Measuring Self-efficacy in Gambling: The Gambling Refusal Self-Efficacy Questionnaire

Abstract

This paper reports on the development and psychometric properties of a Gambling Refusal Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (GRSEQ). Two hundred and ninety-seven gamblers from both normal and clinical populations completed an initial set of 31-items of which 26 were selected for inclusion in the final version of the GRSEQ. A series of factor analyses showed four clear factors accounting for 84% of the variance. These factors can be summarised as situations and thoughts associated with gambling, the influence of drugs on gambling, positive emotions associated with gambling and negative emotions associated with gambling. The GRSEQ total score and factors scores showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ranging from 0.92 to 0.98). Participants experiencing problems with gambling scored significantly lower on the GRSEQ, and discriminant analyses showed that the scale is able to correctly classify the non-problem (i.e., community and student samples) and problem gamblers (i.e., clinical sample). Furthermore, the GRSEQ showed significant negative relationships with other gambling-related variables (gambling urge and gambling-related cognitions) and negative mood states (depression, anxiety and stress) and was shown to be sensitive to change in treatment of pathological gambling. The results suggest that the GRSEQ is a useful measure of gambling refusal self-efficacy that is suitable for assessment of gamblers from both normal and clinical populations.

Gambling-Related Cognitive Biases and Pathological Gambling Among Youths, Young Adults, and Mature Adults in Chinese Societies

“…These two categories of biases were first identified among substance abusers (Oei et al 1998) and later extended to problem gamblers (Raylu and Oei 2002). Subsequent research on biases in expectancy and efficacy beliefs have also shown consistent associations with disruptive gambling among Caucasian samples (Casey et al 2008;May et al 2003;Raylu and Oei 2004a;Oei et al 2008;Steenbergh et al 2002). These findings could be explained by the social cognitive theory (Bandura 1997), which stipulates that behavior is maintained by action-outcome expectancy and efficacy beliefs specific to the context.…”

Cognitive and Psychosocial Variables Predicting Gambling Behavior in a Clinical Sample

“…Gambling Refusal Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (GRSEQ; Casey et al 2008) is a 31-item questionnaire that assesses the respondent's level of confidence in gambling refusal using a 11-point Likert scale, ranging from zero (No confidence, cannot refuse) to 100 (Extreme confidence, certain can refuse) in four circumstances/subscales, i.e., (a) under influence of drugs (GRSEQ-DR); (b) when experiencing negative emotions (GRSEQ-NE); (c) when experiencing positive emotions (GRSEQ-PE); and (d) when in high-risk situations such as seeing others gamble (GRSEQ-ST). The total and subscale scores have shown to have high internal consistency (α from .92 to .98) as well as good criterion-related validity with SOGS (significant negative r ranging from .56 to .83).…”

“…Gambling refusal self-efficacy refers to one's belief in resisting gambling in a particular circumstance (Casey et al 2008). Gambling refusal self-efficacy has been found to correlate negatively with gambling and PG behaviors Casey et al 2008).…”

“…Gambling refusal self-efficacy has been found to correlate negatively with gambling and PG behaviors Casey et al 2008). However, most of these studies were based on community or student samples (i.e., Casey et al 2008) and pathological gamblers who had recently stopped gambling .…”

“…However, most of these studies were based on community or student samples (i.e., Casey et al 2008) and pathological gamblers who had recently stopped gambling . While cognitive behavioral studies have demonstrated significant improvements in gambling refusal self-efficacy among treatment completers, selfefficacy was assessed using two or three items or instruments not properly validated in these studies (Casey et al 2008).…”