Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jun:117:106852.
doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2021.106852. Epub 2021 Feb 4.

Factor analysis of a short form of the Protective Behavioral Strategies for Marijuana scale

Maha N Mian  1 , Brianna R Altman  2 , Rachel Luba  2 , Luna F Ueno  2 , Dev Dalal  2 , Mitch Earleywine  2
Affiliations

Factor analysis of a short form of the Protective Behavioral Strategies for Marijuana scale

Maha N Mian et al. Addict Behav. 2021 Jun.

Abstract

Objective: The Protective Behavioral Strategies for Marijuana Scale (PBSM), a 17-item scale targeting strategies for mitigating the negative consequences of cannabis use, highlights a range of behaviors that can reduce harm beyond straightforward decreases in quantity or frequency. The 17-item scale's factor structure remains under-examined but could reveal meaningful distinctions among strategies. This study aimed to confirm the factor structure of the short form of the PBSM.

Methods: This study recruited cannabis-using undergraduates (N = 454,Mage = 19.6, 68.8% female, 39% White), who reported using cannabis approximately 2.3 days per week with mild cannabis-related consequences (CAPQ; M = 9.74).

Results: A confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated poor fit for the one-factor model of the PBSM, prompting an exploratory factor analysis. Analyses revealed two internally reliable factors: a "Quantity" factor, strategies specific to mitigating overuse and limiting amounts consumed and an "Context" factor loosely related to troubles with others. This two-factor model accounted for over half of the total variance; invariance testing indicated reduced fit as models became more restrictive. Though each of the factors covaried negatively with both days of use and problems, Context had a stronger relation to both variables compared to Quantity. Only Context predicted fewer cannabis problems and use.

Conclusions: The two-factor solution suggests further work on the psychometric properties of the scale could provide heuristic information to allow for more nuanced approaches in clinical and research settings. Theoretically, each factor might have novel links to some constructs but not others in ways that could assist harm-reduction strategies and treatment.

Keywords: Cannabis; Cannabis problems; Marijuana; Protective behavioral strategies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Author agreement

This is an original manuscript that has not been published or submitted to another journal simultaneously.

The manuscript has been read and approved by all named authors, and the order of authors listed in the manuscript has been approved by all authors.

The authors have no other disclosures or conflicts of interest to report.

The Corresponding Author is the sole contact for the Editorial process.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Altman BR, Mian MN, Slavin M, & Earleywine M (2019). Cannabis Expectancies for Sleep. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 51(5). 10.1080/02791072.2019.1643053. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Araas TE, & Adams TB (2008). Protective behavioral strategies and negative alcohol-related consequences in college students. Journal of Drug Education, 38(3), 211–224. 10.2190/DE.38.3.b. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Barnett NP, Murphy JG, Colby SM, & Monti PM (2007). Efficacy of counselor vs. computer-delivered intervention with mandated college students. Addictive Behaviors, 32(11), 2529–2548. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.06.017. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Braitman AL, & Henson JM (2016). Personalized boosters for a computerized intervention targeting college drinking: The influence of protective behavioral strategies. Journal of American College Health, 64(7), 509–519. 10.1080/07448481.2016.1185725. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bravo AJ, Anthenien AM, Prince MA, Pearson MR, & Marijuana Outcomes Study Team. (2017). Marijuana protective behavioral strategies as a moderator of the effects of risk/protective factors on marijuana-related outcomes. Addictive Behaviors, 69, 14–21. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.01.007. - DOI - PubMed