Turkish versions of two cannabis screening tools showed good reliability for both cannabis and synthetic cannabinoid users

The Turkish versions of the Cannabis Use Problems Identification Test (CUPIT) and Cannabis Problems Questionnaire (CPQ) showed good psychometric properties and worked for both cannabis and synthetic cannabinoid use disorder patients.

Evren, Cuneyt et al.·Journal of psychoactive drugs·2017·Preliminary EvidenceCross-Sectional
RTHC-01373Cross SectionalPreliminary Evidence2017RETHINKTHC RESEARCH DATABASErethinkthc.com/research

Quick Facts

Study Type
Cross-Sectional
Evidence
Preliminary Evidence
Sample
N=52

What This Study Found

The CUPIT and CPQ questionnaires were validated in a Turkish clinical sample of 52 cannabis users and 45 synthetic cannabinoid users being treated for use disorders. Both instruments showed good internal consistency: CUPIT scored 0.89 and CPQ scored 0.87 (Cronbach's alpha).

The CUPIT and CPQ were strongly correlated with each other (r=0.76) and moderately correlated with the Cannabis Withdrawal Scale (r=0.63 and r=0.74 respectively), supporting convergent validity.

Principal component analysis supported a two-factor structure for the CUPIT. The finding that both tools worked for synthetic cannabinoid users is particularly relevant given the high prevalence of synthetic cannabinoid use in Turkey.

Key Numbers

CUPIT: alpha 0.89. CPQ: alpha 0.87. CUPIT-CPQ correlation: r=0.76. CUPIT-CWS correlation: r=0.63. CPQ-CWS correlation: r=0.74. Sample: 52 cannabis users, 45 synthetic cannabinoid users (all male outpatients).

How They Did This

Psychometric validation study of Turkish translations of the CUPIT and CPQ in 97 male outpatients with cannabis (n=52) or synthetic cannabinoid (n=45) use disorder. Analyses included principal component analysis, internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), and correlational validity against each other and the Cannabis Withdrawal Scale.

Why This Research Matters

Cannabis and synthetic cannabinoids are widely used in Turkey, and clinicians need validated screening and outcome tools in Turkish. Demonstrating that these instruments work for synthetic cannabinoid users is important because synthetic cannabinoid use disorder is common in Turkey and may present differently from natural cannabis use disorder.

The Bigger Picture

The availability of validated screening tools in local languages is essential for clinical practice and research worldwide. The applicability to synthetic cannabinoid users is a practical advance, given that many countries face synthetic cannabinoid problems and few validated clinical tools specifically address these substances.

What This Study Doesn't Tell Us

Male-only sample limits generalizability. Relatively small sample size (97 total). Outpatient treatment-seeking population may differ from community samples. One CPQ subscale (CPQ-C) had low internal consistency (alpha 0.30). The study did not assess test-retest reliability.

Questions This Raises

  • ?Would the tools perform similarly in female Turkish patients?
  • ?Are there meaningful clinical differences between cannabis and synthetic cannabinoid use disorder that these instruments should capture?
  • ?Can the low-reliability CPQ-C subscale be improved?

Trust & Context

Key Stat:
Both screening tools validated for synthetic cannabinoid users (alpha 0.87-0.89)
Evidence Grade:
Psychometric validation study with adequate sample size for reliability analysis. Limited by male-only sample and lack of test-retest data.
Study Age:
Published in 2017. Validated clinical tools for cannabis use disorders continue to be adapted for different languages and populations.
Original Title:
Psychometric Properties of the Turkish Versions of the Cannabis Use Problems Identification Test (CUPIT) and the Adult Cannabis Problems Questionnaire (CPQ).
Published In:
Journal of psychoactive drugs, 49(1), 83-89 (2017)
Database ID:
RTHC-01373

Evidence Hierarchy

Meta-Analysis / Systematic Review
Randomized Controlled Trial
Cohort / Case-Control
Cross-Sectional / ObservationalSnapshot without intervening
This study
Case Report / Animal Study

A snapshot of a population at one point in time.

What do these levels mean? →

Frequently Asked Questions

Why validate cannabis tools for synthetic cannabinoid users?

Synthetic cannabinoids produce similar but often more severe patterns of use disorder compared to natural cannabis. Having validated tools that work for both populations is important because in many countries (including Turkey), synthetic cannabinoid use is as common or more common than natural cannabis use.

What is the CUPIT?

The Cannabis Use Problems Identification Test is a brief self-report screening instrument designed to detect problematic cannabis use. It covers patterns of use, dependence symptoms, and related problems. The Turkish version showed good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.89).

Read More on RethinkTHC

Cite This Study

RTHC-01373·https://rethinkthc.com/research/RTHC-01373

APA

Evren, Cuneyt; Yilmaz Cengel, Hanife; Bozkurt, Muge; Evren, Bilge; Umut, Gokhan; Agachanli, Ruken. (2017). Psychometric Properties of the Turkish Versions of the Cannabis Use Problems Identification Test (CUPIT) and the Adult Cannabis Problems Questionnaire (CPQ).. Journal of psychoactive drugs, 49(1), 83-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2016.1277047

MLA

Evren, Cuneyt, et al. "Psychometric Properties of the Turkish Versions of the Cannabis Use Problems Identification Test (CUPIT) and the Adult Cannabis Problems Questionnaire (CPQ).." Journal of psychoactive drugs, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2016.1277047

RethinkTHC

RethinkTHC Research Database. "Psychometric Properties of the Turkish Versions of the Canna..." RTHC-01373. Retrieved from https://rethinkthc.com/research/evren-2017-psychometric-properties-of-the

Access the Original Study

Study data sourced from PubMed, a service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

This study breakdown was produced by the RethinkTHC research team. We analyze and report published research findings without making health recommendations. All interpretations are based solely on the published abstract and study data.