Development of a Self-Report Measure of Reward Sensitivity:A Test in Current and Former Smokers

Tobacco use or abstinence may increase or decrease reward sensitivity. Most existing measures of reward sensitivity were developed decades ago, and few have undergone extensive psychometric testing.

We developed a 58-item survey of the anticipated enjoyment from, wanting for, and frequency of common rewards (the Rewarding Events Inventory-REI). The current analysis focuses on ratings of anticipated enjoyment. The first validation study recruited current and former smokers from Internet sites. The second study recruited smokers who wished to quit and monetarily reinforced them to stay abstinent in a laboratory study and a comparison group of former smokers. In both studies, participants completed the inventory on two occasions, 3-7 days apart. They also completed four anhedonia scales and a behavioral test of reduced reward sensitivity.

Half of the enjoyment ratings loaded on four factors: socializing, active hobbies, passive hobbies, and sex/drug use. Cronbach's alpha coefficients were all ≥0.73 for overall mean and factor scores. Test-retest correlations were all ≥0.83. Correlations of the overall and factor scores with frequency of rewards and anhedonia scales were 0.19-0.53, except for the sex/drugs factor. The scores did not correlate with behavioral tests of reward and did not differ between current and former smokers. Lower overall mean enjoyment score predicted a shorter time to relapse.

Internal reliability and test-retest reliability of the enjoyment outcomes of the REI are excellent, and construct and predictive validity are modest but promising. The REI is comprehensive and up-to-date, yet is short enough to use on repeated occasions. Replication tests, especially predictive validity tests, are needed.

Both use of and abstinence from nicotine appear to increase or decrease how rewarding nondrug rewards are; however, self-report scales to test this have limitations. Our inventory of enjoyment from 58 rewards appears to be reliable and valid as well as comprehensive and up-to-date, yet is short enough to use on repeated occasions. Replication tests, especially of the predictive validity of our scale, are needed.