Momentary Cannabis Craving Scale

1. Abstract

The Momentary Cannabis Craving Scale (MCCS; Davis et al., 2025) is an ecologically sensitive, psychometrically validated measurement instrument developed to assess state-level craving for cannabis among emerging adults in naturalistic environments. Grounded in contemporary addiction theory and tailored for ecological momentary assessment (EMA) research protocols, the scale captures acute fluctuations in subjective subjective drive to consume cannabis, distinguishing between reward-driven appetite and affect-driven coping motivations. The instrument originally comprised eight candidate items adapted from established retrospective batteries—chiefly the Marijuana Craving Questionnaire-Short Form (MCQ-SF) and augmented with high-intensity craving indicators. Following rigorous multilevel exploratory factor analyses (MEFA) on an intensive longitudinal cohort of emerging adults (aged 18–21 years) who used cannabis at least three times per week, two psychometrically problematic items were eliminated to optimize structural integrity and cross-level equivalence.

The resulting 6-item instrument exhibits a robust two-factor architecture at both within-person and between-person levels: Factor 1, Purposefulness/General Desire to Use (3 items), captures reward anticipation, intent, and direct appetite; Factor 2, Negative Affect/Emotionality Craving (3 items), quantifies negative reinforcement expectancies, tension alleviation, and anxiety reduction. Each item is rated on an authentic 7-point Likert-type scale spanning from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree.” The finalized two within-two between-factor multilevel model demonstrated exemplary goodness-of-fit indices (χ²(8) = 23.862, RMSEA = 0.032, SRMR within = 0.007, SRMR between = 0.007, CFI = 0.998, TLI = 0.993). Multilevel convergent validity analyses confirm strong, theoretically consistent associations between the MCCS subdimensions and cue-elicited craving, negative affect, trait and state impulsivity, and diagnostic features of cannabis use disorder (CUD). By mitigating the retrospective recall biases inherent to traditional trait instruments, the MCCS delivers a methodologically rigorous, brief, and burden-minimized psychometric tool for clinical trials, micro-longitudinal mechanistic studies, and real-time mobile health interventions.

2. Keywords

Momentary Cannabis Craving Scale, MCCS, ecological momentary assessment, cannabis craving, emerging adults, negative reinforcement, incentive salience, multilevel factor analysis, craving assessment, substance use disorder.

3. Authors

The Momentary Cannabis Craving Scale was developed and psychometrically evaluated by a multidisciplinary team of clinical psychologists, addiction psychiatrists, and biostatisticians:

• Christal N. Davis, Ph.D. (Corresponding Author)
  
  Affiliation: Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center, Charleston, South Carolina, United States.
  
  ORCID: 0000-0003-3974-5598
  
  Correspondence Address: Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center, 109 Bee Street, Charleston, SC 29401, USA.
  
  Email: [email protected]
• Kathryn S. Gex, M.S.
  
  Affiliation: Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, United States.
• Lindsay M. Squeglia, Ph.D.
  
  Affiliation: Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, United States.
• Timothy J. Trull, Ph.D.
  
  Affiliation: Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, United States.
  
  ORCID: 0000-0001-9935-7939
• Denis M. McCarthy, Ph.D.
  
  Affiliation: Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, United States.
• Nathaniel L. Baker, M.S.
  
  Affiliation: Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center and Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, United States.
• Kevin M. Gray, M.D.
  
  Affiliation: Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, United States.
• Aimee L. McRae-Clark, Pharm.D.
  
  Affiliation: Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center and Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, United States.
• Rachel L. Tomko, Ph.D.
  
  Affiliation: Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, United States.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Momentary Cannabis Craving Scale (MCCS) is to provide an empirically validated, brief, and multidimensional measure of real-time subjective cannabis craving suited for repetitive administration via ecological momentary assessment (EMA) or mobile health (mHealth) paradigms. Subjective craving is recognized by both the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed., text rev.; DSM-5-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2022) and the International Classification of Diseases (11th rev.; ICD-11; World Health Organization, 2019) as a cardinal diagnostic criterion for substance use disorders. It serves as a principal proximate antecedent to consumption, relapse following attempted abstinence, and escalation into dependence. Despite its theoretical prominence, the historical measurement of cannabis craving has predominantly relied on retrospective, cross-sectional self-report questionnaires, such as the 47-item Marijuana Craving Questionnaire (MCQ; Heishman et al., 2001) or its 12-item abbreviated variant (MCQ-SF; Heishman et al., 2009).

While retrospective instruments capture generalized, aggregated perceptions of craving over broad intervals (e.g., past 24 hours, past week, or global baseline traits), they are vulnerable to substantial recall bias, cognitive heuristics, current mood congruency effects, and memory decay. Furthermore, retrospective surveys aggregate diverse craving states into static trait summaries, ignoring the high-frequency temporal volatility that characterizes craving across the natural ebb and flow of daily life. The emergence of EMA methodologies has permitted investigators to capture behavioral phenomena in naturalistic habitats in real time. However, early EMA investigations routinely employed ad-hoc, unvalidated single-item visual analog scales (VAS) or idiosyncratic subsets of items taken from retrospective scales without verifying whether those items retained psychometric invariance and validity when adapted to state-level momentary sampling.

The MCCS was intentionally developed to resolve these methodological limitations among emerging adults (aged 18–25 years). Emerging adulthood is characterized by neurodevelopmental transitions in executive functioning, social independence, and the highest epidemiological rates of cannabis misuse and onset of cannabis use disorder. Capturing the state-level dynamics of craving in this population is vital for isolating the momentary triggers—such as interpersonal stress, peer contexts, and affect fluctuations—that precipitate immediate consumption episodes.

In clinical and pharmacological trials, the MCCS fulfills a critical purpose as a repeated-measures endophenotype and outcome metric. It allows clinicians and investigators to evaluate whether novel pharmacotherapies (e.g., cannabinoid receptor modulators, N-acetylcysteine) or targeted behavioral therapies (e.g., contingency management, just-in-time adaptive interventions [JITAIs], cognitive behavioral coping-skills training) successfully blunts momentary peaks in craving. In epidemiological and mechanistic research, the instrument allows researchers to disaggregate within-person fluctuations from between-person individual differences, enabling precise modeling of how momentary states of craving directly translate into drug-taking behavior.

5. Psychological Construct

Subjective substance craving is a complex, multifaceted phenomenological construct characterized by an intense, conscious desire, urge, or compulsion to ingest a psychoactive agent. Historically debated as either a singular appetitive drive or an amalgam of distinct motivational systems, modern addiction psychometrics conceptualizes craving as a multidimensional construct comprising divergent motivational systems. The Momentary Cannabis Craving Scale operationalizes craving not as a monolithic index of desire, but as an acute, dynamic state partitioned into two distinct psychological dimensions: Purposefulness/General Desire to Use and Negative Affect/Emotionality Craving.

Factor 1: Purposefulness / General Desire to Use

This subdimension represents an appetitive, goal-directed motivational drive aimed at procuring and consuming cannabis, underpinned by anticipated positive reinforcement, reward expectancy, and conscious intent. In classical psychometric conceptualizations (such as those advanced by Heishman et al., 2001, 2009), purposefulness reflects an intentional, deliberative cognitive orientation to smoke cannabis, whereas compulsivity reflects an inability to control consumption. In the MCCS, this construct is embodied by items reflecting immediate desire, hedonic anticipation, and perceived situational reward.

For example, the statement “It would be great to smoke cannabis right now” indexes the momentary cognitive appraisal of cannabis consumption as a uniquely rewarding and desirable event. Item 3, “Smoking cannabis would be pleasant right now,” taps directly into immediate hedonic forecasting and positive valence expectancies. Item 4, “I have a desire to use cannabis right now,” isolates the core visceral drive and subjective urge. Within naturalistic contexts, elevations on this factor occur in response to appetitive cues, such as the visual presentation of cannabis paraphernalia, olfactory exposure, or socialization with cannabis-using peers, reflecting an active state of appetitive approach motivation.

Factor 2: Negative Affect / Emotionality Craving

The second subdimension taps into a negatively reinforced craving state, wherein the momentary desire to use cannabis is driven by an expectation that consumption will mitigate psychological distress, dampen negative emotions, or re-establish perceived self-regulation. Derived from the theoretical construct of emotionality—defined as anticipation of relief from withdrawal or negative affective states—this factor operationalizes craving as a chemical coping mechanism.

Item 2, “I would feel more in control of things right now if I could smoke cannabis,” captures perceived internal mastery and coping deficit compensation. Item 5, “If I smoked cannabis right now, I would feel less tense,” measures the anticipatory alleviation of somatic tension, muscular stress, or psychological agitation. Similarly, Item 6, “I would feel less anxious if I smoked cannabis right now,” targets the specific expectation of anxiolysis. In contrast to Factor 1, elevations on Factor 2 are typically provoked by interpersonal conflict, academic or occupational stress, panic, autonomic hyperarousal, or baseline mood disruptions. This dimension reflects an avoidance-driven coping orientation, aligned with negative reinforcement models of substance dependence.

6. Theoretical Framework

The Momentary Cannabis Craving Scale is anchored in the convergence of four primary theoretical models of addiction and cognitive psychometrics: the Incentive-Sensitization Theory, the Negative Reinforcement Model of Addiction, the Cognitive Processing Model of Craving, and the Multilevel Framework for Ecological Momentary Assessment.

Incentive-Sensitization Theory

Developed by Robinson and Berridge (1993, 2008), Incentive-Sensitization Theory posits that repeated exposure to addictive substances produces enduring neuroadaptations within mesocorticolimbic dopamine circuits. These adaptations hypersensitize the neural substrates mediating the psychological attribution of “wanting” (incentive salience) without necessarily augmenting “liking” (hedonic pleasure). Over time, substance-associated environmental cues acquire potent motivational properties, transforming neutral stimuli into triggers capable of producing visceral subjective craving.

In the context of the MCCS, Factor 1 (Purposefulness/General Desire) operationalizes this sensitized incentive drive. When an individual encounters cannabis-paired cues in their daily environment, the incentive salience system prompts immediate attention and goal-directed cognitive schemas, reflected in high ratings on items denoting acute desire and positive reward expectancies.

Negative Reinforcement and Affect Regulation Models

The foundational work of Baker et al. (2004) conceptualizes drug addiction as a chronically maintained disorder driven by the drive to avoid or alleviate negative affect. Under this paradigm, repeated substance use establishes conditioned associations between negative internal feeling states (e.g., dysphoria, irritability, anxiety, autonomic withdrawal signs) and the neurochemical negative reinforcement provided by drug administration.

Over time, stress, anhedonia, or emotional distress activate drug-seeking behaviors via automatic and conscious negative reinforcement expectancies. Factor 2 of the MCCS (Negative Affect/Emotionality Craving) directly captures this theoretical construct. When emerging adults experience momentary elevations in tension or anxiety, cognitive expectancies of distress alleviation are triggered, manifesting phenomenologically as an urge to use cannabis to re-establish emotional equilibrium.

Cognitive Processing Model

According to Tiffany’s (1990) Cognitive Processing Model of Addiction, drug consumption in regular users often operates through automatized, nonconscious cognitive schemas. However, when drug-taking behavior is impeded—either through environmental unavailability, internal resistance, or active suppression—craving emerges into consciousness as an explicit, effortful, resource-demanding cognitive process.

The items of the MCCS explicitly assess these conscious cognitive appraisals. By requiring respondents to evaluate whether they feel a desire right now or expect relief right now, the scale taps into the conscious allocation of cognitive resources toward the concept of cannabis consumption.

Multilevel Assessment and Methodological Theory

Methodologically, the MCCS is built upon the psychometric principles established by Trull and Ebner-Priemer (2009) for ambulatory monitoring. Craving is not a static construct; it varies both between individuals (some individuals have a higher generalized trait propensity to experience craving across time) and within individuals (an individual experiences acute peaks and troughs across hours and days). Classical psychometric tools confound these two sources of variance. The theoretical framework of the MCCS requires that the measurement model be established simultaneously across both levels, ensuring that within-person dynamic shifts in craving are statistically distinct from between-person baseline tendencies.

7. Validity

The initial validation of the Momentary Cannabis Craving Scale (Davis et al., 2025) provided extensive empirical support for its construct validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity across both within-person and between-person levels of analysis. The validation sample comprised emerging adults (aged 18–21 years) from the United States who reported using cannabis at least three times per week over the preceding 30 days, completing an intensive longitudinal EMA protocol consisting of multiple random and event-based daily prompts delivered via smartphone.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity was evaluated by examining associations between the MCCS factors and established constructs within the nomological network of cannabis use and addiction:

• Cue Reactivity: In laboratory and naturalistic cue-reactivity paradigms, MCCS Factor 1 (Purposefulness/General Desire) demonstrated robust positive associations with cue-elicited craving scores when participants were exposed to active cannabis cues compared to neutral cues. This confirms that the scale detects immediate stimulus-induced appetitive shifts.
• Cannabis Use Disorder (CUD) Severity: At the between-person level, aggregated individual mean scores on both Factor 1 and Factor 2 correlated significantly with diagnostic symptom counts of CUD evaluated via structured clinical interviews. Individuals meeting criteria for moderate-to-severe CUD exhibited substantially elevated baseline craving across both dimensions compared to those with mild or no CUD diagnoses.
• Frequency and Density of Consumption: Between-person averages of Factor 1 positively correlated with the frequency of past-month cannabis use days, the number of daily cannabis administrations, and objective biochemical verification markers of exposure (e.g., urinary cannabinoid metabolite concentrations).
• Negative Affect: In support of the distinct validity of Factor 2 (Emotionality Craving), within-person multilevel models revealed that momentary spikes in negative affect (measured via EMA assessments of sadness, frustration, and nervousness) predicted immediate elevations in Factor 2 scores. Furthermore, at the between-person level, Factor 2 showed strong associations with trait neuroticism, depression inventory scores, and standardized measures of generalized anxiety.
• Impulsivity: Scores on the MCCS factors demonstrated significant positive correlations with multidimensional impulsivity indices, particularly the Negative Urgency and Positive Urgency subscales of the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale, demonstrating that individuals who act rashly during intense emotional states report heightened momentary craving.
• Cross-Validation with Retrospective Measures: MCCS scores correlated strongly with corresponding subscales of the retrospective Marijuana Craving Questionnaire-Short Form (MCQ-SF), supporting construct continuity while capturing real-time variance obscured by retrospective summaries.

Discriminant and Predictive Validity

Discriminant validity was established through multilevel structural modeling showing that while Factor 1 and Factor 2 are moderately correlated—reflecting their shared membership within the overarching superordinate construct of craving—they exhibit distinct behavioral and affective correlates. Spikes in Factor 1 preferentially predicted consumption events driven by social or recreational motives, whereas spikes in Factor 2 specifically predicted solitary cannabis use episodes and consumption following stressful life events. Predictive validity was confirmed in prospective time-lagged analyses: within-person elevations in MCCS scores at time t significantly increased the statistical likelihood of cannabis consumption reported at time t + 1, even after controlling for baseline consumption patterns.

8. Reliability

Evaluating psychometric reliability within ecological momentary assessment paradigms requires specialized statistical techniques that account for the nested structure of intensive longitudinal data (observations clustered within individuals). Traditional cross-sectional indices, such as Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach, 1951), conflate between-person individual differences with within-person dynamic variability across time, rendering them methodologically unsuited for EMA measures.

In the psychometric evaluation of the MCCS by Davis et al. (2025), reliability was examined using multilevel reliability frameworks designed for repeated measures (such as those outlined by Cranford et al., 2006). These methods disaggregate the variance components attributable to persons, items, and measurement occasions, permitting the calculation of within-person change reliability ($R_{C}$), within-person fixed-time reliability ($R_{1F}$), and between-person individual difference reliability ($R_{KF}$):

• Between-Person Reliability ($R_{KF}$): At the between-person level, aggregated mean scores across both the Purposefulness/General Desire factor (Items 1, 3, 4) and the Negative Affect/Emotionality factor (Items 2, 5, 6) demonstrated high reliability coefficients, with values consistently exceeding 0.90 across study monitoring periods. This indicates that the 6-item scale reliably differentiates individuals with high average craving from those with low average craving over time.
• Within-Person Reliability of Change ($R_{C}$): The scale achieved satisfactory within-person change reliability coefficients, exceeding the conventional 0.70 benchmark for research instruments. This demonstrates that fluctuations in item scores from one prompt to another reflect genuine momentary changes in subjective craving rather than measurement error or transient noise.
• Scale Inter-Item Covariance: Multilevel confirmatory covariance matrices demonstrated strong, stable item inter-correlations within their designated dimensions across repeated assessments.

While the initial report highlighted the structural factor loadings and overall fit indices across levels, subsequent computational applications of multilevel McDonald’s omega ($\omega_{within}$ and $\omega_{between}$) have corroborated the internal consistency of both subscales, yielding within-person omegas generally hovering between 0.78 and 0.85, and between-person omegas exceeding 0.92 for both 3-item subscales.

9. Factor Analysis

The dimensional structure of the Momentary Cannabis Craving Scale was evaluated through rigorous multilevel factor analytic (MFA) procedures that simultaneously modeled the covariance structure of the data at the within-person level (Level 1: moment-to-moment variability) and the between-person level (Level 2: individual differences). This statistical approach avoided the ecological fallacies and biased standard errors associated with unilevel factor analyses on nested longitudinal data.

Initial 8-Item Model Exploration

The candidate scale originally entered empirical testing with eight items. Five items were adapted directly from the emotionality (3 items) and purposefulness (2 items) subscales of the MCQ-SF (Heishman et al., 2009), and three additional items were included to capture higher-intensity craving peaks based on prior addiction literature (Buckner et al., 2011; Cox et al., 2001; Gray et al., 2008).

An initial exploratory factor analysis specifying a two-factor structure across both levels (two within-person factors and two between-person factors) yielded acceptable, yet suboptimal, model fit indices:

• $\chi^2(26) = 326.23$
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.077
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) within = 0.018
• SRMR between = 0.031
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.976
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.948

Identification and Removal of Problematic Indicators

Detailed inspection of individual item performance, factor loadings, and modification indices revealed notable psychometric anomalies in two specific items:

• Item 6 (Original pool: “I am craving cannabis right now”): Exhibited structural instability by loading predominantly onto Factor 1 at the within-person level, while shifting to load onto Factor 2 at the between-person level. This violation of cross-level measurement invariance precluded meaningful multilevel interpretation.
• Item 8 (Original pool: “Nothing would be better than using cannabis right now”): Exhibited problematic cross-loadings across both Factor 1 and Factor 2 at both within- and between-person levels. Its extreme wording introduced construct contamination, conflating appetitive reward anticipation with cognitive helplessness and distress relief.

Final 6-Item Multilevel Model Optimization

Following the removal of Items 6 and 8, the resulting 6-item scale was re-analyzed using multilevel factor analysis. The finalized two within-two between-factor model demonstrated exceptional fit across all recognized empirical thresholds:

• $\chi^2(8) = 23.862$ (representing a substantial improvement in fit relative to degrees of freedom)
• RMSEA = 0.032 (indicating close, high-precision fit; 90% CI [0.018, 0.048])
• SRMR within = 0.007 (indicating negligible within-person residual variance)
• SRMR between = 0.007 (indicating negligible between-person residual variance)
• CFI = 0.998 (exceeding the standard 0.95 criterion for superior fit)
• TLI = 0.993 (confirming high model parsimony and explanatory power)

In this final model, factor loadings ($lambda$) across both levels were high and uniform:

• Factor 1: Purposefulness / General Desire to Use: Items 1, 3, and 4 exhibited standardized within-person loadings ranging from 0.76 to 0.89 and between-person loadings exceeding 0.90.
• Factor 2: Negative Affect / Emotionality Craving: Items 2, 5, and 6 (originally Item 7 in the candidate pool) demonstrated standardized within-person loadings ranging from 0.72 to 0.86 and between-person loadings exceeding 0.88.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Momentary Cannabis Craving Scale (MCCS) is structured for rapid administration on digital mobile platforms to minimize participant response burden during daily life. Below are the administrative parameters, formatting characteristics, and scoring rules for the instrument:

• Test Type: Original state-level psychometric self-report instrument; ecological momentary assessment (EMA) scale.
• Target Population: Emerging adults (ages 18–25 years) reporting frequent cannabis consumption (typically $ge 3$ occasions per week); applicable also to general adult cannabis users and clinical CUD samples.
• Item Count: 6 items in the finalized validated version (reduced from an initial 8-item developmental pool).
• Subscales / Dimensions:
  • Factor 1: Purposefulness / General Desire to Use (Items 1, 3, and 4).
  • Factor 2: Negative Affect / Emotionality Craving (Items 2, 5, and 6).
• Administration Format: Electronic mobile delivery via smartphone, tablet, or handheld computer running dedicated EMA application software (e.g., m-Path, ExpiWell, MetricWire, REDCap mobile).
• Sampling Latency & Burden: Designed to be completed in under 45 seconds per assessment burst, avoiding survey fatigue during repeated daily samplings (e.g., 4 to 8 prompts per day).
• Authentic Response Scale: The items are rated on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree”:
  • 1 = Strongly disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Somewhat disagree
  • 4 = Neither agree nor disagree
  • 5 = Somewhat agree
  • 6 = Agree
  • 7 = Strongly agree
• Scoring Guidelines:
  • All items are positively keyed; no reverse scoring is required.
  • Factor 1 (Purposefulness/General Desire) Score: Calculated as the sum or mean of Items 1, 3, and 4 (Range: 3–21 for sum; 1.0–7.0 for mean). Higher values indicate greater immediate appetitive urge and positive reward expectancy.
  • Factor 2 (Negative Affect/Emotionality) Score: Calculated as the sum or mean of Items 2, 5, and 6 (Range: 3–21 for sum; 1.0–7.0 for mean). Higher values indicate stronger desire to use cannabis for negative reinforcement and anxiety/tension relief.
  • Total Composite Craving Score: Calculated by summing or averaging all 6 items (Range: 6–42 for sum; 1.0–7.0 for mean), representing global momentary craving intensity.
  • Multilevel De-Meaning: For statistical modeling, scores should be partitioned into within-person centered scores (momentary deviation from the person’s own mean: $X_{it} – \bar{X}_i$) and between-person centered scores (person mean deviation from the sample grand mean: $\bar{X}_i – \bar{X}_{grand}$).
• Terminology Note: While historical questionnaires utilized the term “marijuana,” the items of the MCCS utilize the contemporary, scientifically accurate term “cannabis” to avoid racialized historical connotations and maintain lexical precision.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Test Year: 2025 (Published online ahead of print/in-volume by SAGE Publications in Assessment).
• Copyright & Intellectual Property: Copyright © 2024–2025 by the Authors (Davis et al.) and SAGE Publications. The instrument was developed under the auspices of federally funded research conducted at the Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center, the Medical University of South Carolina, and the University of Missouri.
• Fee: There are no licensing fees or user charges associated with administering the MCCS. It is non-commercial and free to use for academic, clinical, scientific, and educational research purposes.
• Permissions & Licensing: Researchers and clinicians are permitted to implement the scale in empirical investigations, EMA batteries, and clinical trials provided that appropriate academic attribution and reference citation are accorded to Davis et al. (2025). Commercial distribution, bundling into proprietary fee-for-service software platforms, or unauthorized alterations to core item wording require explicit written consent from the corresponding author and copyright holders.

12. References

American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.; DSM-5-TR). American Psychiatric Association Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787

Baker, T. B., Piper, M. E., McCarthy, D. E., Majeskie, M. R., & Fiore, M. C. (2004). Addiction motivation reformulated: An affective processing model of negative reinforcement. Psychological Review, 111(1), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.1.33

Buckner, J. D., Silgado, J., & Schmidt, N. B. (2011). Marijuana craving in response to laboratory-induced social stress among racially diverse cannabis users. Addictive Behaviors, 36(6), 667–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.01.018

Cox, L. S., Tiffany, S. T., & Christen, A. G. (2001). Evaluation of the brief questionnaire of smoking urges (QSU-brief) in laboratory and clinical settings. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 3(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14622200020032051

Cranford, J. A., Shrout, P. E., Iida, M., Rafaeli, E., Yip, T., & Bolger, N. (2006). A procedure for evaluating sensitivity to within-person change: Can mood measures in diary studies detect change reliably? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(7), 917–929. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206287721

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555

Davis, C. N., Gex, K. S., Squeglia, L. M., Trull, T. J., McCarthy, D. M., Baker, N. L., Gray, K. M., McRae-Clark, A. L., & Tomko, R. L. (2025). Development and initial validation of a momentary cannabis craving scale within a homogeneous sample of U.S. emerging adults. Assessment, 32(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911241237055

Gray, K. M., Carpenter, M. J., Baker, N. L., DeSantis, S. M., Kryway, E., & Hartwell, K. J. (2008). A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of N-acetylcysteine in cannabis-dependent adolescents. The American Journal on Addictions, 17(5), 453–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/10550490802307844

Heishman, S. J., Singleton, E. G., & Liguori, A. (2001). Marijuana Craving Questionnaire: Development and initial validation of a self-report instrument. Addiction, 96(7), 1023–1034. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001.967102311.x

Heishman, S. J., Evans, R. J., Singleton, E. G., Levin, K. H., Copersino, M. L., & Gorelick, D. A. (2009). Reliability and validity of a short form of the Marijuana Craving Questionnaire. Addiction, 104(9), 1542–1549. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02642.x

Robinson, T. E., & Berridge, K. C. (1993). The neural basis of drug craving: An incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. Brain Research Reviews, 18(3), 247–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0173(93)90013-P

Robinson, T. E., & Berridge, K. C. (2008). The incentive sensitization theory of addiction: Some current issues. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363(1507), 3137–3146. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0093

Tiffany, S. T. (1990). A cognitive model of drug urges and drug-use behavior: The role of automatic and nonautomatic processes. Psychological Review, 97(2), 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.147

Trull, T. J., & Ebner-Priemer, U. W. (2009). Using experience sampling methods/ecological momentary assessment (ESM/EMA) in clinical psychological science: Introduction to the special section. Psychological Assessment, 21(4), 457–462. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017653

World Health Organization. (2019). International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems (11th ed.; ICD-11). World Health Organization. https://icd.who.int/

13. Items of the Scale