Drug and Alcohol Dependence 73 (2004) 301–306 Convergent and concurrent validity of the Contemplation Ladder and URICA scales Nancy Amodei a,∗ , R.J. Lamb b,c a Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Mailstop 7818, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, TX 78229, USA b Department of Psychiatry, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Mailstop 7792, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, TX 78229, USA c Department of Pharmacology, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Mailstop 7764, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, TX 78229, USA Received 18 July 2003; received in revised form 27 October 2003; accepted 4 November 2003 Abstract This study examined the convergent and concurrent validity of the Contemplation Ladder and the University of Rhode Island Change Assessment (URICA). Intake data of participants recruited into two concurrent studies were analyzed. One group (n = 77) had no plans to quit smoking within the next 6 months, while a second group (n = 106) had definite plans to quit. The groups did not differ on any demographic variables except employment status. Contemplation Ladder scores for the entire sample (n = 183) correlated positively with the URICA Contemplation and Action subscale scores but negatively with Precontemplation subscale scores. The Contemplation Ladder also correlated positively with the URICA Composite score. Additionally, participants seeking to quit within the next 6 months had significantly higher Contemplation Ladder and URICA Contemplation, Action, and Composite scores, but lower Precontemplation scores than participants not seeking to quit. Controlling for employment status did not change the pattern of results. Our findings provide support for the convergent and concurrent validity of these two measures and suggest that the single-item Contemplation Ladder may be a practical alternative to the URICA in certain situations. © 2003 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Assessment validity; Stages of change; Smoking cessation 1. Introduction 1.1. URICA Several tools based on Prochaska and DiClemente’s (1986) stages of change model have been used in the clini- cal and research literature to measure motivational readiness to change substance use behaviors. A popular dimensional measure of readiness is the 32-item University of Rhode Island Change Assessment (URICA) scale (McConnaughy et al., 1989). Although it has rarely been used as a measure of readiness to change smoking behavior, in principle it can be used with a variety of target behaviors because of the generic manner in which items are written. The URICA is based upon four stages of change—precontemplation, con- templation, action and maintenance (McConnaughy et al., ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-210-567-7400; fax: +1-210-5670-7443. E-mail address: amodei@uthscsa.edu (N. Amodei). 1983, 1989)—despite the fact that the model specifies an additional stage known as preparation. Each of the four stages is assessed by a separate set of eight items which can be scored from “1” to “5.” Higher scores on a scale indicate greater endorsement for the behaviors and attitudes associated with the corresponding stage; however, higher scores on one particular scale relative to another should not be used to indicate that an individual falls within that par- ticular stage. Rather, individuals are classified into separate groups or stages of change based on the pattern of scores derived through cluster analysis procedures or through the researcher or clinician’s interpretation of the combination of subscale scores (Carbonari and DiClemente, 2000; Connors et al., 2001). An alternative to the clustering approach is to use the URICA as a continuous measure of readiness to change based on a Composite score. A readiness Composite score is obtained by subtracting the Precontemplation score from the sum of the Contemplation, Action, and Maintenance scores (Connors et al., 2001; Project MATCH Group, 1997). 0376-8716/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2003.11.005