Advertisement

Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 207–216 | Cite as

Validation of the Consumption Screen for Problem Gambling (CSPG)

  • Matthew J. RockloffEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

A 3 item screen for problem gambling was developed based on a conceptual analogue of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification TestConsumption (Bush et al. in Arch Intern Med 158:1789–1795, 1998); a brief screen that measures consumption rather than harm. Data were collected from an email panel survey of 588 men and 810 women (n = 1,398) across all states in Australia. Respondents indicated their consumption of gambling products using the 3 items of the new Consumption Screen for Problem Gambling (CSPG). Receiver Operating Characteristics curve analysis was used to analyze the performance of the new items relative to the Problem Gambling Severity Index (Ferris and Wynne in The Canadian problem gambling index: Final report, 2001). Results show a 98% probability that the CSPG score for a randomly chosen positive case of problem gambling will exceed the score for a randomly chosen negative case. In addition, a score of 4+ on the CSPG identified all 14 cases of Problem Gambling correctly, while only 7.3% of non-problem gamblers had scores of 4+ (sensitivity = 100%; specificity = 92.7%). Lastly, only 3.0% of respondents without any gambling problems had CSPG scores of 4+. The current study suggests that the CSPG, a brief consumption-based measure for gambling products, can quickly and accurately identify people who are likely to be experiencing gambling problems.

Keywords

AUDIT AUDIT-C Alcohol use disorders identification test Receiver operating characteristics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by a grant from the Institute for Health and Social Science Research, Central Queensland University.

Conflict of interest

No conflicts of interest are declared.

References

  1. Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Moodie, C. (2008). The Sydney laval universities gambling screen: Preliminary data. [Article]. Addiction Research & Theory, 16(4), 401–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bush, K., Kivlahan, D. R., McDonell, M. B., Fihn, S. D., & Bradley, K. A. (1998). The AUDIT alcohol consumption questions (AUDIT-C). Archives of Internal Medicine, 158, 1789–1795.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Currie, S. R., Hodgins, D. C., Wang, J., 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(4), 570–580.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Del Boca, F. K., & Noll, J. A. (2000). Truth or consequences: The validity of self-report data in health services research on addictions. Addiction, 95(Suppl. 3), 347–360.Google Scholar
  5. Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian problem gambling index: Final report: Canadian centre on substance abuse.Google Scholar
  6. Hansen, M., & Rossow, I. (2008). Adolescent gambling and problem gambling: Does the total consumption model apply? Journal of Gambling Studies, 24(2), 135–149.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Holtgraves, T. (2009). Evaluating the problem gambling severity index. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25(1), 105–120.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Johnson, E., Hamer, R., & Nora, R. (1998). The Lie/Bet questionnaire for screening pathological gamblers: A follow-up study. Psychological Reports, 1998(83), 1219–1224.Google Scholar
  9. Lund, I. (2008). The population mean and the proportion of frequent gamblers: Is the theory of total consumption valid for gambling? Journal of Gambling Studies, 24(2), 247–256.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Neal, P., Delfabbro, P. H., & O’Neil, M. (2005). Problem gambling and harm: Towards a national definition. Melbourne: Office of Gaming and Racing, Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  11. Rockloff, M., & Schofield, G. (2004). Factor analysis of barriers to treatment for problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20(2), 121–126. doi: 10.1023/B:JOGS.0000022305.01606.da.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Saunders, J. B., Aasland, O. G., Babor, T. F., De La Fuente, J. R., & Grant, M. (1993). Development of the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption. Addiction, 88(6), 791–803.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. SSI Web [Computer software]. (2011). Retrieved February 9, 2011, from http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/products/ssiweb/.
  14. Strong, D. R., & Kahler, C. W. (2007). Evaluation of the continuum of gambling problems using the DSM-IV. Addiction, 102(5), 713–721.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sullivan, S. (2007). Don’t let an opportunity go by: Validation of the EIGHT gambling screen. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 5(4), 381–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Thomas, S. A., Piterman, L., & Jackson, A. C. (2008). Problem gambling: What do general practitioners need to know and do about it? The Medical Journal of Australia, 189(3), 135–136.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Turner, N., Preston, D., Saunders, C., McAvoy, S., & Jain, U. (2009). The relationship of problem gambling to criminal behavior in a sample of Canadian male federal offenders. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25(2), 153–169.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Williams, R. J., Royston, J., & Hagen, B. F. (2005). Gambling and problem gambling within forensic populations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32(6), 665–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Williams, R. J., & Volberg, R. A. (2010). Best practices in the population assessment of problem gambling. Ontario: Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Health and Social Science ResearchCentral Queensland UniversityBundabergAustralia

Personalised recommendations