赌博类型参与的系统评估:赌博障碍识别测试(GDIT)的可靠性和有效性。

IF 2.4 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Journal of Gambling Studies Pub Date : 2024-08-02 DOI:10.1007/s10899-024-10345-z
Håkan Wall, Peter Wennberg, Per Binde, Olof Molander
{"title":"赌博类型参与的系统评估:赌博障碍识别测试(GDIT)的可靠性和有效性。","authors":"Håkan Wall, Peter Wennberg, Per Binde, Olof Molander","doi":"10.1007/s10899-024-10345-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Gambling type involvement, both in terms of participation (engagement in specific gambling types) and diversity (how many gambling types an individual engages in), is a key feature to address in gambling self-report measures, but such systematic measurement procedures are scarce. The aim of this study was to test the psychometric performance of the gambling type assessment in the recently developed Gambling Disorder Identification Test (GDIT), in terms of test-retest reliability, convergent validity, and patterns of gambling diversity, among help-seeking and general population gambling samples (total n = 603). Overall, online gambling was more commonly reported as problematic than land-based gambling. Retest reliability varied for specific gambling types (ICC range 0.32-0.64, r<sub>tet</sub> range 0.66-0.85). In terms of gambling participation, online gambling showed stronger correlations with GDIT total score (i.e., symptom severity) than land-based gambling, where Slots showed the strongest correlation (r = 0.52), followed by Casino table games (r = 0.25), Sports and Horse betting (r = 0.16 and r = 0.14, respectively), and Poker (r = 0.14). Lotteries showed no correlation with GDIT total score (r=-0,01). For Slots gambling, all gambling diversity levels (including Slots as a single gambling type) were on average associated with the highest diagnostic severity level (GDIT total score > 30; severe gambling disorder). Finally, explorative configural frequency analysis identified typical and antitypical gambling diversity patterns. The result from the current study corroborates findings that engagement in specific gambling types matter, and that such features should be included in gambling measurement. We conclude that the GDIT is a reliable and valid measure for systematic assessment of gambling type involvement. The GDIT can be used to assess gambling participation and diversity, as part of a broad measurement setup for problem gambling and gambling disorder.</p>","PeriodicalId":48155,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Gambling Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic Assessment of Gambling Type Involvement: Reliability and Validity of the Gambling Disorder Identification Test (GDIT).\",\"authors\":\"Håkan Wall, Peter Wennberg, Per Binde, Olof Molander\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10899-024-10345-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Gambling type involvement, both in terms of participation (engagement in specific gambling types) and diversity (how many gambling types an individual engages in), is a key feature to address in gambling self-report measures, but such systematic measurement procedures are scarce. The aim of this study was to test the psychometric performance of the gambling type assessment in the recently developed Gambling Disorder Identification Test (GDIT), in terms of test-retest reliability, convergent validity, and patterns of gambling diversity, among help-seeking and general population gambling samples (total n = 603). Overall, online gambling was more commonly reported as problematic than land-based gambling. Retest reliability varied for specific gambling types (ICC range 0.32-0.64, r<sub>tet</sub> range 0.66-0.85). In terms of gambling participation, online gambling showed stronger correlations with GDIT total score (i.e., symptom severity) than land-based gambling, where Slots showed the strongest correlation (r = 0.52), followed by Casino table games (r = 0.25), Sports and Horse betting (r = 0.16 and r = 0.14, respectively), and Poker (r = 0.14). Lotteries showed no correlation with GDIT total score (r=-0,01). For Slots gambling, all gambling diversity levels (including Slots as a single gambling type) were on average associated with the highest diagnostic severity level (GDIT total score > 30; severe gambling disorder). Finally, explorative configural frequency analysis identified typical and antitypical gambling diversity patterns. The result from the current study corroborates findings that engagement in specific gambling types matter, and that such features should be included in gambling measurement. We conclude that the GDIT is a reliable and valid measure for systematic assessment of gambling type involvement. The GDIT can be used to assess gambling participation and diversity, as part of a broad measurement setup for problem gambling and gambling disorder.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48155,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Gambling Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Gambling Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-024-10345-z\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Gambling Studies","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-024-10345-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

赌博类型参与度,包括参与度(参与特定赌博类型)和多样性(个人参与多少种赌博类型),是赌博自我报告测量中需要解决的一个关键特征,但此类系统测量程序却很少。本研究的目的是测试最近开发的赌博障碍识别测试(GDIT)中赌博类型评估的心理测量性能,包括测试再测可靠性、收敛有效性,以及求助者和普通人群赌博样本(总人数=603)中赌博多样性的模式。总体而言,与陆上赌博相比,网上赌博更常被报告为有问题的赌博。特定赌博类型的重测可靠性各不相同(ICC范围为0.32-0.64,rtet范围为0.66-0.85)。就赌博参与情况而言,网络赌博与 GDIT 总分(即症状严重程度)的相关性强于陆上赌博,其中老虎机的相关性最强(r = 0.52),其次是赌场桌面游戏(r = 0.25)、体育博彩和赌马(分别为 r = 0.16 和 r = 0.14)以及扑克(r = 0.14)。彩票与 GDIT 总分没有相关性(r=-0,01)。就老虎机赌博而言,所有赌博多样性水平(包括作为单一赌博类型的老虎机)平均与最高诊断严重程度(GDIT总分>30;严重赌博障碍)相关。最后,探索性构型频率分析确定了典型和反典型的赌博多样性模式。本研究的结果证实了参与特定赌博类型的重要性,以及赌博测量中应包含此类特征的结论。我们的结论是,GDIT 是系统评估参与赌博类型的可靠而有效的方法。GDIT 可用于评估赌博的参与度和多样性,是问题赌博和赌博障碍广泛测量设置的一部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Systematic Assessment of Gambling Type Involvement: Reliability and Validity of the Gambling Disorder Identification Test (GDIT).

Gambling type involvement, both in terms of participation (engagement in specific gambling types) and diversity (how many gambling types an individual engages in), is a key feature to address in gambling self-report measures, but such systematic measurement procedures are scarce. The aim of this study was to test the psychometric performance of the gambling type assessment in the recently developed Gambling Disorder Identification Test (GDIT), in terms of test-retest reliability, convergent validity, and patterns of gambling diversity, among help-seeking and general population gambling samples (total n = 603). Overall, online gambling was more commonly reported as problematic than land-based gambling. Retest reliability varied for specific gambling types (ICC range 0.32-0.64, rtet range 0.66-0.85). In terms of gambling participation, online gambling showed stronger correlations with GDIT total score (i.e., symptom severity) than land-based gambling, where Slots showed the strongest correlation (r = 0.52), followed by Casino table games (r = 0.25), Sports and Horse betting (r = 0.16 and r = 0.14, respectively), and Poker (r = 0.14). Lotteries showed no correlation with GDIT total score (r=-0,01). For Slots gambling, all gambling diversity levels (including Slots as a single gambling type) were on average associated with the highest diagnostic severity level (GDIT total score > 30; severe gambling disorder). Finally, explorative configural frequency analysis identified typical and antitypical gambling diversity patterns. The result from the current study corroborates findings that engagement in specific gambling types matter, and that such features should be included in gambling measurement. We conclude that the GDIT is a reliable and valid measure for systematic assessment of gambling type involvement. The GDIT can be used to assess gambling participation and diversity, as part of a broad measurement setup for problem gambling and gambling disorder.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
72
期刊介绍: Journal of Gambling Studies is an interdisciplinary forum for the dissemination on the many aspects of gambling behavior, both controlled and pathological, as well as variety of problems attendant to, or resultant from, gambling behavior including alcoholism, suicide, crime, and a number of other mental health problems. Articles published in this journal are representative of a cross-section of disciplines including psychiatry, psychology, sociology, political science, criminology, and social work.
期刊最新文献
Correction to: Gambling and internet addiction: a pilot study among a population of italian healthcare workers. Correction to: Harm Minimization Training, Knowledge, and Behaviour of Canadian Casino Employees. Responsible Gambling as an Evolving Concept and the Benefits of a Positive Play Approach: A Reply to Shaffer et al. Childhood Use of Coin Pusher and Crane Grab Machines, and Adult Gambling: Robustness to Subjective Confidence in a Young Adult USA Sample. Facing up to Problem Gambling: Tracing the Emergence of Facial Recognition Technology as a means of Enforcing Voluntary Self-Exclusion.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1