Advertisement

Measuring Behavioural Dependence in Gambling: A Case for Removing Harmful Consequences from the Assessment of Problem Gambling Pathology

  • Matthew BrowneEmail author
  • Matthew J. Rockloff
Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Gambling Behavioural dependence Addiction Psychometrics 

Notes

Funding

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.

Ethical Approval

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.

References

  1. 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
  2. Aiken, L. R. (1983). Number of response categories and statistics on a teacher rating scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement,43(2), 397–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5 ®). ‎Philadelphia: American Psychiatric Pub.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Battersby, M. W., Thomas, L. J., Tolchard, B., & Esterman, A. (2002). The South Oaks gambling screen: A review with reference to Australian use. Journal of Gambling Studies,18(3), 257–271.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Shaffer, H. J. (2004). A science-based framework for responsible gambling: The Reno model. Journal of Gambling Studies,20(3), 301–317.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Blaszczynski, A., & Nower, L. (2002). A pathways model of problem and pathological gambling. Addiction,97(5), 487–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blaszczynski, A., Walker, M., Sagris, A., & Dickerson, M. (1999). Psychological aspects of gambling behaviour: An Australian psychological society position paper. Australian Psychologist,34(1), 4–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Browne, M., Goodwin, B. C., & Rockloff, M. J. (2017a). Validation of the short gambling harm screen (SGHS): A tool for assessment of harms from gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-017-9698-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Browne, M., Greer, N., Rawat, V., & Rockloff, M. (2017b). A population-level metric for gambling-related harm. International Gambling Studies,17, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Browne, M., & Rockloff, M. J. (2017). The dangers of conflating gambling-related harm with disordered gambling. Journal of Behavioral Addictions,6, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Browne, M., & Rockloff, M. J. (2018). Prevalence of gambling-related harm provides evidence for the prevention paradox. Journal of Behavioral Addictions,7(2), 410–422.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cummins, R. A., Eckersley, R., Pallant, J., van Vugt, J., & Misajon, R. (2003). Developing a national index of subjective wellbeing: The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index. Social Indicators Research,64(2), 159–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.
  16. Delfabbro, P. (2013). Problem and pathological gambling: A conceptual review. The Journal of Gambling Business and Economics,7(3), 35–53.Google Scholar
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. Holtgraves, T. (2009). Evaluating the problem gambling severity index. Journal of Gambling Studies,25(1), 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jackson, A. C., Wynne, H., Dowling, N. A., Tomnay, J. E., & Thomas, S. A. (2010). Using the CPGI to determine problem gambling prevalence in Australia: Measurement issues. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction,8(4), 570–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jackson, D. L., Gillaspy, J. A., & Purc-Stephenson, R. (2009). Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommendations. Psychological Methods,14(1), 6–23.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson, E. E., Hamer, R., Nora, R. M., Tan, B., Eisenstein, N., & Engelhart, C. (1997). The Lie/Bet Questionnaire for screening pathological gamblers. Psychological Reports,80(1), 83–88.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson, E. E., Hamer, R. M., & Nora, R. M. (1998). The Lie/Bet Questionnaire for screening pathological gamblers: A follow-up study. Psychological Reports,83(3 Pt 2), 1219–1224.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Komorita, S. S., & Graham, W. K. (1965). Number of scale points and the reliability of scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement,25(4), 987–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Langham, E., Thorne, H., Browne, M., Donaldson, P., Rose, J., & Rockloff, M. (2016). Understanding gambling related harm: A proposed definition, conceptual framework, and taxonomy of harms. BMC Public Health,16(1), 80.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lau, A. L. D., Cummins, R. A., & Mcpherson, W. (2005). An investigation into the cross-cultural equivalence of the personal wellbeing index. Social Indicators Research,72(3), 403–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lesieur, H. R., & Blume, S. B. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. The American Journal of Psychiatry,144(9), 1184–1188.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Li, C.-H. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods,48(3), 936–949.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lozano, L. M., García-Cueto, E., & Muñiz, J. (2008). Effect of the number of response categories on the reliability and validity of rating scales. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral & Social Sciences,4(2), 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Matell, M. S., & Jacoby, J. (1971). Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert scale items? Study I: Reliability and validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement,31(3), 657–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McElroy, S. L., & Hudson, J. I. (1992). The DSM-III-R impulse control disorders not elsewhere classified: clinical characteristics and relationship to other psychiatric disorders. The American Journal of Psychiatry,149(3), 318.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McMillen, J., Marshall, D., Wenzel, M., & Ahmed, A. (2004). Validation of the Victorian gambling screen. Melbourne, VIC: Gambling Research Panel.Google Scholar
  35. Merkle, E., You, D., Schneider, L., Bae, S., & Merkle, M. E. (2018). Package “nonnest2”. Psychological Methods,21, 151–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.
  37. 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.
  38. Nower, L., & Blaszczynski, A. (2006). Impulsivity and pathological gambling: A descriptive model. International Gambling Studies,6(1), 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica,104(1), 1–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.
  41. Raju, N. S., Laffitte, L. J., & Byrne, B. M. (2002). Measurement equivalence: A comparison of methods based on confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory. Journal of Applied Psychology,87(3), 517.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Raykov, T. (1997). Scale reliability, Cronbach’s coefficient alpha, and violations of essential tau-equivalence with fixed congeneric components. Multivariate Behavioral Research,32(4), 329–353.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.
  44. Rose, G. (1985). Sick individuals and sick populations. International Journal of Epidemiology,14(1), 32–38.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5–12 (BETA). Journal of Statistical Software,48(2), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment,8(4), 350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shannon, K., Anjoul, F., & Blaszczynski, A. (2017). Mapping the proportional distribution of gambling-related harms in a clinical and community sample. International Gambling Studies,17(3), 366–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Svetieva, E., & Walker, M. (2008). Inconsistency between concept and measurement: The Canadian Problem Gambling Index (CPGI). Journal of Gambling Issues,22, 157–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Toneatto, T. (2008). Reliability and validity of the gamblers anonymous twenty questions. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment,30(1), 71–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vuong, Q. H. (1989). Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society,57(2), 307–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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
  53. Wiebe, J. M., Cox, B. J., & Mehmel, B. G. (2000). The South Oaks Gambling Screen revised for adolescents (SOGS-RA): Further psychometric findings from a community sample. Journal of Gambling Studies,16(2–3), 275–288.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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.
  55. Winters, K. C., Stinchfield, R. D., & Fulkerson, J. (1993). Toward the development of an adolescent gambling problem severity scale. Journal of Gambling Studies,9(1), 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Health, Medical and Applied SciencesCentral Queensland UniversityBranyanAustralia

Personalised recommendations