Criterion validity of measures of perceived relative harm of e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco compared to cigarettes

- In tobacco research and regulation, measures of perceived relative harm of products vary.
- On direct measures, people compare the harms of products (e.g., e-cigarettes vs. cigarettes).
- On indirect measures, people rate the harms of products separately, and ratings are compared.
- Direct measures had higher validity than indirect measures, based on product use associations.
- Tobacco research and regulation would benefit from more perceived harm measure validation work.

Beliefs about the relative harmfulness of one product compared to another (perceived relative harm) are central to research and regulation concerning tobacco and nicotine-containing products, but techniques for measuring such beliefs vary widely. We compared the validity of direct and indirect measures of perceived harm of e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco (SLT) compared to cigarettes. On direct measures, participants explicitly compare the harmfulness of each product. On indirect measures, participants rate the harmfulness of each product separately, and ratings are compared. The U.S. Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS-FDA-2015; N = 3738) included direct measures of perceived harm of e-cigarettes and SLT compared to cigarettes. Indirect measures were created by comparing ratings of harm from e-cigarettes, SLT, and cigarettes on 3-point scales. Logistic regressions tested validity by assessing whether direct and indirect measures were associated with criterion variables including: ever-trying e-cigarettes, ever-trying snus, and SLT use status. Compared to the indirect measures, the direct measures of harm were more consistently associated with criterion variables. On direct measures, 26% of adults rated e-cigarettes as less harmful than cigarettes, and 11% rated SLT as less harmful than cigarettes. Direct measures appear to provide valid information about individuals' harm beliefs, which may be used to inform research and tobacco control policy. Further validation research is encouraged.