Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 337–356

SOGS and CGPI: Parallel Comparison on a Diverse Population

Original Paper

Abstract

The Northern Territory of Australia, one of the most demographically and socially diverse jurisdictions in the country, conducted its first population-based gambling and problem gambling prevalence survey in 2005. Both the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) and the Canadian Problem Gambling Index (CPGI) were administered to the same sample of respondents. Using data from this survey, the current paper presents a parallel comparison of the respective screens with particular reference to gender, region, and the socio-demographic characteristics of respondents. The respective screens produced significantly different groups of problem gamblers as measured by their association with a range of socio-demographic variables. Specifically, the large number of SOGS items related to money issues may cause selective overrepresentation among low socioeconomic groups, including Indigenous people, who exist in relatively high proportions in the Northern Territory. In addition, there existed substantial gender-based differences within screens. Identified female problem gamblers were associated with household level variables (i.e. employment status, household type and marital status), while males were associated with socio-economic variables including language, education, and income. Further research is required to validate the use of problem gambling screens within the Indigenous population and to understand the role of gender in the experience and categorisation of problem gambling.

Keywords

SOGS CPGI Gender Indigenous Northern Territory Australia 

References

  1. Ames, B., Bell, T., & Firman, D. (2004). Gambling in an Indigenous community: Report on the Cherbourg Research Project. In 12th Annual Conference of the National Association of Gambling Studies: Melbourne.Google Scholar
  2. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2002a). Census of population and housing: Selected social and housing characteristics for Statistical Local Areas, Northern Territory, 2001. Cat. No. 2015.7. Canberra: ABS.Google Scholar
  3. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2002b). Population distribution, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 2001. Cat. No. 4705.0. Canberra: ABS.Google Scholar
  4. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2003a). Census of population and housing: Selected education and labour force characteristics for Statistical Local Areas, Northern Territory, 2001. Cat. No. 2017.7. Canberra: ABS.Google Scholar
  5. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2003b). Population characteristics, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 2001. Cat. No. 4713.0. Canberra: ABS.Google Scholar
  6. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2003c). Census of population and housing: Selected education and labour force characteristics for Statistical Local Areas, Australia, 2001. Cat. No. 4017.0. Canberra: ABS.Google Scholar
  7. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2004a). General Social Survey, Northern Territory, 2002. Cat. No. 4159.7.55.001. Canberra: ABS.Google Scholar
  8. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2004b). General Social Survey: Summary results, Australia, 2002. Cat. No. 4159.0. Canberra: ABS.Google Scholar
  9. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2004c). National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey, Northern Territory, 2002. Cat No. 4714.7.55.001. Canberra: ABS.Google Scholar
  10. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2007). Regional population growth, Australia. Cat. No. 3218.0. Canberra: ABS.Google Scholar
  11. 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, 257–271.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blanco, C., Hasin, D., Petry, N. M., Stinson, F., & Grant, B. F. (2006). Sex differences in subclinical and DSM-IV pathological gambling: Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on alcohol and related conditions. Psychological Medicine, 36, 943–953.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clarke, D., Abbott, M., Tse, S., Townsend, S., Kingi, P., & Manaia, W. (2006). Gender, age, ethnic and occupational associations with pathological gambling in a New Zealand urban sample. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 35, 84–91.Google Scholar
  14. Currie, S. R., Hodgins, D. C., Wang, J. L., El Guebaly, N., Wynne, H., & Chen, S. (2006). Risk of harm among gamblers in the general population as a function of level of participation in gambling activities. Addiction, 101, 570–580.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dannon, P. N., Lowengrub, K., Shalgi, B., Sasson, M., Tuson, L., Saphir, Y., & Kotler, M. (2006). Dual psychiatric diagnosis and substance abuse in pathological gamblers: A preliminary gender comparison study. Journal of Addictive Diseases, 25, 49–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Delfabbro, P. (2000). Gender differences in Australian gambling: A critical analysis of sociological and pathological research. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 35, 145–157.Google Scholar
  17. Duvarci, I., Varan, A., Coskunol, H., & Ersoy, M. A. (1997). DSM-IV and the South Oaks Gambling Screen: Diagnosing and assessing pathological gambling in Turkey. Journal of Gambling Studies, 13, 193–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feise, R. J. (2002). Do multiple outcome measures require p-value adjustment? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2, 8–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferris, J., & Wynne, W. (2001). The Canadian Problem Gambling Index: Final report. Ontario: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.Google Scholar
  20. Gill, T., Dal Grande, E., & Taylor, A. W. (2006). Factors associated with gamblers: A population-based cross-sectional study of South Australian adults. Journal of Gambling Studies, 22, 143–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ladouceur, R., Bouchard, C., Rheaume, N., Jacques, C., Ferland, F., Leblond, J., & Walker, M. (2000). Is the SOGS an accurate measure of pathological gambling among children, adolescents and adults? Journal of Gambling Studies, 16, 1–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. LaPlante, D. A., Nelson, S. E., LaBrie, R. A., & Shaffer, H. J. (2006). Men & women playing games: Gender and the gambling preferences of Iowa gambling treatment program participants. Journal of Gambling Studies, 22, 65–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ledgerwood, D. M., & Petry, N. M. (2006). Psychological experience of gambling and subtypes of pathological gamblers. Psychiatry Research, 144, 17–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. McMillen, J., Marshall, D., Ahmed, E., & Wenzel, M. (2004). Victorian Longitudinal Communities Attitudes Survey: Report for the gambling research panel. Melbourne: Department of Justice, Victorian Government.Google Scholar
  26. McMillen, J., & Wenzel, M. (2006). Measuring problem gambling: Assessment of three prevalence screens. International Gambling Studies, 6, 147–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Memmott, P., Long, S., & Thomson, L. (2006). Indigenous mobility in rural and remote Australia: Final report. Queensland: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.Google Scholar
  28. Neale, P., Delfabbro, P., & O’Neil, M. (2005). Problem gambling and harm: Towards a national definition. Victoria: The SA Centre for Economic Studies.Google Scholar
  29. Nelson, S. E., LaPlante, D. B., LaBrie, R. A., & Shaffer, H. J. (2006). The proxy effect: Gender and gambling problem trajectories of Iowa gambling treatment program participants. Journal of Gambling Studies, 22, 221–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Orford, J., Sproston, K., & Erens, B. (2003). SOGS and DSM-IV in the British Gambling Prevalence Survey: Reliability and factor structure. International Gambling Studies, 3, 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Paterson, M. (2006). A future now; not a past too late: An analysis of Aboriginal gambling in Australia. In National Association of Gambling Studies 16th Annual Conference, 25th November 2006, Sydney.Google Scholar
  32. Perneger, T. V. (1998). What’s wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. British Medical Journal, 316, 1236–1238.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Petry, N. (2002). A comparison of treatment-seeking pathological gamblers based on preferred gambling activity. Addiction, 98, 645–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Productivity Commission. (1999). Australia’s gambling industries: Inquiry report no.10. Canberra: AusInfo.Google Scholar
  35. Queensland Government. (2005). Queensland Household Gambling Survey 2003/04. Brisbane: Queensland Treasury.Google Scholar
  36. Roy Morgan Research. (2006). The fourth study in the extent and impact of gambling in Tasmania with particular reference to problem gambling. Report to the Gambling Support Bureau, Department of Health and Human Services. Hobart: Tasmanian Government.Google Scholar
  37. Schofield, G., Mummery, K., Wang, W., & Dickson, G. (2004). Epidemiological study of gambling in the non-metropolitan region of Central Queensland. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 12, 6–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Scull, S., & Woolcock, G. (2005). Problem gambling in non-English speaking background communities in Queensland, Australia: A qualitative exploration. International Gambling Studies, 5, 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stevens, M., & Young, M. (in press). Gambling screens and problem gambling estimates: A parallel psychometric assessment of the SOGS and CGPI. Gambling Research, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  40. Stinchfield, R. (2002). Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy of the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS). Addictive Behaviors, 27, 1–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thompson, A., Walker, M., Milton, S., & Djukic, E. (2005). Explaining the high false positive rate of the South Oaks Gambling Screen. International Gambling Studies, 5, 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Volberg, R. A. (2002). Gambling and problem gambling in Nevada. Northampton: Gemini Research.Google Scholar
  43. Walker, M., & Dickerson, M. (1996). The prevalence of problem and pathological gambling: A critical analysis. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 233–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Welte, J. W., Barnes, G. M., Wieczorek, W. F., Tidwell, M. C., & Parker, J. C. (2004). Risk factors for pathological gambling. Addictive Behaviors, 29, 323–335.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wenzel, M., McMillen, J., Marshall, D., & Ahmed, E. (2004). Validation of the Victorian Gambling Screen. Melbourne: Centre for Gambling Research, ANU.Google Scholar
  46. Wilson, T., & Condon, J. R. (2006). Indigenous population change in the Northern Territory 1966 to 2031. People and Place, 14, 65–78.Google Scholar
  47. Young, M., Abu-Duhou, I., Barnes, T., Creed, E., Morris, M., Stevens, M., & Tyler, B. (2006). Northern Territory Gambling Prevalence Survey 2005. Darwin: School for Social and Policy Research.Google Scholar
  48. Young, M., Barnes, T., Stevens, M., Paterson, M., & Morris, M. (2007). The changing landscape of Indigenous gambling in Northern Australia: Current knowledge and future directions. International Gambling Studies, 7, 327–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School for Social and Policy ResearchCharles Darwin UniversityCasuarinaAustralia

Personalised recommendations