Advertisement

Measurement Invariance of the Spanish Gamblers’ Beliefs Questionnaire Between Gamblers in the United States and Argentina

  • Samuel C. Peter
  • Meredith K. Ginley
  • James P. Whelan
  • Walter R. Winfree
Original Article
  • 25 Downloads

Abstract

Studies have been conducted in both the United States (US) and Argentina to validate the Spanish version of the Gamblers’ Beliefs Questionnaire (GBQ-S). While similar factor structures of the GBQ-S were found in these studies, more detailed measurement invariance has not been explored. Determining measurement invariance across cultural groups would aid researchers in understanding what types of comparisons on latent constructs can be validly made between cultures using the GBQ-S. A secondary analysis was completed with data from two prior studies in Spanish-speaking samples from the US and Argentina. A modified baseline model that captured the two latent factors of Illusion of Control and Luck/Perseverance was selected for invariance testing. The evaluation of measurement invariance within a structural equation modeling framework established configural and metric, but not scalar, invariance. The GBQ-S can be validly used to measure the same latent variables across groups with comparable strengths between its items and factors; however, latent mean comparisons across groups may require further measurement refinement. The GBQ-S demonstrated notable degrees of measurement invariance between markedly different samples, providing further evidence for the existence of similar constructs and portability of the GBQ-S across populations.

Keywords

Gambling Cognitive distortions Measurement invariance Gamblers’ Beliefs Questionnaire 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments and comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  2. Barry, D. T., Stefanovics, E. A., Desai, R. A., & Potenza, M. N. (2011). Gambling problem severity and psychiatric disorders among Hispanic and white adults: findings from a nationally representative sample. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 45(3), 404–411.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Calado, F., & Griffiths, M. D. (2016). Problem gambling worldwide: an update and systematic review of empirical research (2000–2015). Journal of behavioral addictions, 5(4), 592–613.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Doiron, J. P., & Nicki, R. M. (2007). Prevention of pathological gambling: a randomized controlled trial. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 36(2), 74–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Goodie, A. S., & Fortune, E. E. (2013). Measuring cognitive distortions in pathological gambling: review and meta-analyses. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 27(3), 730–743.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Hambleton, R. K., & Patsula, L. (1998). Adapting tests for use in multiple languages and cultures. Social Indicators Research, 45(1), 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jefferson, S., & Nicki, R. (2003). A new instrument to measure cognitive distortions in video lottery terminal users: the Informational Biases Scale (IBS). Journal of Gambling Studies, 19(4), 387–403.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kline, R. B. (2012). Assumptions in structural equation modeling. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 111–125). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kline, R. B. (2016). Multiple samples analysis and measurement invariance. In Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (pp. 394–423). New York: The Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  13. Ladouceur, R. (2004). Perceptions among pathological and non-pathological gamblers. Addictive Behaviors, 29, 555–565.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Ladouceur, R., & Walker, M. (1996). A cognitive perspective on gambling. In P. M. Salkovskies (Ed.), Trends in cognitive and behavioural therapies (pp. 89–120). Chester: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  15. Mackillop, J., Anderson, E. J., Castelda, B. A., Mattson, R. E., & Donovick, P. J. (2006). Convergent validity of measures of cognitive distortions, impulsivity, and time perspective with pathological gambling. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 20(1), 75–79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Marchetti, D., Whelan, J. P., Verrocchio, M. C., Ginley, M. K., Fulcheri, M., Relyea, G. E., & Meyers, A. W. (2016). Psychometric evaluation of the Italian translation of the Gamblers’ Beliefs Questionnaire. International Gambling Studies, 16(1), 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Milfront, T. L., & Fischer, R. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychology Research, 3(1), 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mitrovic, D. V., & Brown, J. (2009). Poker mania and problem gambling: a study of distorted cognitions, motivation, and alexithymia. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25, 489–502.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Myrseth, H., Brunborg, G. S., Eidem, M., & Pallesen, S. (2013). Description and pre-post evaluation of a telephone and Internet based treatment programme for pathological gambling in Norway: a pilot study. International Gambling Studies, 13(2), 205–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pilatti, A., Cupani, M., Tuzinkievich, F., & Winfree, W. R. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Spanish version of the Gamblers’ Beliefs Questionnaire in a sample of Argentinean gamblers. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 4, 44–50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Solano-Flores, G., & Li, M. (2006). The use of generalizability (G) theory in the testing of linguistic minorities. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25(1), 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Steenbergh, T. A., Meyers, A. W., May, R. K., & Whelan, J. P. (2002). Development and validation of the Gamblers’ Beliefs Questionnaire. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 16(2), 143–149.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: an interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173–180.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  25. Tavares, H., Carneiro, E., Sanches, M., Pinsky, I., Caetano, R., Zaleski, M., & Laranjeira, R. (2010). Gambling in Brazil: lifetime prevalences and socio-demographic correlates. Psychiatry Research, 180(1), 35–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Toneatto, T., & Gunaratne, M. (2009). Does the treatment of cognitive distortions improve clinical outcomes for problem gambling? Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 39(4), 221–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. US Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration (2012). La población hispana: 2010. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04sp.pdf
  28. Welte, J. W., Barnes, G. M., Tidwell, M. C. O., Hoffman, J. H., & Wieczorek, W. F. (2015). Gambling and problem gambling in the United States: changes between 1999 and 2013. Journal of Gambling Studies, 31(3), 695–715.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Whelan, J. P., Steenbergh, T. A., & Meyers, A. W. (2007). Problem and pathological gambling. Cambridge: Hogrefe & Huber.Google Scholar
  30. Winfree, W. R., Meyers, A. W., & Whelan, J. P. (2013). Validation of a Spanish translation of the Gamblers’ Beliefs Questionnaire. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 27(1), 274–278.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Winfree, W. R., Ginley, M. K., Whelan, J. P., & Meyers, A. W. (2015). Psychometric evaluation of the Gamblers’ Beliefs Questionnaire with treatment-seeking disordered gamblers. Addictive Behaviors, 4397-102.Google Scholar
  32. Wong, S. K., & Tsang, S. M. (2012). Validation of the Chinese version of the Gamblers’ Belief Questionnaire (GBQ-C). Journal of Gambling Studies, 28(4), 561–572.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Wohl, M. J. A., Young, M. M., & Hart, K. E. (2007). Self-perceptions of dispositional luck: relationship to DSM gambling symptoms, subjective enjoyment of gambling and treatment readiness. Substance Use and Misuse, 42(1), 43–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Xian, H., Shah, K. R., Phillips, S. M., Scherrer, J. F., Volberg, R., & Eisen, S. A. (2008). Association of cognitive distortions with problem and pathological gambling in adult male twins. Psychiatry Research, 160(3), 300–307.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Yakovenko, I., Hodgins, D. C., el-Guebaly, N., Casey, D. M., Currie, S. R., Smith, G. J., Williams, R. J. & Schopflocher, D. P. (2016). Cognitive distortions predict future gambling involvement. International Gambling Studies, 16(2), 175–192.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Gambling Education and ResearchThe University of MemphisMemphisUSA
  2. 2.Calhoun Cardiology Center-Behavioral HealthUniversity of Connecticut School of MedicineFarmingtonUSA
  3. 3.VA Portland Health Care SystemPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations