2013
DOI: 10.1080/14459795.2013.839731
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The classification accuracy of four problem gambling assessment instruments in population research

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
158
0
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 148 publications
(161 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
2
158
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…If we ignore the false negatives in our research, our study shows that a cut-point of 8 produces 77% sensitivity, which is not unlike the 77% and 62% reported against clinical interview and SOGS measures respectively (Ferris & Wynne, 2001b). On the other hand, the cut score of 5.5 that we find to be optimally predictive for clinical assessment is relatively close to the cut score of 5 found by Williams and Volberg (2013) for a large Ontario sample. Williams and Volberg (2013) did not perform categorical, dimensional or ROC analyses on their sample as we do.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 62%
“…If we ignore the false negatives in our research, our study shows that a cut-point of 8 produces 77% sensitivity, which is not unlike the 77% and 62% reported against clinical interview and SOGS measures respectively (Ferris & Wynne, 2001b). On the other hand, the cut score of 5.5 that we find to be optimally predictive for clinical assessment is relatively close to the cut score of 5 found by Williams and Volberg (2013) for a large Ontario sample. Williams and Volberg (2013) did not perform categorical, dimensional or ROC analyses on their sample as we do.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 62%
“…The SOGS has weak predictive power of some problem gamblers; however, these criticisms are also true for other widely used measures of problem and pathological gambling, including the CPGI and the NODS (Williams & Volberg, 2014). The poor predictive power of gambling measures appears to be a result of divergent interpretations of concept operationalization and has implications for the sensitivity of distinguishing between non-problem, some problem, and probable pathological gambling in the current study.…”
Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…Clearly, the estimated rate of current pathological gambling is highly dependent on the instrument used. This was also the conclusion of Williams and Volberg (2010), who systematically examined the methodology of gambling surveys.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 81%