Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 129–143 | Cite as

Gambling Accessibility: A Scale to Measure Gambler Preferences

  • Susan M. Moore
  • Anna C. Thomas
  • Michael Kyrios
  • Glen Bates
  • Denise Meredyth
Original Paper


Geographic closeness of gambling venues is not the only aspect of accessibility likely to affect gambling frequency. Perceived accessibility of gambling venues may include other features such as convenience (e.g., opening hours) or “atmosphere”. The aim of the current study was to develop a multidimensional measure of gamblers’ perceptions of accessibility, and present evidence for its reliability and validity. We surveyed 303 gamblers with 43 items developed to measure different dimensions of accessibility. Factor analysis of the items produced a two factor solution. The first, Social Accessibility related to the level at which gambling venues were enjoyed because they were social places, provided varying entertainment options and had a pleasant atmosphere. The second factor, Accessible Retreat related to the degree to which venues were enjoyed because they were geographically and temporally available and provided a familiar and anonymous retreat with few interruptions or distractions. Both factors, developed as reliable subscales of the new Gambling Access Scale, demonstrated construct validity through their correlations with other gambling-related measures. Social Accessibility was moderately related to gambling frequency and amount spent, but not to problem gambling, while, as hypothesised, Accessible Retreat was associated with stronger urges to gamble and gambling problems.


Gambling accessibility Gambling venues Problem gambling 



Our thanks are due to the Victorian Government, Office of Gaming and Racing, Department of Justice (Australia), who funded this study as part of a wider research project. We would also like to thank the research assistants who worked on the project: James Williams and Angelique Brown


  1. Abbott, M. (2006). Do EGMs and problem gambling go together like a horse and carriage? Journal of the National Association for Gambling studies (Australia), 18(1), 7–38.Google Scholar
  2. Blaszczynski, A., & Nower, L. (2002). A pathways model of problem and pathological gambling. Addiction, 97, 487–499.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blaszczynski, A., Sharpe, L., & Walker, M. (2001). The assessment of the impact of the reconfiguration on electronic gaming machines as harm minimisation strategies for problem gambling. Sydney: University of Sydney Gambling Research Unit.Google Scholar
  4. Breen, R. B., & Zimmerman, M. (2002). Rapid onset of pathological gambling in machine gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 18(1), 31–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burke, T., Pinnegar, S., Phibbs, P., Neske, C., Gabriel, M., Ralston, L., et al. (2007). Experiencing the housing affordability problem: Blocked aspirations, trade-offs and financial hardships National Research Venture 3: Housing affordability for lower income Australians. Hawthorn: The Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Swinburne-Monash Research Centre.Google Scholar
  6. Centre for Gambling Research. (2004). Validation of the Victorian gambling screen. Melbourne: Gambling Research Panel.Google Scholar
  7. Clarke, D., Tse, S., Abbott, M., Townsend, S., Kingi, P., & Manaia, W. (2006). Key indicators of the transition from social to problem gambling. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 4, 247–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. KPMG Consulting. (2000). Longitudinal community impact study: 1999 Report. Melbourne: Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority.Google Scholar
  9. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). California: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Cox, B. J., Yu, N., Afifi, T., & Ladouceur, R. (2005). A national survey of gambling problems in Canada. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 50(4), 213–217.Google Scholar
  11. Cresswell, J. W. (2009). Research design qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. California: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Delfabbro, P. (2008). Evaluating the effectiveness of a limited reduction in electronic gaming machine availability on perceived gambling behaviour and objective expenditure. International Gambling Studies, 8(2), 151–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dickerson, M. (1996). Why ‘slots’ equals ‘grind’ in any language: the cross-cultural popularity of the slot machine. In J. McMillen (Ed.), Gambling cultures: Studies in history and interpretation (pp. 152–166). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Dickerson, M., Haw, J., & Shepherd, L. (2003). The psychological causes of problem gambling: A longitudinal study of at risk recreational EGM gamblers. Sydney: University of Western Sydney.Google Scholar
  15. Eltridge, F., & Delfabbro, P. (2006). Evaluation of 2004 legislative amendments to reduce EGMs: Research report. Adelaide: Independent Gambling Authority.Google Scholar
  16. Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. J. (2001). The Canadian problem gambling index: Final report.
  17. Griffiths, M., & Wood, R. T. A. (2000). Risk factors in adolescence: The case of gambling, videogame playing, and the internet. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16(2/3), 199–225.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hing, N., & Haw, J. (2009). The development of a multi-dimensional gambling accessibility scale. Journal of Gambling Studies (online first).Google Scholar
  19. Ladouceur, R. (2004). Perceptions among pathological and nonpathological gamblers. Addictive Behaviours, 29(3), 555–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ladouceur, R., Jacques, C., Ferland, F., & Giroux, I. (1999). Prevalence of problem gambling: A replication study 7 years later. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 44(8), 802–804.Google Scholar
  21. Marshall, D. (2005). The gambling environment and gambling behaviour: Evidence from Richmond-Tweed, Australia. International Gambling Studies, 5(1), 63–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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: Centre for Gambling Research, Australian National University.
  23. McMillen, J., & Doran, B. (2006). Problem gambling and gaming machine density: Socio-spatial analysis of three Victorian localities. International Gambling Studies, 6(1), 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morrison, L. (2004). Pokie gambling and Māori women: Friend or foe? Journal of Gambling Issues, 12. Retrieved from
  25. Orford, J. (2005). Disabling the public interest: Gambling strategies and policies for Britain. Addiction, 100, 1219–1225.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Petry, N. (2003). A comparison of treatment-seeking pathological gamblers based on preferred gambling activity. Addiction, 98, 645–655.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Productivity Commission. (1999). Australia’s gambling industries: Inquiry report no. 10. Canberra: Ausinfo.Google Scholar
  28. Przezdziecki, A. (1999). Prevalence of problem gambling: An unexpected finding in a study of sex-role orientation in female university students. National Association for Gambling Studies Journal, 11(1), 5–11.Google Scholar
  29. Raylu, N., & Oei, T. (2004). The gambling urge scale: Development, confirmatory factor validation, and psychometric properties. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18(2), 100–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Raylu, N., & Tian, P. S. O. (2002). Pathological gambling: A comprehensive review. Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 1009–1061.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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. Retrieved from Scholar
  32. Shaffer, H. J., Hall, M. N., & Vander Bilt, J. (1999). Estimating the prevalence of disordered gambling in the United States and Canada: A research synthesis. American Journal of Public Health, 89(9), 1369–1376.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shaffer, H. J., LaBrie, R. A., LaPlante, D., Nelson, S. E., & Stanton, A. L. (2004a). The road less travelled: Moving from distribution to determinents in the study of gambling epidemiology. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 49(8), 504–516.Google Scholar
  34. Shaffer, H. J., LaPlante, D. A., LaBrie, R. A., Kidman, R. C., Donato, A. N., & Stanton, M. V. (2004b). Toward a syndrome model of addiction: Multiple expressions, common etiology. Harvard Review Psychiatry, 12, 367–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith, G. J., & Wynne, H. J. (2002). Measuring gambling and problem gambling in Alberta using the Canadian Problem Gambling Index (CPGI). Final report. Alberta, Canada: Alberta Gaming Research Institute.Google Scholar
  36. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson, Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  37. Thomas, A. C., Allen, F., & Phillips, J. (2009a). Electronic gaming machine gambling: Measuring motivation. Journal of Gambling Studies, 343–355.Google Scholar
  38. Thomas, A.C., Bates, G., Moore, S., Kyrios, M., Meredyth, D., & Jessop, G. (2009b). Gambling and the multidimensionality of accessibility: More than just proximity to venues. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. doi: 10.1007/s11469-009-9256-7 (online first).
  39. Thomas, A. C., Sullivan, G. B., & Allen, F. C. L. (2009c). A theoretical model of EGM problem gambling: More than a cognitive escape. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 7, 97–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Welte, J. W., Barnes, G. M., Wieczorek, W. F., Tidwell, M. O., & Hoffman, J. H. (2007). Type of gambling and availability as risk factors for problem gambling: A tobit regression analysis by age and gender. International Gambling Studies, 7(2), 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Welte, J. W., Wieczorek, W., Barnes, G., Tidwell, M., & Hoffman, J. (2004). The relationship of ecological and geographical factors to gambling behaviour and pathology. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20(4), 405–423.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan M. Moore
    • 1
  • Anna C. Thomas
    • 1
  • Michael Kyrios
    • 1
  • Glen Bates
    • 1
  • Denise Meredyth
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Life and Social SciencesSwinburne University of TechnologyHawthornAustralia

Personalised recommendations