Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Addiction Reports
Published in: Current Addiction Reports 4/2016

01-12-2016 | Gambling (J Derevensky, Section Editor)

Assessing Problem Gambling: a Review of Classic and Specialized Measures

Authors: Kyle Caler, Jose Ricardo Vargas Garcia, Lia Nower

Published in: Current Addiction Reports | Issue 4/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The rapid expansion of legalized gambling opportunities over the past 20 years has generated interest in problem gambling and gambling disorder. This review will provide an overview of classic and newer instruments in the field.

Recent Findings

Early instruments in the field of gambling studies were focused exclusively on population prevalence or diagnosis of disorder. However, a growing body of research, particularly in the clinical and neurobiological areas, have led to the development of a targeted measurement instruments and increased specialization designed for screening of a gambling disorder. Newer instruments and those that with renewed clinical and research interest are focused on specific areas such as cognitive distortions, and control of urges and cravings, which are key components of sustained recovery.

Summary

Measurement in the field of problem gambling is moving away from solely measuring population prevalence and psychiatric disorder toward targeting the specific mechanisms that underlie problem gambling and barriers to recovery. Future advances in measurement will necessitate using standardized measures to assess various facets of problem gambling and adopting a holistic approach to assessing facets synergistically to identify sub-groups and inform targeted treatment strategies.
Literature
1.••
Stinchfield R: A review of problem gambling assessment instruments and brief screens. In: David CSR, Blaszczynski A, Nower L, editors. The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of disordered gambling. 2013. The purpose of the assessment should dictate the measure used; the level of problem severity may or may not be relevant to all factors assessed.
2.
Edgren R, Castrén S, Mäkelä M, Pörtfors P, Alho H, Salonen AH. Reliability of instruments measuring at-risk and problem gambling among young individuals: a systematic review covering years 2009–2015. J Adolesc Health. 2016;58(6):600–15.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Lesieur HR, Blume SB. The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): a new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. JAMA Psychiatry. 1987;144(9):1184–8.
4.
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 3rd edition. Author; 1980.
5.
Stinchfield R. Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy of the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS). Addict Behav Rep. 2002;27(1):1–9.CrossRef
6.
Goodie AS et al. Evaluating the South Oaks Gambling Screen with DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria results from a diverse community sample of gamblers. Assessment. 2013;20(5):523–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Duvarci İ, Varan A, Coşkunol H, Ersoy MA. DSM-IV and the South Oaks Gambling Screen: diagnosing and assessing pathological gambling in Turkey. J Gambl Stud. 1997;13(3):193–206.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Strong DR, Lesieur HR, Breen RB, Stinchfield R, Lejuez CW. Using a Rasch model to examine the utility of the South Oaks Gambling Screen across clinical and community samples. Addict Behav Rep. 2004;29(3):465–81.CrossRef
9.
Room R, Turner NE, Ialomiteanu A. Community effects of the opening of the Niagara casino. Br J Addict. 1999;94(10):1449–66.CrossRef
10.
Gerstein D et al. Gambling impact and behavior study: report to the national gambling impact study commission. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center; 1999.
11.
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th edition. Author; 1994.
12.
Hodgins DC. Using the NORC DSM Screen for Gambling Problems as an outcome measure for pathological gambling: psychometric evaluation. Addict Behav Rep. 2004;29(8):1685–90.CrossRef
13.
Wulfert E, Hartley J, Lee M, Wang N, Franco C, Sodano R. Gambling screens: does shortening the time frame affect their psychometric properties? J Gambl Stud. 2005;21(4):521–36.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Wickwire Jr EM, Burke RS, Brown SA, Parker JD, May RK. Psychometric evaluation of the national opinion research center DSM-IV screen for gambling problems (NODS). Am J Addict. 2008;17(5):392–5.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Toce-Gerstein M, Gerstein DR, Volberg RA. The NODS–CLiP: a rapid screen for adult pathological and problem gambling. J Gambl Stud. 2009;25(4):541–55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Volberg RA, Munck IM, Petry NM. A quick and simple screening method for pathological and problem gamblers in addiction programs and practices. Am J Addict. 2011;20(3):220–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Gebauer L, LaBrie R, Shaffer HJ. Optimizing DSM-IV-TR classification accuracy: a brief biosocial screen for detecting current gambling disorders among gamblers in the general household population. Can J Psychiatr. 2010;55(2):82–90.
18.
Brett EI, Weinstock J, Burton S, Wenzel KR, Weber S, Moran S. Do the DSM-5 diagnostic revisions affect the psychometric properties of the Brief Biosocial Gambling Screen? Int Gambl Stud. 2014;14(3):447–56.CrossRef
19.
Himelhoch SS et al. Evaluation of brief screens for gambling disorder in the substance use treatment setting. Am J Addict. 2015;24(5):460–6.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Castrén S, Salonen AH, Alho H, Lahti T, Simojoki K. Past-year gambling behaviour among patients receiving opioid substitution treatment. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2015;10(1):1–6.CrossRef
21.
LaPlante DA, Nelson SE, Gray HM. Breadth and depth involvement: understanding internet gambling involvement and its relationship to gambling problems. Psychol Addict Behav. 2014;28(2):396–403.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Tom MA, LaPlante DA, Shaffer HJ. Does Pareto rule internet gambling? Problems among the “vital few” & “trivial many”. Journal of Gambling Business & Economics. 2014;8(1):73–100.
23.
Ferris J, Wynne H. The Canadian problem gambling index. Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse: Ottawa, ON; 2001.
24.
Jackson AC, Wynne H, Dowling NA, Tomnay JE, Thomas SA. Using the CPGI to determine problem gambling prevalence in Australia: measurement issues. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2010;8(4):570–82.CrossRef
25.
Colasante E et al. An assessment of the psychometric properties of Italian version of CPGI. J Gambl Stud. 2013;29(4):765–74.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Back KJ, Williams RJ, Lee CK. Reliability and validity of three instruments (DSM-IV, CPGI, and PPGM) in the assessment of problem gambling in South Korea. J Gambl Stud. 2015;31(3):775–86.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Abbott MW, Volberg RA. The measurement of adult problem and pathological gambling. Int Gambl Stud. 2006;6(2):175–200.CrossRef
28.
Boldero JM, Bell RC. An evaluation of the factor structure of the Problem Gambling Severity Index. Int Gambl Stud. 2012;12(1):89–110.CrossRef
29.
Miller NV, Currie SR, Hodgins DC, Casey D. Validation of the problem gambling severity index using confirmatory factor analysis and rasch modelling. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2013;22(3):245–55.PubMed
30.••
Currie SR, Hodgins DC, Casey DM. Validity of the problem gambling severity index interpretive categories. J Gambl Stud. 2013;29(2):311–27. In a test of temporal stability, PGSI was valid validity for non-problem and problem gambling categories but not low-risk and moderate-risk categories; the authors suggest scoring changes to better distinguish risk-levels.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Derevensky JL, Gupta R. Prevalence estimates of adolescent gambling: a comparison of the SOGS-RA, DSM-IV-J, and the GA 20 questions. J Gambl Stud. 2000;16(2–3):227–51.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Kuley NB, Jacobs DF. The relationship between dissociative-like experiences and sensation seeking among social and problem gamblers. J Gambl Behav. 1988;4(3):197–207.CrossRef
33.
Ursua MP, Uribelarrea LL. 20 questions of gamblers anonymous: a psychometric study with population of Spain. J Gambl Stud. 1998;14(1):3–15.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Toneatto T. Reliability and validity of the gamblers anonymous twenty questions. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2008;30(1):71–8.CrossRef
35.
Johnson EE, Hamer R, Nora RM, Tan B, Eisenstein N, Engelhart C. The Lie/Bet Questionnaire for screening pathological gamblers. Psychol Rep. 1997;80(1):83–8.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Larsen CV, Curtis T, Bjerregaard P. Gambling behavior and problem gambling reflecting social transition and traumatic childhood events among Greenland Inuit: a cross-sectional study in a large indigenous population undergoing rapid change. J Gambl Stud. 2013;29(4):733–48.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Engel RJ, Rosen D. Pathological gambling and treatment outcomes for adults age 50 or older in methadone maintenance treatment. J Gerontol SocWork. 2015;58(3):306–14.
38.
Algren MH, Ekholm O, Davidsen M, Larsen CV, Juel K. Health behaviour and body mass index among problem gamblers: results from a nationwide survey. J Gambl Stud. 2015;31(2):547–56.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Steenbergh TA, Meyers AW, May RK, Whelan JP. Development and validation of the Gamblers’ Beliefs Questionnaire. Psychol Addict Behav. 2002;16(2):143.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Joukhador J, Blaszczynski A, Maccallum F. Superstitious beliefs in gambling among problem and non-problem gamblers: preliminary data. J Gambl Stud. 2004;20(2):171–80.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Myrseth H, Brunborg GS, Eidem M. Differences in cognitive distortions between pathological and non-pathological gamblers with preferences for chance or skill games. J Gambl Stud. 2010;26(4):561–9.CrossRefPubMed
42.
MacKillop J, Anderson EJ, Castelda BA, Mattson RE, Donovick PJ. Convergent validity of measures of cognitive distortions, impulsivity, and time perspective with pathological gambling. Psychol Addict Behav. 2006;20(1):75–9.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Barrault S, Varescon I. Cognitive distortions, anxiety, and depression among regular and pathological gambling online poker players. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2013;16(3):183–8.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Broussard J, Wulfert E. Can an accelerated gambling simulation reduce persistence on a gambling task?. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2015:1–11. doi:10.1007/s11469–015–9620-8
45.
Ejova A, Delfabbro PH, Navarro DJ. Erroneous gambling-related beliefs as illusions of primary and secondary control: a confirmatory factor analysis. J Gambl Stud. 2015;31(1):133–60.CrossRefPubMed
46.
MacKay TL, Bard N, Bowling M, Hodgins DC. Do pokers players know how good they are? Accuracy of poker skill estimation in online and offline players. Comput Human Behav. 2014;31:419–24.CrossRef
47.
Tanner J, Mazmanian D. Gambling attitudes and beliefs associated with problem gambling: the cohort effect of Baby Boomers. Int Gambl Stud. 2016;16(1):98–115.CrossRef
48.
Situ J, Mo Z. Risk propensity, gambling cognition and gambling behavior: the role of family and peer influences. J Educ Develop Psychol. 2016;6(1):77–95.CrossRef
49.
Marchetti D et al. Psychometric evaluation of the Italian translation of the Gamblers’ Beliefs Questionnaire. Int Gambl Stud. 2016;16(1):17–30.CrossRef
50.
Winfree WR, Meyers AW, Whelan JP. Validation of a Spanish translation of the Gamblers’ Beliefs Questionnaire. Psychol Addict Behav. 2013;27(1):274–8.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Raylu N, Oei TP. The Gambling Related Cognitions Scale (GRCS): development, confirmatory factor validation and psychometric properties. Br J Addict. 2004;99(6):757–69.CrossRef
52.
Arcan K, Karanci AN. Adaptation study of the Turkish version of the Gambling-Related Cognitions Scale (GRCS-T). J Gambl Stud. 2015;31(1):211–24.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Grall-Bronnec M et al. A French adaptation of the Gambling-Related Cognitions Scale (GRCS): a useful tool for assessment of irrational thoughts among gamblers. Journal of Gambling Issues. 2012;27. doi:10.​4309/​jgi.​2012.​27.​9.
54.
Yang Y, Wu D, Wen Y, Lu X, Li M. Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Gambling Related Cognitions Scale in Chinese mainland sample. Addict Behav. 2014;39(1):341–4.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Yokomitsu K, Takahashi T, Kanazawa J, Sakano Y. Development and validation of the Japanese version of the Gambling Related Cognitions Scale (GRCS-J). Asian J Gambl Issues and Public Health. 2015;5(1).doi: 10.1186/s40405–015–0006-4
56.••
Taylor RN, Parker JD, Keefer KV, Kloosterman PH, Summerfeldt LJ. Are gambling related cognitions in adolescence multidimensional?: factor structure of the gambling related cognitions scale. J Gambl Stud. 2014;30(2):453–65. Gambling cognitions were powerful predictors of disordered gambling among adolescents, using the Gambling Related Cognitions Scale (GRCS); however, strong associations among the subscales call into question the multidimensionality of the GRCS in this population. CrossRefPubMed
57.
Taylor RN, Parker JD, Keefer KV, Kloosterman PH, Summerfeldt LJ. Gambling related cognitive distortions in adolescence: relationships with gambling problems in typically developing and special needs students. J Gambl Stud. 2015;31(4):1417–29.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Stewart SH, Zack M. Development and psychometric evaluation of a three-dimensional Gambling Motives Questionnaire. Br J Addict. 2008;103(7):1110–7.CrossRef
59.
Parhami I, Siani A, Campos MD, Rosenthal RJ, Fong TW. Gambling in the Iranian-American community and an assessment of motives: a case study. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2012;10(5):710–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
60.
Hodgins DC, Racicot S. The link between drinking and gambling among undergraduate university students. Psychol Addict Behav. 2013;27(3):885–92.CrossRefPubMed
61.
Quinlan CK, Goldstein AL, Stewart SH. An investigation of the link between gambling motives and social context of gambling in young adults. Int Gambl Stud. 2014;14(1):115–31.CrossRef
62.
Sztainert T, Wohl MJ, McManus JF, Stead JD. On being attracted to the possibility of a win: reward sensitivity (via gambling motives) undermines treatment seeking among pathological gamblers. J Gambl Stud. 2014;30(4):901–11.CrossRefPubMed
63.
Dechant K, Ellery M. The effect of including a monetary motive item on the gambling motives questionnaire in a sample of moderate gamblers. J Gambl Stud. 2011;27(2):331–44.CrossRefPubMed
64.
Dechant K. Show me the money: incorporating financial motives into the Gambling Motives Questionnaire. J Gambl Stud. 2014;30(4):949–65.CrossRefPubMed
65.
Schellenberg BJ, McGrath DS, Dechant K. The Gambling Motives Questionnaire financial: factor structure, measurement invariance, and relationships with gambling behaviour. Int Gambl Stud. 2016;16(1):1–6.CrossRef
66.
Pilatti A, Benjamín F. Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Gambling Motives Questionnaire in Argentinian young people and adults. Adicciones. 2015;27(1):17–25.CrossRefPubMed
67.
Rousseau FL, Vallerand RJ, Ratelle CF, Mageau GA, Provencher PJ. Passion and gambling: on the validation of the Gambling Passion Scale (GPS). J Gambl Stud. 2002;18(1):45–66.CrossRefPubMed
68.
Lee CK, Back KJ, Hodgins DC, Lee TK. Examining antecedents and consequences of gambling passion: the case of gambling on horse races. Psychiatry Investig. 2013;10(4):365–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
69.
Lee J, Chen CC, Song HJ, Lee CK. The role of responsible gambling strategy and gambling passion in the online gamblers’ decision-making process: revising the theory of planned behavior. J Gambl Stud. 2014;30(2):403–22.CrossRefPubMed
70.
Lee CK, Chung N, Bernhard BJ. Examining the structural relationships among gambling motivation, passion, and consequences of internet sports betting. J Gambl Stud. 2014;30(4):845–58.CrossRefPubMed
71.
Raylu N, Oei TP. The gambling urge scale: development, confirmatory factor validation, and psychometric properties. Psychol Addict Behav. 2004;18(2):100–5.CrossRefPubMed
72.••
Smith DP, Pols RG, Battersby MW, Harvey PW. The Gambling Urge Scale: reliability and validity in a clinical population. Addict Res Theory. 2013;21(2):113–22. Findings indicate the Gambling Urge Scale (GUS) is a valid and reliable instrument for problem gambling screening and may also predict relapse in problem gambling.CrossRef
73.
Wong SS, Tsang SK. Validation of the Chinese version of the gamblers’ belief questionnaire (GBQ-C). J Gambl Stud. 2012;28(4):561–72.CrossRefPubMed
74.
Oei TP, Gordon LM. Psychosocial factors related to gambling abstinence and relapse in members of gamblers anonymous. J Gambl Stud. 2008;24(1):91–105.CrossRefPubMed
75.
Balodis IM, Lacadie CM, Potenza MN. A preliminary study of the neural correlates of the intensities of self-reported gambling urges and emotions in men with pathological gambling. J Gambl Stud. 2012;28(3):493–513.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
76.
Callan MJ, Ellard JH, Shead NW, Hodgins DC. Gambling as a search for justice: examining the role of personal relative deprivation in gambling urges and gambling behavior. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 2008;34(11):1514–29.CrossRef
77.
Ashrafioun L, McCarthy A, Rosenberg H. Assessing the impact of cue exposure on craving to gamble in university students. J Gambl Stud. 2012;28(3):363–75.CrossRefPubMed
78.
Young MM, Wohl MJ. The Gambling Craving Scale: psychometric validation and behavioral outcomes. Psychol Addict Behav. 2009;23(3):512–22.CrossRefPubMed
79.•
Stewart MJ, Wohl MJ. Pop-up messages, dissociation, and craving: how monetary limit reminders facilitate adherence in a session of slot machine gambling. Psychol Addict Behav. 2013;27(1):268–74. Pop-up messages during slot machine play are an effective money limiting strategy and do not appear to amplify craving.CrossRefPubMed
80.
81.
82.
May RK, Whelan JP, Steenbergh TA, Meyers AW. The gambling self-efficacy questionnaire: an initial psychometric evaluation. J Gambl Stud. 2003;19(4):339–57.CrossRefPubMed
83.
Luca M, Giannini M, Gori A, Whelan JP, Meyers AW. Gambling Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (GSEQ): psychometric properties of the Italian version. Counseling: Giornale Italiano Di Ricerca E Applicazioni. 2012;5:89–100.
84.
Winfree WR, Meyers AW, Whelan JP. Validation of a Spanish adaptation of the Gambling Self-Efficacy Questionnaire. Int Gambl Stud. 2013;13(2):271–80.CrossRef
85.
Weinstock J, Massura CE, Petry NM. Professional and pathological gamblers: similarities and differences. J Gambl Stud. 2013;29(2):205–16.CrossRefPubMed
86.
Winfree WR, Ginley MK, Whelan JP, Meyers AW. Psychometric evaluation of the Gambling Self-Efficacy Questionnaire with treatment-seeking pathological gamblers. Psychol Addict Behav. 2014;28(4):1305–10.CrossRefPubMed
87.
Hodgins D, Peden N, Makarchuk K. Self-efficacy in pathological gambling treatment outcome: development of a gambling abstinence self-efficacy scale (GASS). Int Gambl Stud. 2004;4(2):99–108.CrossRef
88.
Casey LM, Oei TP, Melville KM, Bourke E, Newcombe PA. Measuring self-efficacy in gambling: the gambling refusal self-efficacy questionnaire. J Gambl Stud. 2008;24(2):229–46.CrossRefPubMed
89.
Holub A, Hodgins DC, Peden NE. Development of the temptations for gambling questionnaire: a measure of temptation in recently quit gamblers. Addict Res Theory. 2005;13(2):179–91.CrossRef
90.
Pallanti S, DeCaria CM, Grant JE, Urpe M, Hollander E. Reliability and validity of the pathological gambling adaptation of the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (PG-YBOCS). J Gambl Stud. 2005;21(4):431–43.CrossRefPubMed
91.
Petry NM. Validity of a gambling scale for the Addiction Severity Index. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2003;191(6):399–407.PubMed
92.
Blaszczynski A, Nower L. A pathways model of problem and pathological gambling. Br J Addict. 2002;97(5):487–99.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Assessing Problem Gambling: a Review of Classic and Specialized Measures
Authors
Kyle Caler
Jose Ricardo Vargas Garcia
Lia Nower
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Current Addiction Reports / Issue 4/2016
Electronic ISSN: 2196-2952
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40429-016-0118-7

Other articles of this Issue 4/2016

Current Addiction Reports 4/2016 Go to the issue

Cannabis (F Filby, Section Editor)

Cannabis Use and Psychiatric Disorders: Implications for Mental Health and Addiction Treatment

Sex Addiction (S Kraus, Section Editor)

Behavioral and Pharmacological Treatment of Compulsive Sexual Behavior/Problematic Hypersexuality

Addiction and College Students (D Foster, Section Editor)

Social Network Factors and Addictive Behaviors Among College Students

Sex Addiction (S Kraus, Section Editor)

Should Sexual Offending Be Considered an Addiction? Implications for Prevention and Treatment Approaches

Addiction and College Students (D Foster, Section Editor)

Addictive Behavior Interventions Among College Students

Addiction and College Students (D Foster, Section Editor)

The Association Between Alcohol and Sexual Risk Behaviors Among College Students: a Review