Measuring Behavioural Dependence in Gambling: A Case for Removing Harmful Consequences from the Assessment of Problem Gambling Pathology
Behavioural dependence (BD) for gambling has traditionally been subsumed under the concept of ‘problems’: a hybrid construct that includes both indicators of BD, and adverse consequences (harm) arising from excessive time and money expenditure. Although progress has been made towards specific measurement of harm, dedicated measures of BD do not exist. Theory led us to expect that (1) dependence and harm are measurably distinct constructs, (2) harm mediates the relationship between dependence and wellbeing, and finally, that (3) separate measures should be more effective than a unidimensional problems measure in predicting wellbeing. Candidate BD items from six existing measures of gambling problems were extracted and evaluated with respect to DSM-5 criteria and content overlap, leading to 17 candidate items. This was further reduced to 8 items based on both item content and psychometric criteria, using data from an online panel of 1524 regular gamblers, with demographic characteristics similar to Australian population norms. Participants also completed measures of harm, problems, and subjective wellbeing. All three hypotheses were confirmed. BD was shown to be highly reliable and unidimensional, and measurably distinct from gambling harms. Harm mediated the negative relationship between BD and wellbeing. The harm + BD model yielded better predictions of personal wellbeing that a unidimensional, continuous problems measure—and explained about twice the variance of a simple contrast between problem and non-problem gamblers. We conclude that is psychometrically justified to specifically measure gambling BD, and this may be of particular use in theoretically-driven applications.
KeywordsGambling Behavioural dependence Addiction Psychometrics
Funding for the present study was provided by the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation (No reference number provided). MB and MR have received funding from the New South Wales Office of Liquor and Gaming, the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, the Queensland Government Department of Health, the Tasmanian Department of Treasury and Finance, the Alberta Gambling Research Institute, Gambling Research Australia, the New Zealand Ministry of Health, the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. MB has also received funding from the Australian Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
MB and MR declare that they have no conflict of interest in relation to this research.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were approved by, and in accordance with, the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
- Abbott, M. (2006). Do EGMs and problem gambling go together like a horse and carriage? Gambling Research: Journal of the National Association for Gambling Studies (Australia),18(1), 7.Google Scholar
- Awad, Z., Taghi, A. S., Sethukumar, P., Ziprin, P., Darzi, A., & Tolley, N. S. (2014). Binary versus 5-Point Likert scale in assessing otolaryngology trainees in endoscopic sinus surgery. Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery: Official Journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery,151(1_suppl), P113–P113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Browne, M., Rawat, V., Greer, N., Langham, E., Rockloff, M., & Hanley, C. (2017c). What is the harm? Applying a public health methodology to measure the impact of gambling problems and harm on quality of life. Journal of Gambling Issues,36, 28–50.Google Scholar
- Cummins, R. A., Woerner, J., Gibson, A., Weinberg, M., Collard, J., & Chester, M. (2004). Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Survey 10. Australian Centre for Quality of Life, Deakin University, Melbourne, Report, 10. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Melissa_Weinberg/publication/261702245_Australian_Unity_Wellbeing_Index_Survey_20/links/004635350cfe162cc6000000/Australian-Unity-Wellbeing-Index-Survey-20.pdf.
- Delfabbro, P. (2013). Problem and pathological gambling: A conceptual review. The Journal of Gambling Business and Economics,7(3), 35–53.Google Scholar
- Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian problem gambling index. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. Retrieved from http://ccgr.ca/sites/default/files/CPGI-Final-Report-English.pdf.
- Gebauer, L., LaBrie, R., & Shaffer, H. J. (2010). Optimizing DSM-IV-TR classification accuracy: A brief biosocial screen for detecting current gambling disorders among gamblers in the general household population. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. Revue Canadienne de Psychiatrie,55(2), 82–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Govoni, R., Frisch, G. R., & Stinchfield, R. (2001). A critical review of screening and assessment instruments for problem gambling. Windsor, ON: Problem Gambling Research Group, University of Windsor.Google Scholar
- Grassi, M., Nucera, A., Zanolin, E., Omenaas, E., Anto, J. M., Leynaert, B., et al. (2007). Performance comparison of Likert and binary formats of SF-36 version 1.6 across ECRHS II adults populations. Value in Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research,10(6), 478–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- McMillen, J., Marshall, D., Wenzel, M., & Ahmed, A. (2004). Validation of the Victorian gambling screen. Melbourne, VIC: Gambling Research Panel.Google Scholar
- Mueller, R. O., & Hancock, G. R. (2008). Best practices in structural equation modeling. Best Practices in Quantitative Methods, 488508. Retrieved from http://www.corwin.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/18067_Chapter_32.pdf.
- Neal, P. N., Delfabbro, P. H., & O’Neil, M. G. (2005). Problem gambling and harm: Towards a national definition. Melbourne: Gambling Research Australia. Retrieved from https://hekyll.services.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/handle/2440/40558.
- R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. http://www.R-project.org.
- Revelle, W. (2011). An overview of the psych package. Psychology Northwestern University. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.190.7429&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
- Satorra, A. (2000). Scaled and adjusted restricted tests in multi-sample analysis of moment structures. In R. D. H. Heijmans, D. S. G. Pollock, & A. Satorra (Eds.), Innovations in multivariate statistical analysis: A Festschrift for Heinz Neudecker (pp. 233–247). Boston, MA: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- West, S. G., Taylor, A. B., Wu, W., et al. (2012). Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 209–231). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Williams, R. J., & Volberg, R. A. (2010). Best practices in the population assessment of problem gambling. Faculty of Health Sciences. Retrieved from https://www.uleth.ca/dspace/handle/10133/1259.