The Development of a Multi-dimensional Gambling Accessibility Scale
- 254 Downloads
The aim of the current study was to develop a scale of gambling accessibility that would have theoretical significance to exposure theory and also serve to highlight the accessibility risk factors for problem gambling. Scale items were generated from the Productivity Commission’s (Australia’s Gambling Industries: Report No. 10. AusInfo, Canberra, 1999) recommendations and tested on a group with high exposure to the gambling environment. In total, 533 gaming venue employees (aged 18–70 years; 67% women) completed a questionnaire that included six 13-item scales measuring accessibility across a range of gambling forms (gaming machines, keno, casino table games, lotteries, horse and dog racing, sports betting). Also included in the questionnaire was the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) along with measures of gambling frequency and expenditure. Principal components analysis indicated that a common three factor structure existed across all forms of gambling and these were labelled social accessibility, physical accessibility and cognitive accessibility. However, convergent validity was not demonstrated with inconsistent correlations between each subscale and measures of gambling behaviour. These results are discussed in light of exposure theory and the further development of a multi-dimensional measure of gambling accessibility.
KeywordsGambling access Exposure Staff gambling Problem gambling
Financial assistance for this research was provided by the State of Victoria through the Department of Justice.
- Abbott, M. W. (2001). What do we know about gambling and problem gambling in New Zealand? Report number seven of the New Zealand gaming survey. Wellington: The Department of Internal Affairs.Google Scholar
- Abbott, M. (2006). Do EGMs and problem gambling go together like a horse and carriage? Gambling Research, 18(1), 7–38.Google Scholar
- Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006a). Catalogue No. 8684.0: Gambling services. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.Google Scholar
- Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006b). Catalogue No. 8687.0: Clubs, pubs, taverns and bars. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.Google Scholar
- Centre for Gambling Research. (2004). GRP report No. 6: 2003 Victorian longitudinal community attitudes survey. Melbourne: Gambling Research Panel.Google Scholar
- Delfabbro, P. H. (2002). The distribution of electronic gaming machines (EGMs) and gambling related harm in metropolitan Adelaide. Report commissioned by the Independent Gambling Authority of South Australia.Google Scholar
- Delfabbro, P. H. (2008). Australasian gambling review (3rd ed.). Adelaide: Independent Gambling Authority.Google Scholar
- Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian problem gambling index: Final report. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.Google Scholar
- Field, A. P. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Hing, N., & Breen, H. (2006). Workplace factors that encourage and discourage gambling amongst gaming venue employees: An employees’ perspective. Gambling Research, 18, 7–32.Google Scholar
- Hing, N., & Breen, H. (2008a). How working in a gaming venue can lead to problem gambling. The experiences of six gaming venue staff. Journal of Gambling Issues, 21, 11–29.Google Scholar
- Hing, N., & Breen, H. (2008b). Gambling problems among gambling venue employees. A preliminary survey. The Journal of Occupational Health and Safety, 24, 329–341.Google Scholar
- Ladouceur, R., Jacques, C., Ferland, F., & Giroux, I. (1999). Prevalence of problem gambling: A replication study 7 years later. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 44, 802–804.Google Scholar
- Livingstone, C. (2001). Regional caps on poker machine numbers: Impacts, potential impacts and issues. Discussion paper prepared for the City of Darebin. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Primary Care.Google Scholar
- Marshall, D., McMillen, J., Niemeyer, S., & Doran, B. (2004). Gaming machine accessibility and use in suburban Canberra: A detailed analysis of the Tuggeranong Valley. Canberra: ANU Centre for Gambling Research.Google Scholar
- Moore, S., Thomas, A., Kyrios, M., Bates, G., & Meredyth, D. (2008, December). Gambling access preferences of at-risk and social gamblers. Paper presented at National Association for Gambling Studies Annual Conference. Adelaide.Google Scholar
- Perese, L., Bellringer, M., & Abbott, M. (2005). Literature review to inform social marketing objectives and approaches and behaviour change indicators to prevent and minimize gambling harm. Wellington: Gambling Research Centre, Auckland University of Technology.Google Scholar
- Productivity Commission. (1999). Australia’s gambling industries: Report No. 10. Canberra: AusInfo.Google Scholar
- Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Shaffer, H. J., La Brie, R. A., La Plante, D. A., Nelson, S. E., & Stanton, (2004b). The road less travelled: Moving from distribution to determinants in the study of gambling epidemiology. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 49, 504–516.Google Scholar
- Thomas, A. C., Sullivan, G. B., & Allen, F. C. L. (2008). A theoretical model of EGM problem gambling: More than a cognitive escape. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. doi: 10.1007/s11469-008-9152-6.
- Volberg, R. (2003). Has there been a “feminization” of gambling and problem gambling in the United States? Electronic Journal of Gambling Issues. http://www.camh.net/egambling/issue8/feature/index.html.