Reliability and Validity of the Gamblers Anonymous Twenty Questions

  • Tony Toneatto


One of the earliest instruments to screen for problem gambling, the Twenty Questions (20Q), was developed within Gamblers Anonymous. This instrument has not received serious research attention, however, and its psychometric properties are generally unknown. This study reports reliability and validity data for this instrument in 3 independent samples totaling 456 participants: two samples of problem gamblers in treatment and a non-treatment sample of problem gamblers. The Twenty Questions was shown to possess high reliability as measured by Cronbach’s alpha. Concurrent, convergent and predictive validity of the 20Q supported the use of this instrument as an acceptable screening instrument. Classification analyses indicated that the 20Q is comparable to the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for pathological gambling in specificity, sensitivity and rates of false negatives and false positives. The 20Q appears to be a reliable and valid measure of problem gambling and warrants continued research attention.


Problem gambling Screening Gamblers anonymous 20 questions Reliability Validity 


  1. Abell, N. (1991). The index of clinical stress: A brief measure of subjective stress for research and practice. Social Work Research and Abstracts, 27, 12–15.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association (1994). Committee on nomenclature and statistics. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
  3. Bernstein, E. M., & Putnam, F. W. (1986). Development, reliability and validity of a dissociation scale. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 174, 727–735.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Michaud, V. (2004). Comparisons between the South Oaks Gambling Screen and a DSM-IV-based interview in a community survey of problem gambling. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 49, 258–264.Google Scholar
  5. Derevensky, J., & Gupta, R. (1997). Prevalence estimates of adolescent gambling: A comparison of the SOGS-RA, DSM-IV-J, and the G.A. 20 Questions. Paper presented at the 10th International Conference on Gambling and Risk-taking, Montreal.Google Scholar
  6. Derogatis, L. R. (1993). The Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI): Administration, scoring and procedures manual (3rd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.Google Scholar
  7. Famer, R., & Sundberg, N. (1986). Boredom proneness—the development and correlates of a new scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50, 4–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., & Williams, J. B. W. (2002). Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders, Research Version, Patient Edition. (SCID-I/P). New York: Biometrics Research, New York State Psychiatric Institute.Google Scholar
  9. Gamblers Anonymous, (1984). (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Gamblers Anonymous Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Hardoon, K., Derevensky, J., & Gupta, R. (2003). Empirical measures vs. perceived gambling severity among youth: Why adolescent problem gamblers fail to seek treatment. Addictive Behaviors, 28, 933–946.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hendrick, S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 93–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kuley, N. B., & Jacobs, D. F. (1988). The relationship between dissociative-like experiences and Sensation-seeking among social and problem gamblers. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 4, 197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lesieur, H., & Blume, S. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A new instrument for the identification of problem gamblers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1184–1188.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Littman-Sharpe, N., Turner, N., Toneatto, T., Stripe, T., & Liu, E. (2007). The Inventory of Gambling Situations. Toronto: CAMH. Available online at
  15. Neighbors, C., Lostutter, T. W., Larimer, M. E., & Takushi, R. Y. (2002). Measuring gambling outcomes among college students. Journal of Gambling Studies, 18, 339–360.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Petry, N. (2005). Pathological gambling: Etiology, comorbidity and treatment. Washington: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  17. Shaffer, H. J., Hall, M. N., & Vander Bilt, J. (1997). Estimating prevalence of disordered gambling behavior in the United States and Canada: A meta-analysis. Boston: Harvard Medical School Division on Addictions.Google Scholar
  18. Stinchfield, R. (2002). Reliability, validity and classification accuracy of the South Oaks Gambling Screen. Addictive Behaviors, 27, 1–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stinchfield, R. (2003). Reliability, validity and classification accuracy of a measure of DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for pathological gambling. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 180–182.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Toneatto, T. (1999). The gambling cognition questionnaire. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Boston.Google Scholar
  21. Toneatto, T. (2003a). Cognitive distortions in pathological gambling. Poster presented at the 29th Annual Harvey Stancer Research Day, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  22. Toneatto, T. (2003b). Male and female pathological gamblers: Similarities and differences. Poster presented at the 29th Annual Harvey Stancer Research Day, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  23. Ursua, M. P., & Uribelarrea, L. L. (1998). 20 questions of gamblers anonymous: A psychometric study with population of Spain. Journal of Gambling Studies, 14, 3–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vodanovich, S. J., & Kass, S. J. (1990). A factor analytic study of the Boredom Proneness scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 115–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Clinical Research, Center for Addiction and Mental HealthTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Center for Addiction and Mental HealthTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations