Advertisement

Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 339–362 | Cite as

Pathological gambling among adolescents: Massachusetts Gambling Screen (MAGS)

  • Howard J. Shaffer
  • Richard LaBrie
  • Kathleen M. Scanlan
  • Thomas N. Cummings
Articles

Abstract

This article describes the development of the Massachusetts Gambling Screen (MAGS). The purpose of the MAGS is to provide a brief clinical screening instrument that can (1) yield an index of non-pathological and pathological gambling during a 5 to 10 minute survey or interview and (2) document the first psychometric translation of the proposed DSM-IV pathological gambling criteria into a set of survey or clinical interview questions. The development data for this instrument were obtained from a survey of 856 adolescents who were students in suburban Boston high schools. The results provided evidence that weighted item scores (i.e., discriminant function coefficients) could correctly classify 96% of adolescent gamblers as pathological, in transition or non-pathological when DSM-IV criteria were employed as the conceptual referent. The results also describe the prevalence of a variety of social and emotional problems associated with adolescent gambling. Finally, the discussion examined the normalization and contemporary social context of gaming and the impact of these influences on the measurement and identification of pathological gambling.

Keywords

Discriminant Function Pathological Gambling Item Score Interview Question Screening Instrument 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association. (1993).DSM-IV draft criteria. Washington D.C.: American Psychiatric Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Clotfelter, C.T., & Cook, P.J. (1989).Selling hope: state lotteries in America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Crockford, J. (1993, February 9). To bay staters, life's a gamble: Scratch tickets push lottery to sales record.The Patriot Ledger, 1, 8.Google Scholar
  4. Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.Google Scholar
  5. DeVellis, R.F. (1991).Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Eadington, W.R. (1992, October 27). Emerging public policy challenges from the proliferation of gaming in America, Paper Presented at the Second Annual Australian Conference on Casinos and Gambing.Google Scholar
  7. Gilbert, E.S. (1968). On discrimination using qualitative variables.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 63, 1399–1412.Google Scholar
  8. Hochstim, J.R. (1967). A critical comparison of three strategies of collecting data from households.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 62, 976–987.Google Scholar
  9. Jacobs, D.F. (1989). Illegal and undocumented: a review of teenage gambling and the plight of children of problem gamblers in America. In Shaffer, H.J. & Stein, S.A., Gambino, B., & Cummings, T.N. (Eds.):Compulsive Gambling: Theory, Research and Practice. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 249–292.Google Scholar
  10. Johnston, L.D., O'Malley, P.M., & Bachman, J.G. (1993).National survey results on drug use from monitoring the future study, 1975–1992. NIH Publication 93-3597. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  11. Ladouceur, R., & Mireault, C. (1988). Gambling behaviors among high school students in the Quebec area.Journal of Gambling Behavior, 4, 3–11.Google Scholar
  12. Lesieur, H.R. (1989). Current research into pathological gambling and gaps in the literature. In H. Shaffer, S. Stein, B. Gambino, & T. Cummings (Eds.),Compulsive Gambling: Theory, Research, & Practice. Lexington: Lexington Books, pp. 225–248.Google Scholar
  13. Lesieur, H.R., & Blume, S.B. (1987). The south oaks gambling screen (SOGS): A new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers.American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1184–1188.Google Scholar
  14. Lesieur, H.R., & Klein, R. (1987). Pathological gambling among high school students.Addictive Behaviors, 12, 38–47.Google Scholar
  15. McAuliffe, W.E., LaBrie, R., Mulvaney, N., Shaffer, H.J., Levine, E., Wortman, S., Singer, D., Cochran, D., French, J., Gillespie, S., Goff, C., Kohlenberg, E., Lutz, G., Marel, R., Maxwell, J., McCan, I., Wilson, R., Wish, E. (1993).The national technical center's telephone substance dependence needs assessment questionnaire and documentation (Version 3.1). Cambridge, MA: National Technical Center for Substance Abuse Needs Assessment, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  16. Mechanic, D. (1968).Medical sociology: A selective view. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  17. Moore, D.H. (1973). Evaluation of five discrimination procedures for binary variables.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 68, 399.Google Scholar
  18. Norusis, M.J. (1993).SPSS for Windows: Professional Statistics (Release 6.0). Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
  19. Selzer, M.L., Vonokur, A., & van Rooijen, L. (1975). A self-administered short Michigan alcoholism screening test (SMAST).Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 36, 117–126.Google Scholar
  20. Shaffer, H., & Zinberg, N.E. (1985). The social psychology of intoxicant use: the natural history of social settings and social control.Bulletin of the Society of Psychologists in the Addictive Behaviors, 4, 49–55.Google Scholar
  21. Vaillant, G.E., & Schnurr (1988). What is a case?Archives of General Psychiatry, 45, 313–319.Google Scholar
  22. Wells, K.B., Burham, M.A., Leake, B., & Robins, L.N. (1988). Agreement between face-to-face and telephone administered versions of the depression section of the NIHM diagnostic interview schedule.Journal of Psychiatric Research, 22, 207–220.Google Scholar
  23. Winters, K.C., Stinchfield, R.D., & Fulkerson, J. (1993). Toward the development of an adolescent gambling problem severity scale.Journal of Gambling Studies, 9, 63–84.Google Scholar
  24. Zinberg, N.E. (1984).Drug, set, and setting: the basis for controlled intoxicant use. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Zinberg, N.E., & Shaffer, H.J. (1985). The social psychology of intoxicant use: the interaction of personality and social setting. In H. Milkman and H. Shaffer (Eds.),The Addictions: Multidisciplinary Perspectives and Treatments, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Howard J. Shaffer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Richard LaBrie
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kathleen M. Scanlan
    • 3
  • Thomas N. Cummings
    • 3
  1. 1.Norman E. Zinberg Center for Addiction StudiesUSA
  2. 2.The National Technical Center for Substance Abuse Needs AssessmentUSA
  3. 3.The Massachusetts Council on Compulsive GamblingUSA

Personalised recommendations