Advertisement

The Psychological Record

, Volume 68, Issue 2, pp 177–187 | Cite as

A Functional Analytic Approach to Understanding Disordered Gambling

  • Mark R. DixonEmail author
  • Alyssa N. Wilson
  • Jordan Belisle
  • James B. Schreiber
Original Article

Abstract

The Gambling Functional Assessment (GFA) hypothesized four possible maintaining functions of gambling behavior, including social attention, escape from aversive events, access to tangible items, and sensory stimulation. In the years following the GFA’s release, research teams have argued for a revised model of the GFA to account for just two possible functions maintaining gambling behavior (positive and negative reinforcement). In the current study, we examined the extent to which a four-factor gambling functional assessment was possible, sustaining a conceptual and theoretical orientation consistent with a functional behavioral account of gambling. Three hundred and sixty-five recreational and disordered gamblers completed a demographic survey, the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS), and the GFA. An exploratory factor analysis was first conducted to determine GFA functional items that loaded onto a common factor, and a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to determine if a four-factor model, consistent with the functional categories of the GFA, provided a good fit for the obtained data. Outcomes supported the model, suggesting that a four-factor functional account of gambling behavior can be obtained. Differing results obtained by separate research teams, however, suggest that more precise research may be needed in the development and analysis of functional instruments for use with gamblers.

Keywords

Addiction Behavior analysis Disordered gambling Gambling functional assessment 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

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

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 815-824.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.018.
  2. Beavers, G. A., Iwata, B. A., & Lerman, D. C. (2013). Thirty years of research on the functional analysis of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 1–21.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Blaszcznski, A., & Nower, L. (2002). A pathways model of problem and pathological gambling. Addiction, 97, 487–499.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00015.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Costello, A., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 10, 1–9.Google Scholar
  5. Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to normality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dixon, M. R., & Johnson, T. E. (2007). The gambling functional assessment (GFA): an assessment device for identification of the maintaining variables of pathological gambling. Analysis of Gambling Behavior, 1, 44–49.Google Scholar
  7. Dixon, M. R., Wilson, A. N., & Habib, R. (2016). Neurological evidence of acceptance and commitment therapy effectiveness in college-age gamblers. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 5, 80–88.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2016.04.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Durand, V. M., & Crimmins, D. B. (1988). Identifying the variables maintaining self-injurious behavior. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 18, 99–117.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02211821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian problem gambling index. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.Google Scholar
  10. Gambino, B., & Lesieur, H. (2006). The south oaks gambling screen (SOGS): a rebuttal to critics. Journal of Gambling Issues, 17, 1–16.  https://doi.org/10.4309/jgi.2006.17.10.Google Scholar
  11. Gorsuch, R. L. (1990). Common factor analysis versus component analysis: Some well and little known facts. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 33–39.Google Scholar
  12. Guercio, J. M., Johnson, T., & Dixon, M. R. (2012). Behavioral treatment for pathological gambling in persons with acquired brain injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45, 485–495.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2012.45-485.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & McCord, B. E. (2003). Functional analysis of problem behavior: a review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 147–185.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2003.36-147.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60.Google Scholar
  15. Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 197–209.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27-197.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Iwata, B. A., Pace, G. M., Kalsher, M. J., Cowdery, G. E., & Cataldo, M. F. (1990). Experimental analysis and extinction of self-injurious escape behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 11–27.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1990.23-11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson, E. E., Hamer, R. M., & Nora, R. M. (1998). The lie/bet questionnaire for screening pathological gamblers: a follow-up study. Psychological Reports, 83, 1219–1224.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kim, S. W., Grant, J. E., Adson, D. E., & Young, C. S. (2001). Double-blind naltrexone and placebo comparison study in the treatment of pathological gambling. Biological Psychiatry, 49, 914–921.Google Scholar
  19. Ladouceur, R., Lachance, S., & Fournier, P. M. (2009). Is control a viable goal in the treatment of pathological gambling? Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47, 189–197.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2008.11.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Lesieur, H. R., & Blume, S. B. (1987). The south oaks gambling screen (the SOGS): a new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1184–1188.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Miller, J. C., Meier, E., Muchlenkamp, J., & Weatherly, J. N. (2009). Testing the construct validity of Dixon and Johnson’s (2007) Gambling Functional Assessment. Behavior Modification, 33, 156–174.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445508320927.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99, 323–338.  https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shaffer, H. J., & Kidman, R. (Eds.). (2003). Shifting perspectives on gambling and addiction. Journal of Gambling Studies, 19, 1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021267028254.
  24. Stinchfield, R. (2002). Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy of the south oaks gambling screen (SOGS). Addictive Behaviors, 27, 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4603(00)00158-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Stinchfield, R., & Winters, K. C. (2001). Outcome of Minnesota’s gambling treatment programs. Journal of Gambling Studies, 17, 217–245.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012268322509.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  27. Weatherly, J. N., Aoyama, K., Terrell, H. K., & Berry, J. C. (2014). Comparing the Japanese version of the Gambling Functional Assessment–Revised to an American sample. Journal of Gambling Issues, 29, 1–20.  https://doi.org/10.4309/jgi.2014.29.4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Weatherly, J. N., Dymond, S., Samuels, L., Austin, J. L., & Terrell, H. K. (2014). Validating the gambling functional assessment—revised in a United Kingdom sample. Journal of Gambling Studies, 30, 335–347.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-012-9354-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Weatherly, J. N., Terrell, H. K., & Bogenreif, D. (2013). Testing the internal consistency and construct validity of the gambling functional assessment–revised in a general-population sample. Modern Behavioral Science, 1, 37–48.Google Scholar
  30. Weatherly, J. N., Miller, J. C., Montes, K. S., & Rost, C. (2012). Assessing the reliability of the gambling functional assessment: revised. Journal of Gambling Studies, 28, 217–223.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-011-9275-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Weatherly, J. N., Miller, J. C., & Terrell, H. K. (2011). Testing the construct validity of the gambling functional assessment–revised. Behavior Modification, 35, 553–569.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark R. Dixon
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alyssa N. Wilson
    • 2
  • Jordan Belisle
    • 3
  • James B. Schreiber
    • 4
  1. 1.Behavior Analysis and Therapy Program, Rehabilitation InstituteSouthern Illiniois UniversityCarbondaleUSA
  2. 2.St. Louis UniversitySt LouisUSA
  3. 3.Southern Illiniois UniversityCarbondaleUSA
  4. 4.Duquesne UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations