Playing has turn into more and more widespread in the United States. In 1996, gambling revenues in the United States have been 47.6 billion dollars, exceeding the revenues generated from music gross sales, cruise ships, movie ticket gross sales, spectator sports, and stay entertainment mixed (Christian, 1998). Legalized gambling is accessible, in some kind, in 48 of the 50 United States. The growth of gambling has also result in elevated prevalence rates of disordered playing and represents a major public health danger (Cunningham-Williams et al., 1998; Korn & Shaffer, 1999; Volberg, 1994). Each drawback and pathological playing are related to a host of critical health and social penalties together with suicide, work and academic disruption, criminal arrest, monetary difficulties, and familial disruption. Problematic gambling has additionally been associated with concomitant alcohol and different drug use, eating disorders, depression and anxiety (Gupta & Derevensky, 2000; Frank, Lester, Wexler, 1991; Bland et al., 1993; Lester, 1998).
Although problematic gambling is perceived, maybe correctly, as relatively unusual in the general population, rates of problematic gambling amongst faculty students are alarmingly excessive. Approximately 1.6% of the general population have engaged in pathological gambling with an additional 3.85% having experienced playing related problems at sub-clinical ranges (Shaffer et al., 1997). These rates are more than double amongst school college students with roughly 5% reporting pathological gambling and over 9% reporting sub-clinical gambling related problems (Lesiur et al., 1991; Shaffer et al., 1997).
While gambling issues have change into extra common, especially amongst explicit populations (e.g., faculty students), gambling research is a comparatively young subject and is struggling with the obstacles that new fields of inquiry typically encounter, among which definitional and measurement points are paramount (Kuhn, 1962). Whether or not problem gambling is finest treated as an addictive behavior or an impulse management disorder has necessary implications. If downside gambling may be effectively handled as an addiction, it follows that approaches used to address different addictive behaviors (e.g., drinking, smoking, drug use) could also be readily adapted to address problem playing. Whereas this concern can't be fully addressed in a single study, the aim of this paper is to deal with the measurement of downside playing by proposing and validating three further playing measures, two of which are intently modeled after measures used to study high-threat drinking.
Regarding the event of established methods of study, there are relatively few standardized measures in the field of gambling research. The most widely used measure of downside/pathological playing is the South Oaks Gambling Display or SOGS (Lesieur and Blume, 1987), which has been validated in a variety of settings within totally different populations, together with college college students (Beaudoin & Cox, 1999; Lesieur et al., 1991; Ladouceur et al., 1994). Despite it’s being based on DSMIII standards slightly than DSM-IV standards for pathological gambling (APA, 1980), and different criticisms (Dickerson & Baron, 2000), the SOGS remains the most widely used gambling instrument, having been used as both a screening measure and an outcome measure in quite a few studies. The widespread reliance on a single measure has the benefit of yielding comparable outcomes throughout research but additionally renders the whole subject prone to reliability and validity points related to its use (Ladouceur et al., 2000)
One other screening instrument, the Gamblers Anonymous 20 Questions (GA20), ギャンブル依存症 本 is extensively utilized in public practice and compares favorably to the SOGS and DSMIV criteria for pathological playing (Derevensky & Gupta, 2000), however is much less helpful than the SOGS given it’s limited use in clinical and analysis settings. Frequency of gambling has typically been measured utilizing variations of an merchandise on the SOGS. Gambling attitudes and beliefs have been reliably found to predict playing habits (e.g., Breen & Zuckerman, 1999), however extra objective playing end result measures have been scarce, usually constructed for particular research examining frequency of gambling and quantity spent on gambling. Measures of gambling quantity or expenditure have been less standardized and have met with justifiable criticism (Blaszczynski et al., 1997). The amount of cash "spent" on playing, for instance, could be interpreted in a number of different ways. As well as, the sum of money spent on playing is tough to interpret with out taking income differences under consideration.
Using present screening measures could present relative accuracy of prevalence estimates, however these measures are much less informative by way of creating effective remedy and prevention interventions (Dickerson et al., 1987; Dickerson & Baron, 2000; Shaffer et al., 1997). Devices for creating intervention strategies must include end result measures that can reliably consider conduct change (e.g., frequency and quantity of gambling and particular penalties associated with gambling). The similarity of behavioral and emotional traits of downside playing to other addictive behaviors means that already validated devices is likely to be readily adapted to problem gambling. Adapting existing measures in the sector of addictive behaviors to specifically address playing is uncommon but not unprecedented. Lesieur and Blume (1991), for example, modified the Addiction Severity Index (McLellan et al., 1980) to include a playing element for use as an final result measure to judge the effectiveness of inpatient remedy.
In addition to assessing specific gambling associated outcomes, researchers have noted that efforts to change playing behavior, as in other high-danger behaviors, should additionally take motivational components into account (Sharpe & Tarrier; 1992; DiClemente et al., 2000). DiClemente et al. (2000) particularly discussed the merits of making use of the Stages of Change mannequin (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1986) in understanding the initiation and cessation of gambling habits. The Phases of Change Mannequin has grow to be a paradigm for understanding motivation to alter and has been examined in several contexts (e.g., smoking, drinking, drug use, high-risk sexual behavior). This mannequin suggests that individuals progress, not necessarily linearly, by way of a sequence of stages in the method of fixing health associated behaviors. Phases include precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, motion, maintenance, and termination, though the specific variety of levels has various (Joseph et al., 1999). This strategy has nice utility in providing therapists, counselors, and researchers the flexibility to evaluate where a client is within the Stages of Change mannequin and tailor a client’s therapy appropriately. To this point, nonetheless, no measures have been printed which assess levels of change particularly related to playing.
In sum, while there are a variety of gambling measures obtainable, comparatively few of them have been standardized and used in a number of research, underlying a transparent want for additional measure development and validation, particularly measures which might facilitate development of effective gambling interventions. The purpose of the present study was to propose three such measures: a measure of playing amount (expenditure) that avoids earlier problems measuring this construct (i.e.