Advertisement

Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 1–24 | Cite as

Is the SOGS an Accurate Measure of Pathological Gambling Among Children, Adolescents and Adults?

  • Robert Ladouceur
  • Carole Bouchard
  • Nadia Rhéaume
  • Christian Jacques
  • Francine Ferland
  • Jean Leblond
  • Michael Walker
Article

Abstract

The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) is widely used to assess the prevalence of pathological gambling. For a variety of reasons, this instrument may not provide an accurate rate of the prevalence of pathological gambling. In this paper, one source of error in data provided by the SOGS is investigated. It is argued that individuals may not fully understand the meaning of some items, and that clarification of the meaning of misunderstood items may in some cases lead to a changed score on the scale. The present study evaluates respondents' understanding of the SOGS items. The results from three studies are reported, each using a different sample: grade school children, adolescents and adults. It was hypothesised that (1) participants would not understand some items of the SOGS, (2) problem gamblers and probable pathological gamblers would be more inclined to interpret items incorrectly than would non-problem gamblers and, (3) consistent with the first two hypotheses, clarification of items would decrease the number of participants identified as problem gamblers or probable pathological gamblers. The data obtained supported hypotheses 1 and 3. Furthermore, hypothesis 2 was supported for grade school children, but not for adolescents or adults. These results are consistent with recent literature on endorsement and acquiescence phenomena, and have implications for prevalence studies of probable pathological gambling.

SOGS pathological gambling assessment psychometric 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Abbot, M. W. & Volberg, R. A. (1992). Frequent gamblers and problem gamblers in New Zealand. Research Series no. 14. New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs.Google Scholar
  2. Abbot, M. W. & Volberg, R. A. ( 1996). The New Zealand National Survey of problem and pathological gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 143-160.Google Scholar
  3. American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorder (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  4. Beconia, E. (1996). Prevalence surveys of problem and pathological gambling in Europe: The cases of Germany, Holland and Spain. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 179-192.Google Scholar
  5. Couch, A., & Keniston, K. (1961). Agreeing response set and social desirability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 33, 401-415.Google Scholar
  6. Custer, R., & Milt, H. (1985). When luck runs out. New York: Werner Books.Google Scholar
  7. Dickerson, M. G. (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. A. Cornelius (Eds.), Gambling behavior and gambling problem (pp. 347-364). Reno: Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Dubé, D., Freeston, M. H., & Ladouceur, R. (1996). Potential and probable pathological gamblers: where do the differences lie? Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 419-430.Google Scholar
  10. Gambino, B. (1997). The correction for bias in prevalence estimation with screening tests. Journal of Gambling Studies, 13, 343-352.Google Scholar
  11. Gilbert, D. T. (1991). How mental system believe. American Psychologist, 46, 107-119.Google Scholar
  12. Govoni, R., Rupcich, N., & Frish, R. (1996). Gambling behavior of adolescent gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 305-318.Google Scholar
  13. Gupta, R., & Derevensky, J. L. (1999). Adolescent gambling behavior: A prevalence study and examination of the correlates associated with problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 14, 319-345.Google Scholar
  14. Kazdin, A. E. (1998). Research design in clinical psychology (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  15. Knowles, E. S., & Condon, C. A. (1999). Why people say “yes”: A dual-process theory of acquiescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 379-386.Google Scholar
  16. Knowles, E. S., & Nathan, K. T. (1997). Acquiescent responding in self-reports: Cognitive style or social concern? Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 293-301.Google Scholar
  17. Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research, Annual Review Psychology, 5, 537-567.Google Scholar
  18. Ladouceur, R., Boudreault, N., Jacques, C., & Vitaro, F. (1999). Pathological gambling and related problems among adolescents. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 8(4), 55-68.Google Scholar
  19. Ladouceur, R., Ferland, F., Jacques, C Boudreault, N. (1997, June). At what age is pathological gambling most prevalent in childhood or adolescence? Paper presented at the meeting of the 10th International Conference on Gambling and Risk-Taking, Montréal, Canada.Google Scholar
  20. Lesieur, H. R., & Blume, S. B. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (The SOGS). A new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1184-1188.Google Scholar
  21. Lorenz, V. C. (1987). Family dynamics of pathological gamblers. In T. Galski, (Ed.), A handbook on pathological gambling. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  22. McGee, R. K. (1967). Response set in relation to personality: An orientation. In I. A. Berg (Ed.), Response set in personality assessment (pp. 1-31). Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  23. Shaffer, H. J., & Hall, M. N. (1996). Estimating the prevalence of adolescent gambling disorders: A quantitative synthesis and guide toward standard gambling nomenclature. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 193-214.Google Scholar
  24. Shaffer, H. J., Hall, M. N., & Vander Bilt, J. (1997). Estimating the prevalence of disordered gambling behavior in the United States and Canada: A meta-analysis. Boston: Harvard Medical School.Google Scholar
  25. Schwartz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54, 93-105.Google Scholar
  26. Volberg, R. A., & Steadman, H. J. (1988). Refining prevalence estimates of pathological gambling. American Journal of Psychiatry 145, 502-505.Google Scholar
  27. Volberg, R. A., & Steadman, H. J. (1989). Prevalence estimates of pathological gambling in New Jersey and Maryland. American Journal of Psychiatry, 146, 1618-1619.Google Scholar
  28. Walker, M. B. (1992). The psychology of gambling. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Winters, K. C., Stinchfield, R. D., & Fulkerson, J. (1993a). Patterns and characteristics of adolescent gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 9, 371-386.Google Scholar
  31. Winters, K. C., Stinchfield, R. D., & Fulkerson, J. (1993b). Toward the development of an adolescent gambling problem severity scale. Journal of Gambling Studies, 9, 63-84.Google Scholar
  32. Wynne, H. J. Smith, G. J., & Jacobs, D. F. (1996). Adolescent gambling and problem gambling in Alberta. Edmonton: Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Ladouceur
    • 1
  • Carole Bouchard
    • 2
  • Nadia Rhéaume
    • 2
  • Christian Jacques
    • 2
  • Francine Ferland
    • 2
  • Jean Leblond
    • 2
  • Michael Walker
    • 2
  1. 1.École de PsychologieUniversité LavalQuébecCanada
  2. 2.Université LavalCanada

Personalised recommendations