A Review of Problem Gambling Assessment Instruments and Brief Screens

Stinchfield, Randy

doi:10.1002/9781118316078.ch8

Cited by 17 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All eight datasets identified above used Stinchfield’s measure of DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for PG which is part of the Gambling Behavior Interview (GBI; Stinchfield 2001 , 2003 ; Stinchfield et al 2005 ) and the Gambling Treatment Outcome Monitoring System (GAMTOMS; Stinchfield et al 2007 ). The GBI is a 106-item structured interview that measures gambling frequency, time and money spent gambling, South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS; Lesieur and Blume 1987 , 1993 ), DSM-IV diagnostic criteria, research diagnostic criteria, and demographics (Stinchfield et al 2005 ; Stinchfield 2014 ). The GBI was developed as a research diagnostic interview and therefore it includes other measures of PG, such as the SOGS, Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) from the Canadian Problem Gambling Inventory (CPGI; Ferris and Wynne 2001 ) and Gamblers Anonymous 20 questions (GA-20).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The GBI was developed as a research diagnostic interview and therefore it includes other measures of PG, such as the SOGS, Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) from the Canadian Problem Gambling Inventory (CPGI; Ferris and Wynne 2001 ) and Gamblers Anonymous 20 questions (GA-20). The GAMTOMS is a multi-instrument and multidimensional gambling treatment outcome assessment battery (Stinchfield et al 2007 ; Stinchfield 2014 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reliability, Validity, and Classification Accuracy of the DSM-5 Diagnostic Criteria for Gambling Disorder and Comparison to DSM-IV

Stinchfield

McCready²,

Turner

et al. 2015

J Gambl Stud

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The DSM-5 was published in 2013 and it included two substantive revisions for gambling disorder (GD). These changes are the reduction in the threshold from five to four criteria and elimination of the illegal activities criterion. The purpose of this study was to twofold. First, to assess the reliability, validity and classification accuracy of the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for GD. Second, to compare the DSM-5-DSM-IV on reliability, validity, and classification accuracy, including an examination of the effect of the elimination of the illegal acts criterion on diagnostic accuracy. To compare DSM-5 and DSM-IV, eight datasets from three different countries (Canada, USA, and Spain; total N = 3247) were used. All datasets were based on similar research methods. Participants were recruited from outpatient gambling treatment services to represent the group with a GD and from the community to represent the group without a GD. All participants were administered a standardized measure of diagnostic criteria. The DSM-5 yielded satisfactory reliability, validity and classification accuracy. In comparing the DSM-5 to the DSM-IV, most comparisons of reliability, validity and classification accuracy showed more similarities than differences. There was evidence of modest improvements in classification accuracy for DSM-5 over DSM-IV, particularly in reduction of false negative errors. This Gambl Stud (2016) 32:905-922 DOI 10.1007 reduction in false negative errors was largely a function of lowering the cut score from five to four and this revision is an improvement over DSM-IV. From a statistical standpoint, eliminating the illegal acts criterion did not make a significant impact on diagnostic accuracy. From a clinical standpoint, illegal acts can still be addressed in the context of the DSM-5 criterion of lying to others.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability, Validity, and Classification Accuracy of the DSM-5 Diagnostic Criteria for Gambling Disorder and Comparison to DSM-IV

Stinchfield

McCready²,

Turner

et al. 2015

J Gambl Stud

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A number of brief screens have been developed for adult problem gambling, some as brief as one or two questions, but there are no brief screens for adolescent problem gambling (Stinchfield, 2010 , 2014 ). There are four main assessment tools for adolescent problem gambling and they are the South Oaks Gambling Scale—Revised for Adolescents (SOGS-RA) (Winters et al, 1993 , 1995 ); DSM-IV revised for Juveniles or DSM-IV-J (Fisher, 1992 , 2000 ); Massachusetts Gambling Screen (MAGS) (Shaffer et al, 1994 ); and the Canadian Adolescent Gambling Inventory (CAGI) (Tremblay et al, 2010 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Brief Adolescent Gambling Screen (BAGS)

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate the initial reliability, validity and classification accuracy of a new brief screen for adolescent problem gambling. The three-item Brief Adolescent Gambling Screen (BAGS) was derived from the nine-item Gambling Problem Severity Subscale (GPSS) of the Canadian Adolescent Gambling Inventory (CAGI) using a secondary analysis of existing CAGI data. The sample of 105 adolescents included 49 females and 56 males from Canada who completed the CAGI, a self-administered measure of DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for Pathological Gambling, and a clinician-administered diagnostic interview including the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for Pathological Gambling (both of which were adapted to yield DSM-5 Gambling Disorder diagnosis). A stepwise multivariate discriminant function analysis selected three GPSS items as the best predictors of a diagnosis of Gambling Disorder. The BAGS demonstrated satisfactory estimates of reliability, validity and classification accuracy and was equivalent to the nine-item GPSS of the CAGI and the BAGS was more accurate than the SOGS-RA. The BAGS estimates of classification accuracy include hit rate = 0.95, sensitivity = 0.88, specificity = 0.98, false positive rate = 0.02, and false negative rate = 0.12. Since these classification estimates are preliminary, derived from a relatively small sample size, and based upon the same sample from which the items were selected, it will be important to cross-validate the BAGS with larger and more diverse samples. The BAGS should be evaluated for use as a screening tool in both clinical and school settings as well as epidemiological surveys.

show abstract

“…Four of the most common screens are: (1) The Lie/Bet Questionnaire; (2) The National Opinion Research Center DSM Screen for Gambling Problems (NODS) Control, Lying and Preoccupation (NODS‐CLiP) measure; (3) The NODS Preoccupation, Escape, Chasing and Risked Relationships measure (NODS‐PERC); and the (4) Brief Biosocial Gambling Screener (BBGS) . While all four of these screens take less than one minute to administer and have been found to have good psychometrics, they all have important strengths and weaknesses . For example, the NODS‐PERC was specifically evaluated in a population of substance users .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, the NODS‐PERC was specifically evaluated in a population of substance users . Although the Lie/Bet, has been studied in more than one clinical sample the diagnostic accuracy of the Lie/Bet has been questioned due to the formulation of its questions . Finally, the BBGS is the only screen which assesses for Gambling Disorder in a 12‐month time frame, which is the frame that the DSM‐5 has established.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of brief screens for gambling disorder in the substance use treatment setting

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A Review of Problem Gambling Assessment Instruments and Brief Screens

Cited by 17 publications

References 46 publications

Reliability, Validity, and Classification Accuracy of the DSM-5 Diagnostic Criteria for Gambling Disorder and Comparison to DSM-IV

Reliability, Validity, and Classification Accuracy of the DSM-5 Diagnostic Criteria for Gambling Disorder and Comparison to DSM-IV

Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Brief Adolescent Gambling Screen (BAGS)

Evaluation of brief screens for gambling disorder in the substance use treatment setting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About