;Rozensky, 1974).…”