Advertisement

Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 15–27 | Cite as

Testing NLCLiP: Validation of Estimates of Rates of Non-problematic and Problematic Gambling in a Sample of British Schoolchildren

  • John Lepper
  • Ben Haden
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper reports on the results of applying a short screen for problem gambling, called NLCLiP, to a national sample of 8,958 British schoolchildren under the age of 16. It shows that, in its current form, NLCLiP can, with reasonable accuracy, be employed to estimate the rate of prevalence of problematic and non-problematic (i.e. gambling which does not lead to significant endorsement of DSM-IV-MR-J criteria) in a general population of children. However, NLCLiP does not reliably discriminate between problem and at risk gamblers. Moreover, it does not provide a reliable basis to identify cases of problem gambling. The main conclusion reached is that NLCLiP is a potentially useful tool for regulators to assess changes in the prevalence of problematic and non-problematic gambling among children over time.

Keywords

Problem gambling Short screen Children 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Rachel Volberg for providing access to NODS-CLiP, and, together with Rebecca Cassidy, Jeffrey Derevensky, Deborah Hawkes, Alun Jackson, Corinne May-Chahal and Barry Tolchard, members of the Gambling Research Network, attendees at a workshop at the EASG Conference in Nova Gorica in 2008 and the “Calculated Risks: new perspectives on gambling” conference at Goldsmiths, London in 2009 and anonymous referees for many valuable comments and criticisms on earlier versions of this paper. We also thank Julia Pye for computation assistance. Nevertheless, the views expressed are ours alone. They cannot be construed as being endorsed by, or representative of, the views or the opinions of the National Lottery Commission, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport or the UK Government.

References

  1. Ashworth, J., & Howat, N. (2000). Under 16 s and the National Lottery: Tracking survey July 2000. London: National Lottery Commission.Google Scholar
  2. Ashworth, J., & Nicola, D. (2000). Under 16 s and the National Lottery. London: National Lottery Commission.Google Scholar
  3. Becona, E., & Gestal, C. (1996). Pathological gambling among 2nd-graders at “EGB”. Psicothema, 1, 13–23.Google Scholar
  4. Becona, E., Miguez, M., del Carmen, V., & Fernando, L. (2001). Gambling problems among upper-secondary school students. Psicothema, 13(4), 551–556.Google Scholar
  5. Borgers, N., Hox, J., & Sikkel, D. (2004). Response effects in surveys on children and adolescents: The effect of number of response options, negative wording and neutral mid-point. Quality & Quantity, 30, 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Delfabbro, P., Grabosky, P., & Lahn, J. (2005). Adolescent gambling in the ACT. Canberra: ACT Gambling and Racing Commission.Google Scholar
  7. Delfabbro, P., & Thrupp, L. (2003). The social determinants of youth gambling in South Australian adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 313–330.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Derevensky, J., Gupta, R., & Winters, K. (2003). Prevalence rates of youth gambling problems: Are the current rates inflated? Journal of Gambling Studies, 19(4), 405–425.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DSM-IV. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
  10. Fisher, S. (1992). Measuring pathological gambling in children: The case of fruit machines in the UK. Journal of Gambling Studies, 8(3), 263–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fisher, S. (1998). Gambling and problem gambling among young people in England and Wales. London: National Lottery Commission.Google Scholar
  12. Fisher, S. (1999). A prevalence study of gambling and Problem gambling among British adolescents. Addiction Research and Theory, 7(6), 505–538.Google Scholar
  13. Fisher, S. (2000). Developing the DSM-IV criteria to identify adolescent problem gambling in non-clinical populations. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16(2–3), 253–273.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gerstein, D. R., Volberg, R. A., Murphy, S., & Toce, M. (1999). Gambling impact and behaviour study: Report to the Gambling Impact Study Commission. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  15. Gotestam, K. G., Johansson, A., Wengel, H. G., & Simonsen, I. E. (2004). Validation of the lie/bet screen for pathological gambling on two normal population data sets. Psychological Reports, 95(3 Part 1), 1009–1013.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Huang, J.-H., & Boyer, R. (2007). Epidemiology of youth gambling problems in Canada: A National Prevalence Study. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 52(10), 657–665.Google Scholar
  17. Ipsos-MORI. (2008). Young person omnibus (Wave 14): A Research Study among 11–16 years old on behalf of The National Lottery Commission. London: National Lottery Commission.Google Scholar
  18. Johansson, A., & Gotestam, K. (2003). Gambling and problematic gambling with money among Norwegian youth 12–18 years. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 57(4), 317–321.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson, E. E., Hamer, R., Nora, R. M., Eistenstein, N., & Englehart, C. (1988). The lie/bet questionnaire for screening pathological gamblers. Psychological Reports, 80, 83–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaminer, V., & Petry, N. M. (1999). Gambling behaviour in youths: Why we should be concerned. Psychiatric Services, 50(2), 167–168.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Langhinrichson-Rohling, J., Rohling, M. L., Rohde, P., & Seeley, J. R. (2004). The SOGS-RA vs. the MAGS 7: Prevalence estimates and classification congruence. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20(3), 259–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lupu, V., Onaca, E., & Lupu, E. (2002). The prevalence of pathological gambling in Romanian teenagers. Minerva Medica, October, 93(5), 413–418.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. McCarty, C., House, M., Harman, J., & Richards, S. (2006). Effort in phone survey response rates: The effects of vendor and client-controlled factors. Field Methods, 18(2), 172–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. NLC. (2006). Under 16 s and the National Lottery: Final report. London: National Lottery Commission.Google Scholar
  25. NLC. (2009). British survey of children, the National Lottery and Gambling 2008–09: Report of a quantitative survey. London: National Lottery Commission.Google Scholar
  26. Olason, D. T., Skarphredinsson, G., Jonsdottir, J. E., Mikaelsson, M., & Gretarsson, S. J. (2006). Prevalence estimates of gambling and problem gambling among 13- to 15-year-old adolescents in Reykjavik: An examination of correlates of problem gambling and different accessibility to electronic gambling machines in Iceland. Journal of Gambling Issues, 18, 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rainone, G., & Gallati, R. J. (2007). Gambling behaviors and problem gambling among adolescents in New York state: Initial findings from the 2006 OASAS school survey. New York: New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services.Google Scholar
  28. Rossow, I., & Molde, H. (2006). Chasing the criteria: Comparing SOGS-RA and the Lie/Bet screen to assess prevalence of problem gambling and ‘at risk’ gambling among adolescents. Journal of Gambling Issues, 18, 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shaffer, H. J., LaBrie, R., Scanlan, K. M., & Cummings, T. N. (1994). Pathological gambling among adolescents: Massachusetts Gambling Screen (MAGS). Journal of Gambling Studies, 10(4), 339–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shapira, N. A., Ferguson, M. A., Frost-Pineda, K., & Gold, M. S. (2002). Gambling and problem gambling prevalence among adolescents in Florida: A report to the Florida Council on Compulsive Gambling Inc. Gainsville: Division of Addiction Medicine, University of Florida.Google Scholar
  31. Social Science Research Centre of the University of Hong Kong (SSRCUHK). (2005). Study on Hong Kong People’s participation in gambling activities. Hong Kong: Home Affairs Bureau.Google Scholar
  32. Sullivan, S. (2007). Don’t let and opportunity go by: Validation of the EIGHT gambling screen. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 5(4), 381–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thomas, S. A., & Jackson, A. C. (2008). Risk and protective factors in problem gambling: Report to department of justice. Victoria: Problem Gambling Research and Treatment Centre.Google Scholar
  34. Toce Gerstein, M., & Volberg, R. A. (2003). The NODS-CLiP: A new brief screen for pathological gambling, presentation to 17th National Conference on Problem Gambling, June 19.Google Scholar
  35. Toce-Gerstein, M., Gerstein, D. R., & Volberg, R. A. (2009). The NODS-CLiP: A rapid screen for adult pathological and problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25(4), 541–555.Google Scholar
  36. Villa, A., Bercona, E., & Vazquez, F. L. (1997). Pathological gambling on fruit machines among school pupils in Gijon. Addiciones, 9(2), 195–208.Google Scholar
  37. Wardle, H., Sprotson, K., Orford, J., Erens, B., Griffiths, M., Constantine, R., et al. (2007). British gambling prevalence survey 2007. London: National Centre for Social Research.Google Scholar
  38. Watson, N., & Wooden, M. (2006). Identifying factors affecting longitudinal survey response (pp. 1–22). New York: Wiley Online Library.Google Scholar
  39. Westphal, J. R., Rush, J. A., Stevens, L., & Johnson, L. J. (2000). Gambling behavior of Louisiana students in grades 6 through 12. Psychiatric Services, 51(1), 96–99.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Wiebe, J. (1999). Manitoba youth gambling prevalence survey: Summary of findings. Manitoba: Addictions Foundation of Manitoba.Google Scholar
  41. Wilber, M. K., & Potenza, M. N. (2008). Adolescent gambling: Research and clinical implications. Psychiatry MMC. Available at http://www.psychiatrymmc.com/displayArticle.cfm?articleID=article233.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department for CultureMedia and SportLondonUK
  2. 2.Institute of Advanced StudiesLancaster UniversityLancasterUK
  3. 3.National Lottery CommissionBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations