Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 291–307 | Cite as

Improving Gambling Survey Research Using Dual-Frame Sampling of Landline and Mobile Phone Numbers

  • Alun C. Jackson
  • Darren Pennay
  • Nicki A. Dowling
  • Bernadette Coles-Janess
  • Darren R. Christensen
Original Paper

Abstract

Gambling prevalence studies are typically conducted within a single (landline) telephone sampling frame. This practice continues, despite emerging evidence that significant differences exist between landline and mobile (cell) phone only households. This study utilised a dual-frame (landline and mobile) telephone sampling methodology to cast light on the extent of differences across groups of respondents in respect to demographic, health, and gambling characteristics. A total of 2,014 participants from across Australian states and territories ranging in age from 18 to 96 years participated. Interviews were conducted using computer assisted telephone interviewing technology where 1,012 respondents from the landline sampling frame and 1,002 from the mobile phone sampling frame completed a questionnaire about gambling and other health behaviours. Responses across the landline sampling frame, the mobile phone sampling frame, and the subset of the mobile phone sampling frame that possessed a mobile phone only (MPO) were contrasted. The findings revealed that although respondents in the landline sample (62.7 %) did not significantly differ from respondents in the mobile phone sample (59.2 %) in gambling participation in the previous 12 months, they were significantly more likely to have gambled in the previous 12 months than the MPO sample (56.4 %). There were no significant differences in internet gambling participation over the previous 12 months in the landline sample (4.7 %), mobile phone sample (4.7 %) and the MPO sample (5.0 %). However, endorsement of lifetime problem gambling on the NODS-CLiP was significantly higher within the mobile sample (10.7 %) and the MPO sample (14.8 %) than the landline sample (6.6 %). Our research supports previous findings that reliance on a traditional landline telephone sampling approach effectively excludes distinct subgroups of the population from being represented in research findings. Consequently, we suggest that research best practice necessitates the use of a dual-frame sampling methodology. Despite inherent logistical and cost issues, this approach needs to become the norm in gambling survey research.

Keywords

Mobile phones Cell phones Surveys Sampling Problem gambling Gambling participation 

References

  1. Allen Consulting Group, Problem Gambling Research and Treatment Centre, and the Social Research Centre. (2011). Social and economic impact study of gambling in Tasmania, Volume 2: Gambling survey. Prepared for the Tasmanian Government Department of Treasury and Finance. http://www.treasury.tas.gov.au/domino/dtf/dtf.nsf/LookupFiles/Volume2secondgamblingSEIS.PDF/$file/Volume2secondgamblingSEIS.PDF. Accessed March 30, 2012.
  2. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (Revised 4th edn.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  3. Australian Communications and Media Authority. (2011). Communications Report, 2010–11 series. Report 2—Converging communications channels: Preferences and behaviours of Australian communications users. Melbourne: Author. http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib410148/report2-convergent_comms.pdf. Accessed March 31, 2012.
  4. Blumberg, S. J., & Luke J. V. (2009). Wireless substitution: Early release of estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, (Center for Disease Control) July–December, 2009.Google Scholar
  5. Blumberg, S. J., Luke, J. V., & Cynamon, M. L. (2006). Telephone coverage and health survey estimates: Evaluating the need for concern about wireless substitution. American Journal of Public Health, 96(5), 926–931.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradley, K. A., Bush, K. R., Epler, A. J., Dobie, D. J., Davis, T. M., Sporleder, J. L., et al. (2003). Two brief alcohol—screening tests from the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT): Validation in a female veterans affairs patient population. Archives of Internal Medicine, 163, 821–829.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brick, J. M., Cervantes, I. M., Lee, S., & Norman, G. (2011). Nonsampling errors in dual frame telephone surveys. Survey Methodology, 37(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
  8. Bush, K., Kivlahan, D. R., McDonell, M. B., Fihn, S. D., & Bradley, K. A. (1998). The AUDIT Alcohol Consumption Questions (AUDIT - C): An effective brief screening test for problem drinking. Archives of Internal Medicine, 158(16), 1789–1795. doi:10.1001/archinte.158.16.1789.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell, H., Rivero-Arias, O., Johnston, K., Gray, A., Fairbank, J., & Frost, H. (2006). Responsiveness of objective, disease-specific, and generic outcome measures in patients with chronic low back pain: An assessment for improving, stable, and deteriorating patients. Spine, 31, 815–822.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davidson, T., & Rodgers, B. (2010). 2009 Survey of the nature and extent of gambling, and problem gambling, in the Australian Capital Territory. Canberra: Australian National University & Australian Capital Territory Gambling and Racing Commission.Google Scholar
  11. Doran, B., & Young, M. (2010). Predicting the spatial distribution of gambling vulnerability: An application of gravity modeling using ABS mesh blocks. Applied Geography, 30, 141–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16, 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gambling Commission. (2008). Survey data on remote gambling participation. Birmingham: Gambling Commission.Google Scholar
  14. Gerstein, D. R., Murphy, S. A., Toce, M. T., Hoffmann, J., Palmer, A., Johnson, R. A., Larison, C., Chuchro, L., Buie T., Engelman, L., Volberg, R., Harwood, A., Tucker, A., Christiansen, E., Cummings, W., & Sinclair, S. (1999). Gambling impact and behavior study: Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  15. Grant, B. F., Harford, T. C., Dawson, D. A., Chou, P. S., & Pickering, R. P. (1995). The alcohol use disorders and associated disabilities interview schedule (AUDADIS): Reliability of alcohol and drug modules in a general population sample. Drug Alcohol Dependence, 39, 37–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Griffiths, M. D., & Barnes, A. (2008). Internet gambling: An online empirical study among gamblers. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 6, 194–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Griffiths, M. D., Wardle, J., Orford, J., Sproston, K., & Erens, B. (2009). Socio-demographic correlates of internet gambling: Findings from the 2007 British Gambling Prevalence Survey. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 12, 199–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hopley, A., Dempsey, K., & Nicki, R. (2011). Texas Hold’em Online Poker: A further examination. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 10(4), 563–572. doi:10.1007/s11469-011-9353-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hu, S. S., Balluz, L., Bataglia, M. P., & Frankel, M. R. (2011). Improving public health surveillance using a dual-frame survey of landline and cell phone numbers. American Journal of Epidemiology, 173(6), 703–711.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ipsos-Reid Public Affairs and Gemini Research. (2008). British Columbia problem gambling prevalence study: Final report. British Columbia: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.Google Scholar
  21. Jacques, C., & Ladouceur, R. (2006). A prospective study of the impact of opening a casino on gambling behaviours: 2- and 4-year follow-ups. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 51(12), 764–773.Google Scholar
  22. Jenkinson, C., Layte, R., & Lawrence, K. (1997). Development and testing of the medical outcomes study 36-item short form health survey summary scale scores in the united kingdom. Results from a large-scale survey and a clinical trial. Medical Care, 35, 410–416.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. LaPlante, D. A., & Shaffer, H. (2007). Understanding the influence of gambling opportunities: Expanding exposure models to include adaptation. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77(4), 616–623.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lemaire, J., MacKay, T., & Patton, D. (2008). Manitoba gambling and problem gambling 2006. Winnipeg, Manitoba: Addictions Foundation of Manitoba.Google Scholar
  25. Market Quest Research. (2009). 2009 Newfoundland and Labrador gambling prevalence study. Prepared for the Department of Health and Community Services. St. John’s: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.Google Scholar
  26. Mason, K. (2006). Problem gambling geography of New Zealand 2005: Public Health Intelligence Monitoring Report Number 7. Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Health.Google Scholar
  27. McBride, O., Morgan, K., & McGee, H. (2012). Recruitment using mobile telephones in an Irish general population sexual health survey: Challenges and practical solutions. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12, 45. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-45.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ministry of Community Development. (2005). Report of survey on participation in gambling activities among Singapore residents. Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports: Government of Singapore.Google Scholar
  29. Ministry of Health. (2009). A focus on problem gambling: Results of the 2006/07 New Zealand health survey. Wellington: Ministry of Health.Google Scholar
  30. Morgan, K., McGee, H., Watson, D., Perry, I., Barry, M., Shelley, E., Harrington, J., Molcho, M., Layte, R., Tully, N., van Lente E., Ward M., Lutomski J., Conroy R., & Brugha R. (2008). SLAN 2007: Survey of lifestyles, attitudes and nutrition in Ireland: Main report. Dublin: Department of Health and Children. http://www.slan06.ie/SLAN2007MainReport.pdf. Accessed May 15, 2012.
  31. Ofcom (Independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industries). (2012). Facts and figures. Author. http://media.ofcom.org.uk/facts/. Accessed April 19, 2012.
  32. Pearce, J., Mason, K., Hiscock, R., & Day, P. (2008). A national study of neighbourhood access to gambling opportunities and individual gambling behaviour. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 62(10), 862–868. doi:10.1136/jech.2007.068114.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pennay, D. W. (2010). Profiling the ‘mobile phone only’ population. Results from a dual-frame telephone survey using a landline and mobile phone sample frame. In Presented at the ACSPRI social science methodology conference, Sydney, December.Google Scholar
  34. Productivity Commission. (2010). Gambling, Report no. 50, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  35. Queensland Gambling Policy Directorate & Office of the Government Statistician. (2008). Queensland Gambling Household Survey 2006–7. AuthorGoogle Scholar
  36. Rush, B., Veldhuizen, S., & Adlaf, E. (2007). Mapping the prevalence of problem gambling and its association with treatment accessibility and proximity to gambling venues. Journal of Gambling Issues, 20, 193–214. doi:10.4309/jgi.2007.20.6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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—II. Addiction, 88(6), 791–804.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schrans, T., & Schellinck, T. (2004). 2003 Nova Scotia gambling prevalence study. Halifax: Nova Scotia Office of Health Promotion.Google Scholar
  39. South Australian Centre for Economic Studies. (2008). Social and economic impact study into gambling in Tasmania. Adelaide: Author.Google Scholar
  40. South Australian Department for Families and Communities. (2006). Gambling prevalence in South Australia: October to December 2005. Adelaide: Author.Google Scholar
  41. Storer, J., Abbott, M., & Stubbs, J. (2009). Access or adaptation? A meta-analysis of surveys of problem gambling prevalence in Australia and New Zealand with respect to concentration of electronic gaming machines. International Gambling Studies, 9(3), 225–244. doi:10.1080/14459790903257981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thomas, S. A., Piterman, L., & Jackson, A. C. (2008). What do GPs need to know about problem gambling and what should they do about it? Medical Journal of Australia, 189(3), 135–136.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Toce-Gerstein, M., Gerstein, D. R., & Volberg, R. A. (2009). The NODS-CLiP: A rapid screen for adult pathological and problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25, 541–555.Google Scholar
  44. Victorian Department of Justice. (2009). A study of gambling in Victoria. Melbourne: Victorian Government Printer.Google Scholar
  45. Vincente, P., & Reis, E. (2009). The mobile—only population in Portugal and its impact in a dual frame telephone survey. Survey Research Methods, 3(2), 105–111.Google Scholar
  46. Wardle, H., Moody, A., Spence, S., Orford, J., Volberg, R. A., Jotangia, D., et al. (2010). British gambling prevalence survey 2010. London: National Centre for Social Research.Google Scholar
  47. Wardle, H., Sproston, K., Orford, J., Erens, B., Griffiths, M., Constantine, R., et al. (2007). British gambling prevalence survey 2007. London: National Centre for Social Research.Google Scholar
  48. Wood, R. T. & Williams, R. J. (2009). Internet gambling: Prevalence, patterns, problems, and policy options. Final Report prepared for the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre, Guelph, Ontario, CANADA. January 5, 2009.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alun C. Jackson
    • 1
  • Darren Pennay
    • 2
    • 3
  • Nicki A. Dowling
    • 1
  • Bernadette Coles-Janess
    • 1
  • Darren R. Christensen
    • 1
  1. 1.Problem Gambling Research and Treatment CentreThe University of MelbourneCarltonAustralia
  2. 2.Social Research CentreNorth MelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.The University of QueenslandSt LuciaAustralia

Personalised recommendations