Advertisement

Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 499–512 | Cite as

Validation of the Short Gambling Harm Screen (SGHS): A Tool for Assessment of Harms from Gambling

  • Matthew BrowneEmail author
  • Belinda C. Goodwin
  • Matthew J. Rockloff
Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Gambling-related harm Population screen Validation Public health 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

Funding

This study was funded under a contract to the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

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.

Supplementary material

10899_2017_9698_MOESM1_ESM.docx (20 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 20 kb)
10899_2017_9698_MOESM2_ESM.docx (17 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 17 kb)

References

  1. Adams, P. J., Raeburn, J., & de Silva, K. (2009). A question of balance: Prioritizing public health responses to harm from gambling. Addiction, 104(5), 688–691.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.
  3. Blaszczynski, A., & Nower, L. (2002). A pathways model of problem and pathological gambling. Addiction, 97(5), 487–499.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Cummins, R. A., Eckersley, R., Pallant, J., van Vugt, J., & Misajon, R. (2003). Developing a national index of subjective wellbeing: The Australian unity wellbeing index. Social Indicators Research, 64(2), 159–190. doi: 10.1023/A:1024704320683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Currie, S. R., Hodgins, D. C., & Casey, D. M. (2013). Validity of the problem gambling severity index interpretive categories. Journal of Gambling Studies, 29(2), 311–327.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Dowling, N. A., Suomi, A., Jackson, A. C., & Lavis, T. (2016). Problem gambling family impacts: development of the problem gambling family impact scale. Journal of Gambling Studies, 32(3), 935–955.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian problem gambling index: Final report. Ontario: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. Gebauer, L., LaBrie, R., & Shaffer, H. J. (2010). Optimizing DSM-IV-TR classification accuracy: A brief biosocial screen for detecting current gambling disorders among gamblers in the general household population. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55(2), 82–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Götestam, K. G., Johansson, A., Wenzel, 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), 1009–1013. doi: 10.2466/pr0.95.3.1009-1013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Griffiths, Mark. (2005). A ‘components’ model of addiction within a biopsychosocial framework. Journal of Substance Use, 10(4), 191–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holtgraves, T. (2008). Evaluating the problem gambling severity index. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25(1), 105–120. doi: 10.1007/s10899-008-9107-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Korn, D., Gibbins, R., & Azmier, J. (2003). Framing public policy towards a public health paradigm for gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 19(2), 235–256.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Korn, D. A., & Shaffer, H. J. (1999). Gambling and the health of the public: Adopting a public health perspective. Journal of Gambling Studies, 15(4), 289–365.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Langham, E., Thorne, H., Browne, M., Donaldson, P., Rose, J., & Rockloff, M. J. (2016). Understanding gambling related harm: a proposed definition, conceptual framework, and taxonomy of harms. BMC Public Health. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-2747-0.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Lau, A. L., Cummins, R. A., & McPherson, W. (2005). An investigation into the cross-cultural equivalence of the personal wellbeing index. Social Indicators Research, 72(3), 403–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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(9), 1184–1188.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Li, E., Browne, M., Rawat, V., Langham, E., & Rockloff, M. R. (2016). Breaking bad: Comparing gambling harms among gamblers and affected others. Journal of Gambling Studies. doi: 10.1007/s10899-016-9632-8.Google Scholar
  27. Markham, F., & Young, M. (2016). Commentary on Dowling et al. (2016): Is it time to stop conducting problem gambling prevalence studies? Addiction, 111(3), 436–437.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Rockloff, M. J. (2011). Validation of the consumption screen for problem gambling (CSPG). Journal of Gambling Studies, 28, 207–216. doi: 10.1007/s10899-011-9260-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shaffer, H. (2003). A public health perspective on gambling: The four principles. AGA Responsible Gaming Lecture Series, 2(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Shaffer, H. J., & Korn, D. A. (2002). Gambling and related mental disorders: A public health analysis. Annual Review of Public Health, 23, 171–212.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Svetieva, E., & Walker, M. (2008). Inconsistency between concept and measurement: The Canadian Problem Gambling Index (CPGI). Journal of Gambling Issues, 22, 157–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.
  35. Walker, M. B. (1989). Some problems with the concept of “gambling addiction”: Should theories of addiction be generalized to include excessive gambling? Journal of Gambling Studies, 5(3), 179–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Walker, B. (1992). The psychology of gambling. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Wickwire, E. M., Burke, R. S., Brown, S. A., Parker, J. D., & May, R. K. (2008). Psychometric evaluation of the national opinion research center DSM-IV screen for gambling problems (NODS). American Journal on Addictions., 17(5), 392–395.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Young, S. (2007). Following the money trail: Government advertising, the missing millions and the unknown effects. Public Policy, 2(2), 104–118.Google Scholar
  40. Young, M. (2013). Statistics, scapegoats and social control: A critique of pathological gambling prevalence research. Addiction Research and Theory, 21(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zinbarg, R. E., Revelle, W., Yovel, I., & Li, W. (2005). Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and McDonald’s ω H: Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika. doi: 10.1007/s11336-003-0974-7.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Human Health and Social SciencesCentral Queensland UniversityBundabergAustralia
  2. 2.Institute for Resilient RegionsUniversity of Southern QueenslandSpringfield CentralAustralia

Personalised recommendations