A text comprehension approach to questionnaire readability: An example using gambling disorder measures.

Peter, Samuel; Whelan, James P.; Pfund, Rory A.; Meyers, Andrew W.

doi:10.1037/pas0000610

Cited by 13 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although all participants in the current studies have met the literacy requirements for university enrolment, greater working memory load of the single-item relative to the behavioural checklist may be an alternative explanation for the discrepancy across NSSI assessments. This hypothesis could be tested in future systematic reviews by calculating the reading complexity of each assessment using well-established techniques (Peter, Whelan, Pfund, & Meyers, 2018) before conducting a meta-regression to assess whether reading complexity is negatively associated with lifetime NSSI prevalence rates across studies.…”

Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open to interpretation? Inconsistent reporting of lifetime nonsuicidal self-injury across two common assessments.

Robinson¹,

Wilson²

2020

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) is typically assessed using either single-item questionnaires or checklists of common behaviours, but preliminary research suggests that checklists produce higher lifetime prevalence rates. In two pre-registered studies (combined n = 1364), we tested whether memory cueing afforded by behavioural checklists accounts for this discrepancy. Participants reported their lifetime NSSI history using both a single-item and a checklist, with presentation order randomised across participants. Nearly a third of participants reported inconsistent NSSI histories on the two assessments, with participants 1.57 times more likely to report an NSSI history on a checklist than on a single-item. Counter to the memory account, this discrepancy was evident even when participants completed the checklist first, suggesting that the increased prevalence estimates captured by checklists are unlikely to simply reflect memory facilitation. Across the two samples, 12.5% of participants would have been incorrectly screened out in two-step assessments; these participants were more likely to have engaged in NSSI historically, less likely to self-injure by cutting, and (in Study 2 only) were more likely to be men. These studies suggest that the inconsistencies across two of the most common NSSI assessments arise because people dissimilar to the lay conceptualisation of self-injury are less likely to endorse a single-item, even when they have affirmed engaging in self-injury behaviours on a checklist. We argue that single-item and checklist assessments capture different aspects of NSSI, such that future research should distinguish between behaviourally-identified NSSI assessed with behavioural checklists and self-identified NSSI assessed with single-item assessments.

show abstract

Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open to interpretation? Inconsistent reporting of lifetime nonsuicidal self-injury across two common assessments.

Robinson¹,

Wilson²

2020

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…participant data pulled from gambling websites) represents an improved strategy for assessing the impact of interventions on actual behavior change compared with self‐reported behavior [66]. Furthermore, the complete reliance on self‐report questionnaires of gambling disorder symptoms is inherently limited by the degree to which individuals can understand the questions [67]. Altogether, there are assessment‐related limitations pervasive throughout the gambling treatment literature.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of cognitive‐behavioral techniques for problem gambling and gambling disorder: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: To measure the effect of cognitive-behavioral techniques (CBTs) on gambling disorder severity and gambling behavior at post-treatment and follow-up.Method: Seven databases and two clinical trial registries were searched to identify peerreviewed studies and unpublished studies of randomized controlled trials. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool assessed risk of bias in the included studies. A random effect metaanalysis with robust variance estimation was conducted to measure the effect of CBTs relative to minimally treated or no treatment control groups. Results: Twenty-nine studies representing 3991 participants were identified. CBTs significantly reduced gambling disorder severity (g = −1.14, 95% CI = −1.68, −0.60, 95% prediction interval [PI] = −2.97, 0.69), gambling frequency (g = −0.54, 95% CI = −0.80, −0.27, 95% PI = −1.48, 0.40) and gambling intensity (g = −0.32, 95% CI = −0.51, −0.13, 95% PI = −0.76, 0.12) at post-treatment relative to control. CBTs had no significant effect on follow-up outcomes. Analyses supported the presence of publication bias and high heterogeneity in effect size estimates. Conclusions: Cognitive-behavioral techniques are a promising treatment for reducing gambling disorder and gambling behavior; however, the effect of cognitive-behavioral techniques on gambling disorder severity and gambling frequency and intensity at posttreatment is overestimated, and cognitive-behavioral techniques may not be reliably efficacious for all individuals seeking treatment for problem gambling and gambling disorder.

show abstract

“…In addition, to fulfill the BCA recommendations on gambling behavior, it is necessary for item response alternatives to specify time units per month. Most measures, such as SOGS ( Lesieur & Blume, 1987 ) and the NORC Diagnostic Screen for Gambling Problems (NODS; Wickwire et al, 2008 ), had dichotomous “Yes” or “No” responses or, such as in the PSGI ( Ferris & Wynne, 2001 ), or verbal response alternatives, for example “not at all,” “rarely,” “sometimes,” or “often”; these are also aggravating factors for temporal ambiguity and poor item readability (i.e., difficulties in knowing how to interpret items; see Peter et al, 2018 ). In conclusion, none of the individual measures, nor any combinations of the measures analyzed seemed to sufficiently fulfill the features of BCA.…”

Section: Content Validity Of Frequently Used Gambling Measures In Rel...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Gambling Disorders Identification Test (GDIT): Psychometric Evaluation of a New Comprehensive Measure for Gambling Disorder and Problem Gambling

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The novel gambling disorder identification test (GDIT) was recently developed in an international Delphi and consensus process. In this first psychometric evaluation, gamblers ( N = 603) were recruited from treatment- and support-seeking contexts ( n = 79 and n = 185), self-help groups ( n = 47), and a population sample ( n = 292). Participants completed self-report measures, a GDIT retest ( n = 499), as well as diagnostic semistructured interviews assessing gambling disorder (GD; n = 203). The GDIT showed excellent internal consistency reliability (α = .94) and test–retest reliability (6-16 days, intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.93). Confirmatory factor analysis yielded factor loadings supporting the three proposed GDIT domains of gambling behavior, gambling symptoms, and negative consequences. Receiver operator curves and clinical significance indicators were used to estimate GDIT cut-off scores in relation to recreational (<15) and problem gambling (15-19), any GD (≥20), mild GD (20-24), moderate GD (25-29), and severe GD (≥30). The GDIT can be considered a valid and reliable measure to identify and predict GD severity, as well as problem gambling. In addition, the GDIT improves content validity in relation to an international research agreement concerning features of gambling outcome measures, known as the Banff Consensus Agreement.

show abstract

A text comprehension approach to questionnaire readability: An example using gambling disorder measures.

Cited by 13 publications

References 42 publications

Open to interpretation? Inconsistent reporting of lifetime nonsuicidal self-injury across two common assessments.

Open to interpretation? Inconsistent reporting of lifetime nonsuicidal self-injury across two common assessments.

Effect of cognitive‐behavioral techniques for problem gambling and gambling disorder: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

The Gambling Disorders Identification Test (GDIT): Psychometric Evaluation of a New Comprehensive Measure for Gambling Disorder and Problem Gambling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About