Abstract
One approach to minimizing the negative consequences of excessive gambling is staff training to reduce the rate of the development of new cases of harm or disorder within their customers. The primary goal of the present study was to assess suitable benchmark criteria for the training of gambling employees at casinos and lottery retailers. The study utilised the Delphi Method, a survey with one qualitative and two quantitative phases. A total of 21 invited international experts in the responsible gambling field participated in all three phases. A total of 75 performance indicators were outlined and assigned to six categories: (1) criteria of content, (2) modelling, (3) qualification of trainer, (4) framework conditions, (5) sustainability and (6) statistical indicators. Nine of the 75 indicators were rated as very important by 90 % or more of the experts. Unanimous support for importance was given to indicators such as (1) comprehensibility and (2) concrete action-guidance for handling with problem gamblers, Additionally, the study examined the implementation of benchmarking, when it should be conducted, and who should be responsible. Results indicated that benchmarking should be conducted every 1–2 years regularly and that one institution should be clearly defined and primarily responsible for benchmarking. The results of the present study provide the basis for developing a benchmarking for staff training in responsible gambling.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Blaszczynski, A., Collins, P., Fong, D., Ladouceur, R., Nower, L., Shaffer, H. J., & Venisse, J.-L. (2011). Responsible gambling: General principles and minimal requirements. Journal of Gambling Studies, 27(4), 565–573.
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.
Bortz, J. (2005). Statistik für Human-und Sozialwissenschaftler: mit… 242 Tabellen. Berlin: Springer.
Breen, H., Buultiens, J., & Hing, N. (2005). The responsible gambling code in Queensland, Australia: Implementation and venue assessment. UNLV Gaming Research and Review Journal, 9(1), 43–60.
Camp, R. C. (1995). Business process benchmarking: Finding and implementing best practices (Vol. 177). Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press.
Camp, R. C. (1998). Global cases in benchmarking: Best practices from organizations around the world. Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press.
Codling, S. (1992). Best practice benchmarking: A management guide. London: Gower Publishing Ltd.
Dufour, J., Ladouceur, R., & Giroux, I. (2010). Training program on responsible gambling among video lottery employees. International Gambling Studies, 10(1), 61–79.
Dusenbury, L., & Falco, M. (1995). Eleven components of effective drug abuse prevention curricula. [Research support, non-U.S. Gov’t]. Journal of School Health, 65(10), 420–425.
Giroux, I., Boutin, C., Ladouceur, R., Lachance, S., & Dufour, M. (2008). Awareness training program on responsible gambling for casino employees. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 6(4), 594–601.
Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2010). Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Wiesbaden: Springer.
Gray, H. M., Tom, M. A., LaPlante, D. A., & Shaffer, H. J. (2014). Using opinions and knowledge to identify natural groups of gambling employees. Journal of Gambling Studies,. doi:10.1007/s10899-014-9490-1.
Griffiths, M. D. (2000). Employers need to be aware of gambling in workplace and potential effects on job performance and company health. Report on Problem Gambling, 2, 23–29.
Griffiths, M. D. (2012). Internet gambling, player protection, and social responsibility. London: Routledge.
Griffiths, M. D., & Wood, R. T. A. (2009). Centralised gaming models and social responsibility. Casino and Gaming International, 5(2), 65–69.
Häder, M. (2002). Delphi-Befragungen. Wiesbaden: Springer.
Hank, K., & Trenkel, H. (1994). Zukünftige Erscheinungsformen landwirtschaftlicher Betriebe - Eine Prognose mit Hilfe der Delphi Technik. Berichte über Landwirtschaft, 72, 123–145.
Heidenreich, T., & Michalak, J. (2004). Achtsamkeit («Mindfulness») als Therapieprinzip in Verhaltenstherapie und Verhaltensmedizin. Verhaltenstherapie, 13(4), 264–274.
Kalke, J., Farnbacher, G., Verthein, U., & Haasen, C. (2006). Das Gefährdungs-und Abhängigkeitspotenzial von Lotterien-Erkenntnisstand in Deutschland. Suchtmedizin, 4, 183–188.
Kalke, J., Verthein, U., Farnbacher, G., & Haasen, C. (2007). Aktive Spielsuchtprävention bei Lotterien und Sportwetten in Hamburg. Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung, 2(4), 249–253.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(2), 193–212.
Ladouceur, R., Boutin, C., Doucet, C., Dumont, M., Provencher, M., Giroux, I., & Boucher, C. (2004). Awareness promotion about excessive gambling among video lottery retailers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20(2), 181–185.
LaPlante, D. A., Gray, H. M., LaBrie, R. A., Kleschinsky, J. H., & Shaffer, H. J. (2012). Gaming industry employees’ responses to responsible gambling training: A public health imperative. Journal of Gambling Studies, 28(2), 171–191.
Lewis, C., Battistich, V., & Schaps, E. (1990). School-based primary prevention: What is an effective program? New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 50, 35–59.
McCormack, A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2013). A scoping study of the structural and situational characteristics of internet gambling. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 3(1), 29–49.
Meyer, G., Häfeli, J., Mörsen, C., & Fiebig, M. (2010). Die Einschätzung des Gefährdungspotentials von Glücksspielen. SUCHT-Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Praxis/Journal of Addiction Research and Practice, 56(6), 405–414.
Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K. L., Seybolt, D., Morrissey-Kane, E., & Davino, K. (2003). What works in prevention: Principles of effective prevention programs. American Psychologist, 58(6–7), 449–456.
Otieno, G. O., Hinako, T., Motohiro, A., Daisuke, K., & Keiko, N. (2008). Measuring effectiveness of electronic medical records systems: Towards building a composite index for benchmarking hospitals. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 77(10), 657–669.
Shaffer, H. J., Bilt, J. V., & Hall, M. N. (1999). Gambling, drinking, smoking and other health risk activities among casino employees. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 36(3), 365–378.
Shaffer, H. J., & Hall, M. N. (2002). The natural history of gambling and drinking problems among casino employees. Journal of Social Psychology, 142(4), 405–424.
Smitheringale, B. (2001). The manitoba problem gambling customer assistance program: Summary report. Winnipeg: Addictions Foundation of Manitoba.
Wahl, D. (2002). Mit Training vom trägen Wissen zum kompetenten Handeln? Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 48(2), 227–241.
Wood, R. T. A., Shorter, G. W., & Griffiths, M. D. (2014a). Rating the suitability of responsible gambling features for specific game types: A resource for optimizing responsible gambling strategy. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 12, 94–112.
Wood, R. T. A., Shorter, G. W., & Griffiths, M. D. (2014b). Selecting the right responsible gambling features, according to the specific portfolio of games. Responsible Gambling Review, 1(1), 51–63.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the Austrian Lotteries. Funding bodies had no influence over the design and conduct of the study, and analysis and interpretation of the data.
Funding
Austrian Lotteries.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
This research was funded by the Austrian Lotteries. Funding bodies had no influence over the design and conduct of the study, and analysis and interpretation of the data.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Results of the Second Phase
Cat. | Item | N valid | Very important | Rather important | Rather not important | Not important |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | Indicators for content | |||||
A1 | Theoretical basic assumptions of the training (positive and compatible with the state of research) | 23 | 10 (43.5 %) | 12 (52.2 %) | 1 (4.3 %) | |
A2 | Robust empirical knowledge for effectiveness | 23 | 13 (56.5 %) | 9 (39.1 %) | 1 (4.3 %) | |
A3 | Adequate coverage of the theoretical knowledge requirements | 23 | 10 (41.7 %) | 10 (41.7 %) | 3 (13.0 %) | |
A4 | Sound theoretical imparting of knowledge | 23 | 10 (43.5 %) | 9 (39.1 %) | 4 (17.4 %) | |
A5 | Importance of information | 23 | 14 (60.9 %) | 9 (39.1 %) | ||
A6 | Actuality and novelty of the content | 22 | 10 (45.5 %) | 11 (50.0 %) | 1 (4.5 %) | |
A7 | Competencies for identifying problem gamblers | 23 | 17 (73.9 %) | 6 (26.1 %) | ||
A8 | Empirical foundations to the characteristics of problem gamblers | 23 | 15 (65.2 %) | 7 (30.4 %) | 1 (4.3 %) | |
A9 | Placement of “awareness” toward problem-presentation of pathological gambling and its consequences | 23 | 20 (87.0 %) | 3 (13.0 %) | ||
A10 | Competencies in intervention and taking care of problematic gambling guests | 23 | 19 (82.6 %) | 3 (13.0 %) | 1 (4.3 %) | |
A11 | Concrete action-guidance for handling with problem gamblers | 23 | 21 (91.3 %) | 2 (8.7 %) | ||
A12 | Guiding rules/heuristics for the practice of anchoring content to existing knowledge/experiences | 23 | 13 (56.5 %) | 8 (34.8 %) | 2 (8.7 %) | |
A13 | Practice-orientated content | 23 | 18 (78.3 %) | 4 (17.4 %) | 1 (4.3 %) | |
A14 | Gambling addiction is to discuss in view of the background of other addictions | 23 | 8 (34.8 %) | 12 (52.2 %) | 2 (8.7 %) | 1 (4.3 %) |
A15 | Placement of field competence | 22 | 8 (36.4 %) | 13 (59.1 %) | 1 (4.5 %) | |
A16 | Clarification of roles | 22 | 17 (77.3 %) | 4 (18.2 %) | 1 (4.5 %) | |
A17 | Content must be target-group orientated | 23 | 18 (78.3 %) | 4 (17.4 %) | 1 (4.3 %) | |
B | Indicators for modelling | |||||
B1 | Scripts, documents and online materials to contain | 24 | 10 (41.7 %) | 11 (45.8 %) | 3 (12.5 %) | |
B2 | Reflection opportunity for participants | 24 | 16 (66.7 %) | 8 (33.3 %) | ||
B3 | Opportunity to exchange opinions for the participants | 24 | 15 (62.5 %) | 8 (33.3 %) | 1 (4.2 %) | |
B4 | Learn through practical examples | 24 | 19 (79.2 %) | 5 (20.8 %) | ||
B5 | Roles playing | 24 | 9 (37.5 %) | 10 (41.7 %) | 5 (20.8 %) | |
B6 | Motivation structure | 23 | 14 (60.9 %) | 8 (34.8 %) | 1 (4.3 %) | |
B7 | Degree of interactivity | 23 | 14 (60.9 %) | 7 (30.4 %) | 2 (8.7 %) | |
B8 | Mediation form (frontal vs. Interactive) | 24 | 9 (37.5 %) | 11 (45.8 %) | 4 (16.7 %) | |
B9 | Entertainment of the participants for/with contents | 24 | 5 (20.8 %) | 14 (58.3 %) | 5 (20.8 %) | |
B10 | Comprehensibility | 24 | 23 (95.8 %) | 1 (4.2 %) | ||
B11 | Straightforwardness | 24 | 18 (75.0) | 6 (25.0 %) | ||
C | Trainer competence | |||||
C1 | Coverage of specialized theme by acknowledged experts | 24 | 17 (70.8 %) | 7 (29.2 %) | ||
C2 | Technical/scientific qualifications of the trainer | 24 | 13 (54.2 %) | 9 (37.5 %) | 2 (8.3 %) | |
C3 | Didactic qualifications of trainers | 24 | 16 (66.7 %) | 7 (29.2 %) | 1 (4.2 %) | |
C4 | Technical and field competence of the trainer | 23 | 21 (91.3 %) | 2 (8.7 %) | ||
C5 | Methodically structured procedure | 24 | 15 (62.5 %) | 9 (37.5 %) | ||
C6 | Didactic most significant preparation of the content | 24 | 11 (45.8 %) | 12 (50.0 %) | 1 (4.2 %) | |
D | Criteria for the framework conditions | |||||
D1 | Group size | 24 | 10 (41.7 %) | 12 (50.0 %) | 2 (8.3 %) | |
D2 | Gender fair | 23 | 3 (13.0 %) | 11 (47.8 %) | 8 (34.8 %) | 1 (4.3 %) |
D3 | Involvement of staff training in the global social responsibility concept of the gambling company | 24 | 16 (66.7 %) | 6 (25.0 %) | 2 (8.3 %) | |
D4 | Standardized integration into the organizational processes | 24 | 9 (37.5 %) | 14 (58.3 %) | 1 (4.2 %) | |
D5 | Definition of the target group (who should be trained?) | 23 | 18 (78.3 %) | 5 (21.7 %) | ||
D6 | Cross-learning with colleagues from other operators | 23 | 3 (13.0 %) | 13 (56.5 %) | 5 (21.7 %) | 2 (8.7 %) |
D7 | Cooperation and coordination with the person in charge of the company | 24 | 18 (75.0 %) | 5 (20.8 %) | 1 (4.2 %) | |
D8 | Integration of training into a holistic organizational development process | 23 | 10 (43.5 %) | 11 (47.8 %) | 2 (8.7 %) | |
D9 | Discussion about the training contents | 24 | 8 (33.3 %) | 12 (50.0 %) | 4 (16.7 %) | |
D10 | Personnel should be involved in the creation of content | 24 | 4 (16.7 %) | 11 (45.8 %) | 8 (33.3 %) | 1 (4.2 %) |
D11 | Definition from success matrics | 23 | 7 (30.4 %) | 10 (43.5 %) | 6 (26.1 %) | |
D12 | Motivation of participants | 23 | 14 (60.9 %) | 9 (39.1 %) | ||
D13 | Atmosphere for study | 23 | 13 (56.5 %) | 9 (39.1 %) | 1 (4.3 %) | |
D14 | Longer time framework | 23 | 6 (26.1 %) | 14 (60.9 %) | 3 (13.0 %) | |
D15 | Positive preliminary evaluation of a sample | 23 | 4 (17.4 %) | 10 (43.5 %) | 7 (30.4 %) | 2 (8.7 %) |
D16 | Evaluable training objectives | 24 | 15 (62.5 %) | 9 (37.5 %) | ||
D17 | Acceptance of the participants | 24 | 17 (70.8 %) | 7 (29.2 %) | ||
D18 | Not designed for institutions interests | 24 | 8 (33.3 %) | 11 (45.8 %) | 5 (20.8 %) | |
E | Indicators for sustainability | |||||
E1 | Satisfaction of participants | 23 | 15 (65.2 %) | 6 (26.1 %) | 2 (8.7 %) | |
E2 | Checking comprehension | 24 | 12 (50.0 %) | 11 (45.8 %) | 1 (4.2 %) | |
E3 | Perception change | 24 | 10 (41.7 %) | 14 (58.3 %) | ||
E4 | Attitude change | 24 | 13 (54.2 %) | 9 (37.5 %) | 2 (8.3 %) | |
E5 | Behavior change | 24 | 15 (62.5 %) | 8 (33.3 %) | 1 (4.2 %) | |
E6 | Refreshing units | 23 | 15 (65.2 %) | 7 (30.4 %) | 1 (4.3 %) | |
E7 | Trainer valuation | 24 | 10 (41.7 %) | 9 (37.5 %) | 5 (20.8 %) | |
E8 | Consequences with not complying gambler protection concept | 23 | 13 (56.5 %) | 9 (39.1 %) | 1 (4.3 %) | |
E9 | Test gamblers/random verification of compliance with gambler protection concept | 23 | 4 (17.4 %) | 11 (47.8 %) | 7 (30.4 %) | 1 (4.3 %) |
E10 | Knowledge and competence growth | 24 | 13 (54.2 %) | 10 (41.7 %) | 1 (4.2 %) | |
E11 | Evaluation and quality assurance of training | 23 | 16 (69.6 %) | 6 (26.1 %) | 1 (4.3 %) | |
E12 | Implementation of objectives for the social responsibility concept | 23 | 19 (82.6 %) | 2 (8.7 %) | 2 (8.7 %) | |
F | Statistical indicators | |||||
F1 | Number of closures | 23 | 10 (43.5 %) | 7 (30.4 %) | 6 (26.1 %) | |
F2 | Number of unlocks | 23 | 8 (34.8 %) | 8 (34.8 %) | 7 (30.4 %) | |
F3 | Number of intervention programs achieved with problematic guests | 23 | 16 (69.6 %) | 5 (21.7 %) | 2 (8.7 %) | |
F4 | Knowledge of gambler protection and prevention | 22 | 16 (72.7 %) | 6 (27.3 %) | ||
F5 | Number of visiting arrangements | 22 | 9 (40.9 %) | 7 (31.8 %) | 6 (27.3 %) | |
F6 | Price/performance ratio (costs, effects, risks, long-term effects) | 22 | 2 (9.1 %) | 14 (63.6 %) | 4 (18.2 %) | 2 (9.1 %) |
F7 | Temporal extent of trainings | 23 | 4 (17.4 %) | 14 (60.9 %) | 4 (17.4 %) | 1 (4.3 %) |
F8 | Expend financial assistance of the Organization for the problem gambling treatment programs | 21 | 6 (28.6 %) | 11 (52.4 %) | 2 (9.5 %) | 2 (9.5 %) |
F9 | State of knowledge about the help system | 23 | 15 (65.2 %) | 6 (26.1 %) | 2 (8.7 %) | |
F10 | State of knowledge about the social responsibility concept | 22 | 15 (68.2 %) | 7 (31.8 %) | ||
F11 | Participation rate of employees | 23 | 16 (69.6 %) | 5 (21.7 %) | 1 (4.3 %) | 1 (4.3 %) |
Appendix 2: Results of the Third Phase
Cat. | Item | N valid | Very important | Rather important | Rather not important | Not important |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | Indicators for content | |||||
A1 | Theoretical basic assumptions of the training (positive and compatible with the state of research) | 21 | 9 (42.9 %) | 11 (52.4 %) | 1 (4.8 %) | |
A2 | Robust empirical knowledge for effectiveness | 21 | 16 (76.2 %) | 5 (23.8 %) | ||
A3 | Adequate coverage of the theoretical knowledge requirements | 21 | 8 (38.1 %) | 13 (61.9 %) | ||
A4 | Sound theoretical imparting of knowledge | 21 | 10 (47.6 %) | 11 (52.4 %) | ||
A5 | Importance of information | 21 | 11 (52.4 %) | 10 (47.6 %) | ||
A6 | Actuality and novelty of the content | 21 | 16 (76.2 %) | 5 (23.8 %) | ||
A7 | Competencies for identifying problem gamblers | 21 | 18 (85.7 %) | 2 (9.5 %) | 1 (4.8 %) | |
A8 | Empirical foundations to the characteristics of problem gamblers | 21 | 17 (81 %) | 4 (19 %) | ||
A9 | Placement of “awareness” toward problem-presentation of pathological gambling and its consequences | 21 | 20 (95.2 %) | 1 (4.8 %) | ||
A10 | Competencies in intervention and taking care of problematic gambling guests | 21 | 20 (95.2 %) | 1 (4.8 %) | ||
A11 | Concrete action-guidance for handling with problem gamblers | 21 | 21 (100 %) | |||
A12 | Guiding rules/heuristics for the practice of anchoring content to existing knowledge/experiences | 21 | 13 (61.9 %) | 8 (38.1 %) | ||
A13 | Practice-orientated content | 21 | 20 (95.2 %) | 1 (4.8 %) | ||
A14 | Gambling addiction is to discuss in view of the background of other addictions | 21 | 6 (28.6 %) | 13 (61.9 %) | 2 (9.5 %) | |
A15 | Placement of field competence | 21 | 6 (28.6 %) | 14 (66.7 %) | 1 (4.8 %) | |
A16 | Clarification of roles | 21 | 18 (85.7 %) | 3 (14.3 %) | ||
A17 | Content must be target-group orientated | 21 | 17 (81 %) | 4 (19 %) | ||
B | Indicators for modelling | |||||
B1 | Scripts, documents and online materials to contain | 21 | 8 (38.1 %) | 11 (52.4 %) | 1 (4.8 %) | 1 (4.8 %) |
B2 | Reflection opportunity for participants | 21 | 19 (90.5 %) | 2 (9.5 %) | ||
B3 | Opportunity to exchange opinions for the participants | 21 | 16 (76.2 %) | 4 (19 %) | 1 (4.8 %) | |
B4 | Learn through practical examples | 21 | 19 (90.5 %) | 2 (9.5 %) | ||
B5 | Roles playing | 21 | 9 (42.9 %) | 9 (42.9 %) | 3 (14.3 %) | |
B6 | Motivation structure | 21 | 16 (76.2 %) | 5 (23.8 %) | ||
B7 | Degree of interactivity | 21 | 16 (76.2 %) | 3 (14.3 %) | 2 (9.5 %) | |
B8 | Mediation form (frontal vs. Interactive) | 21 | 7 (33.3 %) | 13 (61.9 %) | 1 (4.8 %) | |
B9 | Entertainment of the participants for/with contents | 21 | 4 (19 %) | 13 (61.9 %) | 4 (19.0 %) | |
B10 | Comprehensibility | 21 | 21 (100 %) | |||
B11 | Straightforwardness | 21 | 17 (81 %) | 4 (19 %) | ||
C | Trainer competence | |||||
C1 | Coverage of specialized theme by acknowledged experts | 21 | 17 (81 %) | 4 (19 %) | ||
C2 | Technical/scientific qualifications of the trainer | 21 | 15 (71.4 %) | 4 (19 %) | 2 (9.5 %) | |
C3 | Didactic qualifications of trainers | 21 | 18 (85.7 %) | 3 (14.3 %) | ||
C4 | Technical and field competence of the trainer | 21 | 13 (61.9 %) | 8 (38.1 %) | ||
C5 | Methodically structured procedure | 21 | 19 (90.5 %) | 2 (9.5 %) | ||
C6 | Didactic most significant preparation of the content | 21 | 14 (66.7 %) | 7 (33.3 %) | ||
D | Criteria for the framework conditions | |||||
D1 | Group size | 21 | 7 (33.3 %) | 13 (61.9 %) | 1 (4.8 %) | |
D2 | Gender fair | 21 | 4 (19 %) | 11 (52.4 %) | 6 (28.6 %) | |
D3 | Involvement of staff training in the global social responsibility concept of the gambling company | 21 | 18 (85.7 %) | 3 (14.3 %) | ||
D4 | Standardized integration into the organizational processes | 21 | 12 (57.1 %) | 9 (42.9 %) | ||
D5 | Definition of the target group (who should be trained?) | 21 | 18 (78.3 %) | 5 (21.7 %) | ||
D6 | Cross-learning with colleagues from other operators | 20 | 2 (10 %) | 10 (50 %) | 6 (30 %) | 2 (10 %) |
D7 | Cooperation and coordination with the person in charge of the company | 21 | 19 (90.5 %) | 2 (9.5 %) | ||
D8 | Integration of training into a holistic organizational development process | 21 | 11 (52.4 %) | 10 (47.6 %) | ||
D9 | Discussion about the training contents | 21 | 8 (38.1 %) | 10 (47.6 %) | 3 (14.3 %) | |
D10 | Personnel should be involved in the creation of content | 21 | 1 (4.8 %) | 13 (61.9 %) | 7 (33.3 %) | |
D11 | Definition from success matrics | 21 | 7 (33.3 %) | 11 (52.4 %) | 3 (14.3 %) | |
D12 | Motivation of participants | 21 | 14 (66.7 %) | 9 (42.9 %) | ||
D13 | Atmosphere for study | 21 | 11 (52.4 %) | 9 (42.9 %) | 1 (4.8 %) | |
D14 | Longer time framework | 21 | 3 (14.3 %) | 17 (81.0 %) | 1 (4.8 %) | |
D15 | Positive Preliminary evaluation of a sample | 19 | 3 (14.3 %) | 9 (42.9 %) | 6 (28.6 %) | 1 (4.8 %) |
D16 | Evaluable training objectives | 21 | 15 (71.4 %) | 5 (23.8 %) | 1 (4.8 %) | |
D17 | Acceptance of the participants | 21 | 13 (61.9 %) | 8 (38.1 %) | ||
D18 | Not designed for institutions interests | 21 | 8 (38.1 %) | 10 (47.6 %) | 3 (14.3 %) | |
E | Indicators for sustainability | |||||
E1 | Satisfaction of participants | 21 | 15 (71.4 %) | 5 (23.8 %) | 1 (4.8 %) | |
E2 | Checking comprehension | 21 | 14 (66.7 %) | 6 (28.6 %) | 1 (4.8 %) | |
E3 | Perception change | 21 | 9 (42.9 %) | 12 (57.1 %) | ||
E4 | Attitude change | 21 | 11 (52.4 %) | 8 (38.1 %) | 2 (9.5 %) | |
E5 | Behavior change | 21 | 16 (76.2 %) | 4 (19.0 %) | 1 (4.8 %) | |
E6 | Refreshing units | 21 | 17 (81.0 %) | 4 (19.0 %) | ||
E7 | Trainer valuation | 21 | 8 (38.1 %) | 12 (57.1 %) | 1 (4.8 %) | |
E8 | Consequences with not complying gambler protection concept | 21 | 13 (61.9 %) | 8 (38.1 %) | ||
E9 | Test gamblers/random verification of compliance with gambler protection concept | 21 | 4 (19.0 %) | 12 (57.1 %) | 4 (19.0 %) | 1 (4.8 %) |
E10 | Knowledge and competence growth | 21 | 13 (61.9 %) | 8 (38.1 %) | ||
E11 | Evaluation and quality assurance of training | 21 | 15 (71.4 %) | 6 (28.6 %) | ||
E12 | Implementation of objectives for the social responsibility concept | 20 | 18 (90 %) | 1 (5 %) | 1 (5 %) | |
F | Statistical indicators | |||||
F1 | Number of closures | 21 | 11 (52.4 %) | 6 (28.6 %) | 4 (19.0 %) | |
F2 | Number of unlocks | 20 | 5 (25 %) | 9 (45 %) | 6 (30 %) | |
F3 | Number of intervention programs achieved with problematic guests | 20 | 14 (70 %) | 6 (30 %) | ||
F4 | Knowledge of gambler protection and prevention | 21 | 19 (90.5 %) | 2 (9.5 %) | ||
F5 | Number of visiting arrangements | 21 | 6 (28.6 %) | 12 (57.1 %) | 3 (14.3 %) | |
F6 | Price/performance ratio (costs, effects, risks, long-term effects) | 21 | 16 (76.2 %) | 4 (19 %) | 1 (4.8 %) | |
F7 | Temporal extent of trainings | 21 | 2 (9.5 %) | 15 (71.4 %) | 3 (14.3 %) | 1 (4.8 %) |
F8 | Expend financial assistance of the organization for the problem gambling treatment programs | 21 | 4 (19.0 %) | 14 (66.7 %) | 1 (4.8 %) | 2 (9.5 %) |
F9 | State of Knowledge about the help system | 21 | 15 (71.4 %) | 6 (28.6 %) | ||
F10 | State of Knowledge about the social responsibility concept | 21 | 16 (76.2 %) | 5 (23.8 %) | ||
F11 | Participation rate of employees | 21 | 16 (76.2 %) | 4 (19.0 %) | 1 (4.8 %) | |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Oehler, S., Banzer, R., Gruenerbl, A. et al. Principles for Developing Benchmark Criteria for Staff Training in Responsible Gambling. J Gambl Stud 33, 167–186 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-016-9617-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-016-9617-7