Advertisement

Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 343–351 | Cite as

The Correction for Bias in Prevalence Estimation with Screening Tests

  • Blase Gambino
Article

Abstract

The concern that the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) and other screening tests have a relatively high rate of false positive errors which results in overestimation of the true prevalence in general population studies is shown to be unfounded. False positives are seen to be a necessary but not sufficient condition for overestimation. It is demonstrated that the proper research question is whether the sample prevalence estimator is biased, and, if so, in which direction. One solution to the problem of bias is shown to depend on the availability of estimates of the error rates of the test.

Keywords

General Population Error Rate Research Question False Positive Screening Test 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Abbott, M. & Volberg, R. (1996). The New Zealand national survey of problem and pathological gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 143–160.Google Scholar
  2. Ahlbom, A. & Norell, S. (1990). Introduction to modern epidemiology. Chestnut Hill, MA: Epidemiology Resources Inc.Google Scholar
  3. Brenner, H. & Gefeller, O. (1997). Variation of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and predictive values with disease prevalence. Statistics in Medicine, 16, 981–991.Google Scholar
  4. Culleton, R. P. (1989). The prevalence rates of pathological gambling: A look at methods. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 5, 22–41.Google Scholar
  5. Dickerson, M.G., Baron, E., Hong, S-M, & Cottrell, D. (1996). Estimating the extent and degree of gambling related problems in the Australian population: A national survey. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 161–178.Google Scholar
  6. Dickerson, M. (1993). A preliminary exploration of a two-stage methodology in the assessment of the extent and degree of gambling related problems in the Australian population. In W.R. Eadington, J. Cornelius and J.I. Tabor (eds.). Gambling behavior and problem gambling (pp. 347–363). Reno, Nevada: Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming, University of Nevada, Reno.Google Scholar
  7. Feinstein, A.R. (1985). Clinical epidemiology: The architecture of clinical research. Philadelphia: Saunders Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fleiss, J.L. (1981). Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. 2nd Ed., New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  9. Fletcher, R.H., Fletcher, S.W. & Wagner, E.H. (1988). Clinical epidemiology: The essentials. 2nd Ed., Baltimore MD: Williams and Wilkins.Google Scholar
  10. Greenberg, R.A. & Jekel, J.F. (1969). Some problems in the determination of the false positive and false negative rates of tuberculin tests. American Review of Respiratory Disease, 100, 645–650.Google Scholar
  11. Hui S.L. & Walter S.D. (1980). Estimating the error rates of diagnostic tests. Biometrics, 36, 67–171.Google Scholar
  12. Kramer M.S. (1988). Clinical epidemiology and biostatistics. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  13. Kraemer H.C. (1992). Evaluating medical tests: Objective and quantitative guidelines. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Lesieur H.R. (1994). Epidemiological surveys of pathological gambling: Critique and suggestions for modification. Journal of Gambling Studies, 10, 385–398.Google Scholar
  15. Lesieur H.R. & Blume S.B. (1987). South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1184–1188.Google Scholar
  16. Robins L.N. (1985). Epidemiology: Reflections on testing the validity of psychiatric interviews. Archives of General Psychiatry, 42, 918–924.Google Scholar
  17. Rogan, W. J. & Gladen, B. (1978). Estimating prevalence from the results of a screening test. American Journal of Epidemiology, 107, 71–76.Google Scholar
  18. Sackett D.L., Haynes R.B. & Tugwell P (1985). Clinical epidemiology: A basic science for clinical medicine. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  19. Shrout P.E., Skodol, A.E. & Dohrenwend, B.P. (1986). A two-stage approach for case identification and diagnosis: First stage instruments presented by Shrout, P. E., Skodol, A. E. and Dohrenwend B. P. In J. E. Barrett (ed) Mental disorders in the community: Progress and challenge. New York: Guilford Press, 287–303.Google Scholar
  20. Sommers, I. (1988). Pathological gambling: Estimating prevalence and group characteristics. The International journal of the Addictions, 23, 477–490.Google Scholar
  21. Sox, J. R., Blatt, M. A., Higgins, M. C. & Marton, K. I. (1988). Medical decision making. Boston: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  22. Volberg R.A. & Dickerson M.G. (1996). Preface Editoral for the special issue on prevalence. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 109–110.Google Scholar
  23. Volberg R.A. & Steadman, H.J. (1988). Refining prevalence estimates of pathological gambling. American Journal of Psychiatry, 145, 502–505.Google Scholar
  24. Volberg, R.A. & Steadman, H.J. (1989). Policy implications of prevalence estimates of pathological gambling. In H.J. Shaffer, S. Stein, B. Gambino & T.N. Cummings (Eds.) Compulsive gambling: Theory, research and practice (pp. 163–174). Boston MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  25. Walker, M.B., Dickerson, M.G. (1996). The prevalence of problem and pathological gambling: a critical analysis. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 233–249.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Blase Gambino
    • 1
  1. 1.Massachusetts Council on Compulsive Gambling, IncUSA

Personalised recommendations