Testing NLCLiP: Validation of Estimates of Rates of Non-problematic and Problematic Gambling in a Sample of British Schoolchildren

Abstract

This paper reports on the results of applying a short screen for problem gambling, called NLCLiP, to a national sample of 8,958 British schoolchildren under the age of 16. It shows that, in its current form, NLCLiP can, with reasonable accuracy, be employed to estimate the rate of prevalence of problematic and non-problematic (i.e. gambling which does not lead to significant endorsement of DSM-IV-MR-J criteria) in a general population of children. However, NLCLiP does not reliably discriminate between problem and at risk gamblers. Moreover, it does not provide a reliable basis to identify cases of problem gambling. The main conclusion reached is that NLCLiP is a potentially useful tool for regulators to assess changes in the prevalence of problematic and non-problematic gambling among children over time.

Reliability of Instruments Measuring At-Risk and Problem Gambling Among Young Individuals: A Systematic Review Covering Years 2009–2015

“…ARPG classification was associated to a stronger likelihood of gambling at least 1e2 hours/week compared to low-risk gamblers [76]. All items had different functioning between genders, Country (year) Statistical results and author report of reliability/validity findings [67] Greece (2013) DSM-IV-MR-J a ¼ .91 [68] England (2013)…”

“…Agreement between the SOGS-RA and the DSM-IV-MR-J has previously been found to be greater among males than females [5]. Corresponding items of the DSM-IV-MR-J and the NLCLiP (short screen for problem gambling among children based on the criteria identified in the NODS-CLiP [Diagnostic Screening for Gambling Disorders -Loss of Control, Lying, and Preoccupation]) had deviating endorsement rates [69], highlighting the importance of item wording, as misinterpretation may magnify prevalence rates [14,68]. The concept of gambling to escape a negative state of mind may be foreign to and poorly understood by young individuals, leading to falsepositive responses [84].…”