Assessing invariance of cannabis use motives by veteran status and binary gender identity among college students

ABSTRACT

Student service members/veterans (SSM/V) are distinct from non-veteran students in a variety of ways, including in their cannabis use patterns and potentially their motives for cannabis use. Additionally, previous research has shown that men and women endorse different motives for their cannabis use. The present study was designed to assess whether a popular measure of cannabis use motives is invariant across veteran status and gender identity. Based on previous research, we hypothesized that cannabis motives would show invariance across SSM/V men, SSM/V women, non-veteran men, and non-veteran women (n = 1,011, SSM/V = 553) among those who indicated using cannabis at least once in their lifetime. Results from the four-group invariance testing procedure revealed metric invariance. This suggests that while the factor structure and factor loadings are invariant, there are differences at the intercept level for cannabis motives across groups. The same items load onto the same latent constructs and the strength of the items loading onto the latent factors was also the same across groups. The demonstrated invariance has implications for use in SSM/V and non-veteran clients. As this scale is brief, it could easily be used as a screening tool or used to guide intervention content.

KEYWORDS:

• Marijuana motives measure
• invariance testing
• SEM

Acknowledgments

Morgan L. Sneed, SSGT, USAF (retired), first author of this manuscript passed away during the preparation of the manuscript. We, his co-authors, have completed the manuscript following his death. As Staff Sergeant Sneed developed the study idea, presented an earlier version of the study at the Research Society on Marijuana annual conference, and wrote sections of the manuscript, he remains the first author of the manuscript. Members of Staff Sergeant Sneed’s immediate family have consented to this manuscript being published. Rest in peace Morgan.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).