Validation of the Short Gambling Harm Screen (SGHS): A Tool for Assessment of Harms from Gambling
- 709 Downloads
It is common for jurisdictions tasked with minimising gambling-related harm to conduct problem gambling prevalence studies for the purpose of monitoring the impact of gambling on the community. However, given that both public health theory and empirical findings suggest that harms can occur without individuals satisfying clinical criteria of addiction, there is a recognized conceptual disconnect between the prevalence of clinical problem gamblers, and aggregate harm to the community. Starting with an initial item pool of 72 specific harms caused by problematic gambling, our aim was to develop a short gambling harms scale (SGHS) to screen for the presence and degree of harm caused by gambling. An Internet panel of 1524 individuals who had gambled in the last year completed a 72-item checklist, along with the Personal Wellbeing Index, the PGSI, and other measures. We selected 10 items for the SGHS, with the goals of maximising sensitivity and construct coverage. Psychometric analysis suggests very strong reliability, homogeneity and unidimensionality. Non-zero responses on the SGHS were associated with a large decrease in personal wellbeing, with wellbeing decreasing linearly with the number of harms indicated. We conclude that weighted SGHS scores can be aggregated at the population level to yield a sensitive and valid measure of gambling harm.
KeywordsGambling-related harm Population screen Validation Public health
Author Matthew Browne has received grants from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, the New Zealand Ministry of Health and Gambling Research Australia. Author Matthew J. Rockloff has received research grants from the Queensland Treasury, the Victorian Treasury, the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, the New Zealand Ministry of Health and Gambling Research Australia. Author Belinda C. Goodwin has received a grant from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation.
This study was funded under a contract to the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were approved by the institutional ethics committee and 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.
- Australian Unity. (2015). What makes us happy? Fifteen years of the Australian Unity Wellbeing Index. Australian Unity Limited, Melbourne, Victoria. Downloaded from http://www.australianunity.com.au/about-us/wellbeing/auwbi.
- Browne, M., Greer, N., Rawat, V., & Rockloff, M. J. A population-level metric for gambling-related harm. International Gambling Studies (in press a).Google Scholar
- Browne, M., Langham, E., Rawat, V., Greer, N., Li, E., Rose, J., et al. (2016). Assessing gambling-related harm in Victoria: A public health perspective. Melbourne: Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation.Google Scholar
- Browne, M., Rawat, V., Greer, N., Langham, E., Rockloff, M. R. & Hanley, C. What is the harm? Applying a public health methodology to measure the impact of gambling problems and harm on quality of life. Journal of Gambling Issues (in press b).Google Scholar
- Cummins, R. A. (1997). Comprehensive quality of life scale—Adult, manual (5th ed., pp. 1–51). Melbourne: School of Psychology, Deakin University (ISBN 0 7300 2804 6).Google Scholar
- Dickerson, M., McMillen, J., Hallebone, E., & Volberg, R. (1997). Definition and incidence of problem gambling, including the socio-economic distribution of gamblers. Melbourne: Victorian Casino.Google Scholar
- Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian problem gambling index: Final report. Ontario: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.Google Scholar
- Ferris, J., Wynne, H., & Single, E. (1998). Measuring problem gambling in Canada. Draft final report for the inter-provincial task force on problem gambling. Ontario: Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse.Google Scholar
- Gadermann, A. M., Guhn, M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2012). Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert-type and ordinal item response data: A conceptual, empirical, and practical guide. Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 17(3), 1–13.Google Scholar
- McCready, J., & Adlaf, E. (2006). Performance and enhancement of the Canadian problem gambling index: Report and recommendations Guelph. Ontario: Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre.Google Scholar
- Shaffer, H. (2003). A public health perspective on gambling: The four principles. AGA Responsible Gaming Lecture Series, 2(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
- Shaffer, H. J., & Kidman, R. (2004). Gambling and the public health. In J. E. Grant & M. N. Potenza (Eds.), Pathological gambling: A clinical guide to treatment (Vol. 16, pp. 3–23). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
- Uebersax, J. S. (2015). The tetrachoric and polychoric correlation coefficients. Statistical Methods for Rater Agreement. Web, updated 8-9-205. Accessed 23-11-2016. http://www.john-uebersax.com/stat/tetra.htm.
- Walker, B. (1992). The psychology of gambling. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
- Walker, S. E., Abbott, M. W., & Gray, R. J. (2012). Knowledge, views and experiences of gambling and gambling-related harms in different ethnic and socio-economic groups in New Zealand. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 36(2), 153–159. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-6405.2012.00847.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Young, S. (2007). Following the money trail: Government advertising, the missing millions and the unknown effects. Public Policy, 2(2), 104–118.Google Scholar