The classification accuracy of four problem gambling assessment instruments in population research

REFERENCES

• Abbott, M. W. (2001). Problem and non-problem gamblers in New Zealand: A report on phase two of the 1999 national prevalence survey. Wellington: Department of Internal Affairs.
   Google Scholar
• Abbott, M. W., & Volberg, R. A. (1992). Frequent and problem gambling in New Zealand. Wellington: Department of Internal Affairs.
   Google Scholar
• Abbott, M. W., & Volberg, R. A. (1996). The New Zealand national survey of problem and pathological gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 143–160.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Abbott, M. W., Williams, M., & Volberg, R. A. (2004). A prospective study of problem and regular non-problem gamblers living in the community. Substance Use and Misuse, 39, 855–884.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ægisdóttir, S., White, M. J., Spengler, P. M., Maugherman, A. S., Anderson, L. A., Cook, R. S., … Rush, J. D. (2006). The meta-analysis of clinical judgment project: Fifty-six years of accumulated research on clinical versus statistical prediction. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 341–382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawes, R., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 243, 1668–1674.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian problem gambling index: Final report. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, S. E. (2000). Measuring the prevalence of sector-specific problem gambling: A study of casino patrons. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16, 25–51.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gambrill, E. (2006). Critical thinking in clinical practice: Improving the quality of judgments and decisions (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Gerstein, D. R., Volberg, R. A., Harwood, H., & Christiansen, E. M. (1999). Gambling impact and behavior study: Report to the national gambling impact study commission. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Govoni, R., Frisch, G. R., & Stinchfield, R. (2001). A critical review of screening and assessment instruments for problem gambling. Windsor: University of Windsor Problem Gambling Research Group.
   Google Scholar
• Jorm, A. F., Duncan-Jones, P., & Scott, R. (1989). An analysis of the re-test artefact in longitudinal studies of psychiatric symptoms and personality. Psychological Medicine, 19, 487–493.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladouceur, R., Bouchard, C., Rhéaume, N., Jacques, C., Ferland, F., Leblond, J., & Walker, M. (2000). Is the SOGS an accurate measure of pathological gambling among children, adolescents and adults?Journal of Gambling Studies, 16(1), 1–24.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ladouceur, R., Jacques, C., Chevalier, S., Sévigny, S., & Hamel, D. (2005). Prevalence of pathological gambling in Quebec in 2002. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 50, 451–456.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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, 1184–1188.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray, V., Ladouceur, R., & Jacques, C. (2005). Classification of gamblers according to the NODS and a clinical interview. International Gambling Studies, 5, 57–61.
   Google Scholar
• Neal, P., Delfabbro, P. H., & O'Neil, M. (2005). Problem gambling and harm: Towards a national definition. Adelaide: South Australian Centre for Economic Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Slutske, W. S., Jackson, K. M., & Sher, K. J. (2003). The natural history of problem gambling from age 18 to 29. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 263–274.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stinchfield, R. (2002). Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy of the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS). Addictive Behaviors, 27(1), 1–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stinchfield, R., Govoni, R., & Frisch, G. R. (2007). A review of screening and assessment instruments for problem and pathological gambling. In G.Smith, D. C.Hodgins, & R. J.Williams (Eds.), Research and measurement issues in gambling studies (pp. 179–213). London: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Stinchfield, R., Niforopulos, L., & Feder, S. H. (1994). Follow-up contact bias in adolescent substance abuse outcome research. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 55, 285–289.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiebe, J., Single, E., & Falkowski-Ham, A. (2003). Exploring the evolution of problem gambling: A one-year follow-up study. Toronto, Ontario: Responsible Gambling Council.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, R. J., & Volberg, R. A. (2009). Impact of survey description, administration format, and exclusionary criteria on population prevalence rates of problem gambling. International Gambling Studies, 9, 101–117.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, R. J., & Volberg, R. A. (2010). Best practices in the population assessment of problem gambling. Guelph: Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, R. J., Volberg, R. A., & Stevens, R. M. G. (2012). The population prevalence of problem gambling: Methodological influences, standardized rates, jurisdictional differences, and worldwide trends. Guelph: Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Winters, K. C., Specker, S., & Stinchfield, R. (1997). Brief manual for use of the diagnostic interview for gambling severity. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Medical School.
   Google Scholar
• Wood, R. T., & Williams, R. J. (2009). Internet gambling: Prevalence, patterns, problems and policy options. Guelph: Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Wood, R. T., & Williams, R. J. (2011). A comparative profile of the Internet gambler: Demographic characteristics, game-play patterns, and problem gambling status. New Media and Society, 13, 1123–1141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar