The Appropriateness of Using Laboratories and Student Participants in Gambling Research

An investigation of social casino gaming among land-based and Internet gamblers: A comparison of socio-demographic characteristics, gambling and co-morbidities

“…Most studies to date on social casino gaming have recruited participants through schools or universities (King, Haagsma, Delfabbro, Gradisar, & Griffiths, 2013). However, previous research has shown that university-recruited participants are not representative of the gambling behaviour or other characteristics of the general population or even of the general population of young adults (Gainsbury & Blaszczynski, 2011;.The size of the social casino gaming market in Australia was estimated to be worth USD$59.8 million in 2012, or 3% of the global market, and Australians are estimated to have the highest monthly average revenue per paying user (Superdata reported by Superdata, 2013a;Takahashi, 2012). However, the number of social casino game players in Australia is not known.…”

Player account-based gambling: potentials for behaviour-based research methodologies

“…Research studies often recruit participants based on whether they engage in a particular form of gambling without accounting for their overall gambling involvement, which may bias results. Similar difficulties arise when research participants are selected from a biased population; for example, individuals seeking treatment at a certain agency, volunteers or paid participants responding to advertisements, individuals who answer home telephones and agree to participate in surveys or university students (Gainsbury & Blaszczynski, 2010). Although efforts are undertaken to measure and control for as many variables as possible, it is difficult for researchers to gather accurate information about all aspects of gambling activity when using self-report measures.…”

“…The limitations imposed by both controlled laboratory studies using a limited population and in situ venue-based studies with regular gamblers as well as self-report measures have been previously debated (Blaszczynski et al, 2006;Gainsbury & Blaszczynski, 2010;McMillen & Wenzel, 2006;Walker, 2008;Williams & 156 S. Gainsbury Volberg, 2009). An account-based methodology overcomes many of the complexities associated with gambling research including difficulties in recruiting gamblers, and problems gathering accurate data, costs and complications of data collection.…”

“…Subsequently, the quantity and quality of gambling research is improving (Blaszczynski, 2009). However, the conceptual understanding of gambling and ensuing interventions is still restricted by methodological limitations of research including analysis of measures based on self-report, the use of biased or small samples and restricted behavioural datasets that are not linked with relevant player information, cross-sectional studies and the use of average estimates of gambling behaviour (Blaszczynski, Sharpe & Walker, 2001;Delfabbro, 2004;Gainsbury & Blaszczynski, 2010).…”

Self-Reported Differences on Measures of Executive Function in a Patient Sample of Pathological Gamblers

“…Although objective neuropsychological tests are one approach to assessing executive control in patients, some researchers criticize the ecological validity of these tests because they are conducted in controlled settings that often do not generalize to real world situations [9,19]. Furthermore, the ecological validity of such tests may vary significantly, even when using the same outcome measure [20].…”