Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Gambling Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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 

  • Aiken, L. R. (1983). Number of response categories and statistics on a teacher rating scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 43(2), 397–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5®). ‎Philadelphia: American Psychiatric Pub.

    Book  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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blaszczynski, A., & Nower, L. (2002). A pathways model of problem and pathological gambling. Addiction, 97(5), 487–499.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M., Greer, N., Rawat, V., & Rockloff, M. (2017b). A population-level metric for gambling-related harm. International Gambling Studies, 17, 1–14.

    Google 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 

  • Browne, M., & Rockloff, M. J. (2017). The dangers of conflating gambling-related harm with disordered gambling. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 6, 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    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.

    PubMed  Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtgraves, T. (2009). Evaluating the problem gambling severity index. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25(1), 105–120.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Komorita, S. S., & Graham, W. K. (1965). Number of scale points and the reliability of scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 25(4), 987–995.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McMillen, J., Marshall, D., Wenzel, M., & Ahmed, A. (2004). Validation of the Victorian gambling screen. Melbourne, VIC: Gambling Research Panel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merkle, E., You, D., Schneider, L., Bae, S., & Merkle, M. E. (2018). Package “nonnest2”. Psychological Methods, 21, 151–163.

    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.

  • Nower, L., & Blaszczynski, A. (2006). Impulsivity and pathological gambling: A descriptive model. International Gambling Studies, 6(1), 61–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Rose, G. (1985). Sick individuals and sick populations. International Journal of Epidemiology, 14(1), 32–38.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8(4), 350.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svetieva, E., & Walker, M. (2008). Inconsistency between concept and measurement: The Canadian Problem Gambling Index (CPGI). Journal of Gambling Issues, 22, 157–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toneatto, T. (2008). Reliability and validity of the gamblers anonymous twenty questions. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 30(1), 71–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vuong, Q. H. (1989). Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 57(2), 307–333.

    Google 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 

  • 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.

    CAS  PubMed  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.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Central Queensland University, Bundaberg Campus, B8 G.47 University Drive, Branyan, QLD, 4670, Australia

    Matthew Browne & Matthew J. Rockloff

Authors
  1. Matthew Browne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew J. Rockloff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew Browne.

Ethics declarations

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.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Label

Item

fin_sav

Reduction of my savings

fin_spend

Reduction of my available spending money

fin_ccard

Increased credit card debt

fin_items

Sold personal items

fin_rec

Less spending on recreational expenses such as eating out, going to movies or other entertainment

rel_time

Spent less time with people I care about

emo_distress

Felt distressed about my gambling

emo_shame

Felt ashamed of my gambling

emo_failure

Felt like a failure

emo_regrets

Had regrets that made me feel sorry about my gambling

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Browne, M., Rockloff, M.J. Measuring Behavioural Dependence in Gambling: A Case for Removing Harmful Consequences from the Assessment of Problem Gambling Pathology. J Gambl Stud 36, 1027–1044 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-019-09916-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-019-09916-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation