Disordered gambling as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the South Oaks Gambling Screen: Evidence for a common etiologic structure.

Abstract

In a previous paper we demonstrated in a large twin study that disordered gambling (DG) as defined by the DSM-IV symptom set runs in families, that about half of the variation in liability for DG was due to familial factors, and that all of this was explained by shared genetic rather than shared environmental influences (Slutske et al., 2010). The purpose of the present study was to extend this work to also include an alternative conceptualization of DG that is provided by the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) item set in order to (a) compare the magnitude of the familial resemblance obtained when using the two definitions of DG (based on the DSM-IV and the SOGS), (b) examine the extent to which the two definitions tap the same underlying sources of genetic and environmental variation, and (c) examine whether the same results will be obtained among men and women. The results of bivariate twin model-fitting analyses suggested that DG as defined by the DSM-IV and SOGS substantially overlapped at the etiologic level among both men and women, which supports the construct validity of both the DSM and SOGS conceptualizations of DG. This study highlights the utility of twin studies for appraising the validity of the diagnostic nomenclature.Keywords disordered gambling; pathological gambling; genetic influences; twin study; construct validity; South Oaks Gambling Screen Pathological gambling was first introduced into the official diagnostic nomenclature with the publication of the 9 th Edition of the International Classification of Diseases in 1977 (World Health Organization, 1977, followed by its inclusion into the DSM-III in 1980 (APA, Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to Wendy S. Slutske, Department of Psychological Sciences, 210 McAlester Hall, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211. SlutskeW@missouri.edu. Publisher's Disclaimer: The following manuscript is the final accepted manuscript. It has not been subjected to the final copyediting, fact-checking, and proofreading required for formal publication. It is not the definitive, publisher-authenticated version. The American Psychological Association and its Council of Editors disclaim any responsibility or liabilities for errors or omissions of this manuscript version, any version derived from this manuscript by NIH, or other third parties. The published version is available at www.apa.org/pubs/journals/abn NIH Public Access 1980). A diagnosis of pathological gambling in the DSM-III required experiencing 3 of 7 symptoms that were primarily focused on legal and financial consequences of gambling. The diagnostic criteria for pathological gambling underwent a major overhaul for the DSM-III-R in 1987 when they were substantially rewritten to more closely resemble the diagnostic criteria for substance dependence. A diagnosis of pathological gambling in the DSM-III-R required experiencing 4 of 9 symptoms, with none of the diagnostic criteria from the DSM-III retained. The diagnostic criteria for pathological gambling were again rev...

Genetic overlap between personality and risk for disordered gambling: Evidence from a national community-based Australian twin study.

“…Although this threshold conforms most closely to the idea of problem gambling, the assumption of the liability-threshold model that we used means that the results will apply equally to all levels of disordered gambling behavior, including pathological gambling disorder. This definition of DG evidenced high reliability (test-retest r = .95) and validity, as indicated by significant associations with DG as measured by the South Oaks Gambling Screen (r = .72; Slutske et al, 2011). (For a more complete discussion of the rationale underlying the choice of the DG phenotype and comparisons with alternative approaches, see the online supplemental materials.…”

The Influence of Locus of Control and Sensation Seeking Among Undergraduate Texas Hold’em Players

“…The SOGS differentiates between non-problem gamblers (a score of 0), some problem gamblers (a score of 1-4), and probable pathological gamblers (a score of 5 or above). Correlations over .70 have been reported between the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders' (American Psychiatric Association, 2000) diagnostic criterion of gambling disorder and SOGS measures of pathological gambling (e.g., Slutske, Zhu, Meier, & Martin 2011;Wickwire, Burke, Brown, Parker, & Ryan, 2008). The internal consistency of the SOGS for the current sample is a = .70.…”

Evaluating the South Oaks Gambling Screen With DSM-IV and DSM-5 Criteria

“…For example, Stinchfield (2002) concluded that only 4 of the 10 DSM-IV criteria received any coverage in SOGS—chasing losses in Item 4, lying in Items 5 and 11, jeopardizing job or career opportunity in Item 15, and relying on others to provide money in Items 16a through 16i. Slutske, Zhu, Meier, and Martin (2011) do not count Item 15 as a match, and thus count only 3 overlapping symptoms. Furthermore, relying on others to provide gambling money is clearly overrepresented in the SOGS, as it is reflected in 10 out of the 20 items.…”