Abstract
Background：As smoking cessation treatment is now covered by the health insurances in Japan, guidelines regarding this have also been prepared. As a result, self-efficacy has come to garner attention as a factor for promoting smoking cessation and preventing smoking relapse. Selfefficacy regarding smoking cessation is also an important element of the transtheoretical model (TTM). However, no scale is available in Japan for measuring self-efficacy in smoking cessation. Therefore, this study aimed to prepare a Japanese version of the Smoking Abstinence Self-efficacy Questionnaire (hereinafter, Japanese Smoking Abstinence Self-efficacy Questionnaire) by Spek et al. (2013) and to investigate its reliability and validity.
Methods：Study I is an analysis of 261 out of 1,677 healthcare workers for the evaluation of the items in the Japanese Smoking Abstinence Selfefficacy Questionnaire. In Study II targets on 535 out of 2,055 adult smokers for an online survey and analysis. We clarified the factor structure of the Japanese Smoking Abstinence Self-efficacy Questionnaire and investigated its reliability and validity. The questions were taken from the Japanese Smoking Abstinence Self-efficacy Questionnaire, Japanese Smoking Decisional Balance Scale, and stages of behavior change, among others.
Results：In Study I, an I-T correlation analysis was performed to carefully select items for the Japanese Smoking Abstinence Self-efficacy Questionnaire. In a factor analysis of the Japanese Smoking Abstinence Self-efficacy Questionnaire in Study II, the same factor as in the original version was selected. The α coefficient was .957. The scores in the Japanese Smoking Abstinence Self-efficacy Questionnaire were changed systematically in accordance with the stages of behavior change. The results were consistent with those of the previous studies, confirming the construct validity of the Japanese Smoking Abstinence Self-efficacy Questionnaire.
Conclusion：This study demonstrated that the Japanese Smoking Abstinence Self-efficacy Questionnaire has high reliability and validity. Yet, the number of subjects analyzed in this study cannot be considered as sufficient for the conclusion. The findings of this study could be useful reference, while we need more accurate analysis to evaluate the reliability and validity of the scale.

View full abstract