Advertisement

Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 217–223 | Cite as

Assessing the Reliability of the Gambling Functional Assessment: Revised

  • Jeffrey N. Weatherly
  • Joseph C. Miller
  • Kevin S. Montes
  • Chase Rost
Original Paper

Abstract

Dixon and Johnson (Anal Gambl Behav 1: 44–49, 2007) proposed the Gambling Functional Assessment as a tool to identify the consequences maintaining the respondent’s gambling behavior, but subsequent studies on its psychometric properties suggested that it could use improvement. The present study investigated the internal consistency of the Gambling Functional Assessment—Revised using the responses of 1,060 undergraduate students. Temporal reliability was assessed by a second administration of the measure four (n = 87) or twelve (n = 98) weeks after the first administration. Temporal reliability was also compared to the South Oaks Gambling Screen (Lesieur and Blume in Am J Psychiatry 144: 1184–1188, 1987), which was also administered at both time points. Internal consistency measures were good to excellent, even when potential non-gamblers were excluded from the analyses. Temporal stability was also very good, with the possible exception of the consequence of “escape” at 12 weeks. The Gambling Functional Assessment—Revised represents a potentially useful tool for researchers and therapists interested in why respondents are gambling.

Keywords

Gambling Functional Assessment—Revised Internal consistency Test–retest reliability University students 

References

  1. Abbott, M. W., & Volberg, R. A. (2006). The measurement of adult problem and pathological gambling. International Gambling Studies, 6, 175–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Durand, V. M., & Crimmins, D. B. (1988). Identifying the variables maintaining self-injurious behavior. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 18, 99–117.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ferris, J., Wynne, H., & Single, E. (1999). Measuring problem gambling in Canada: Draft final report. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.Google Scholar
  5. Gambino, B. (1997). The correction for bias in prevalence estimation with screening tests. Journal of Gambling Studies, 13, 343–351.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Groth-Marnat, G. (2003). Handbook of psychological assessment (4th ed.). NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Ladouceur, R., Bouchard, C., Rhéaume, N., Ferland, F., Leblond, J., & Walker, M. (2000). Is the SOGS an accurate measure of pathological gambling among children, adolescent and adults? Journal of Gambling Studies, 16, 1–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lesieur, H. R., & Blume, S. B. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1184–1188.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Miller, J. C., Dixon, M. R., Parker, A., Kulland, A. M., & Weatherly, J. N. (2010). Concurrent validity of the Gambling Functional Assessment (GFA): Correlations with the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) and indicators of diagnostic efficiency. Analysis of Gambling Behavior, 4, 61–75.Google Scholar
  10. Miller, J. C., Meier, E., Muehlenkamp, J., & Weatherly, J. N. (2009a). Testing the validity of Dixon & Johnson’s (2007) gambling functional assessment. Behavior Modification, 33, 156–174.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Miller, J. C., Meier, E., & Weatherly, J. N. (2009b). Assessing the reliability of the Gambling Functional Assessment. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25, 121–129.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Millon, T., Davis, R., & Millon, C. (1997). Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory, third edition manual (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Dicandrien Inc.Google Scholar
  13. Retzlaff, P. D. (1995). Tactical psychotherapy of the personality disorders: An MCMI-III based approach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  14. Shaffer, H., Hall, M., & Vander Bilt, J. (1999). Estimating the prevalence of disordered gambling behaviors in the United States and Canada: A research synthesis. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 1369–1376.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Stinchfield, R. (2002). Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy of the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS). Addictive Behaviors, 27, 1–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stinchfield, R. (2003). Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy of a measure of DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for pathological gambling. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 180–182.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Weatherly, J. N., Miller, J. C., & Terrell, H. K. (in press). Testing the construct validity of the Gambling Functional Assessment—Revised (GFA-R). Behavior Modification.Google Scholar
  18. Weatherly, J. N., Montes, K. S., & Christopher, D. M. (2010). Investigating the relationship between escape and gambling behavior. Analysis of Gambling Behavior, 4, 79–87.Google Scholar
  19. Young, M., & Stevens, M. (2008). SOGS and CGPI: Parallel comparison on a diverse population. Journal of Gambling Studies, 24, 337–356.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey N. Weatherly
    • 1
  • Joseph C. Miller
    • 1
  • Kevin S. Montes
    • 1
  • Chase Rost
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of North DakotaGrand ForksUSA

Personalised recommendations