· Does it affect everyone equally or are members of some subgroups more likely to be affected?
· Is the problem growing or shrinking?
· Secondary Questions
· Can the numbers be trusted?
· Problem Gambling
· How big is the problem?
· Prevalence research on problem gambling focuses on two different questions about gambling behaviors: current and lifetime
· Current: “In the past week, have you…” “In the past month, have you…,” “In the past 12 months have you…”
· Lifetime: “Have you ever…”
· Both provide useful and needed information
· How would each type of question affect the answer to the question “How big is the problem?”
· If you could ask just one of these, which one would you ask to get the best picture of gambling on your campus? Why?
· Standardization on screening instrument is lacking
· Screening instruments
· DSM V – 9 yes/no questions, mostly current
· GA 20 questions – 20 “have you ever” questions
· South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) – 20 “have you ever” questions
· Standardization on screening instrument is lacking
· Screening instruments
· Gambling Assessment Module: Self Administered (GAM IV – S) – 16 “have you ever” questions and 16 “in the last 12 months” questions
· The Canadian Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) – 9 “in the past 12 months” questions; with 4 categories of responses (never to almost always)
· Standardization on evaluation “threshold” criteria is lacking
· DSM IV (10 questions) -- 5 or more “yes” answers, “compulsive gambler;” 3-4 “yes” answers, “problem gambler;” 1-2 “yes” answers, “at risk;” and 0 “yes” answers, “social or non-gambler”
· GA 20 questions – 7 “yes” answers, “problem gambling”
· Standardization on evaluation “threshold” criteria is lacking
· SOGS (20 questions) -- 0 “yes” answers, no problem; 1-4 “yes” answers, “some problem;” 5 or more “yes” answers, “probably pathological gambler”
· GAM IV – S (16 “have you ever” and 16 “in the last 12 months” questions) follows DSM IV with three statuses: “non-problem,” sub-threshold,” and “pathological gambling”
· PGSI (9 questions, never to almost always) – 0, “non problem;” 1 or 2, “low level of problems;” 3 to 7, “moderate level of problems;” 8 or more, “problem gambling”
· How does the lack of standardization on instrument and threshold criteria affect the answer to how big is the problem?
· Shaffer, Hall, and Vander Bilt (1997)
· Analyzed 120 North American gambling prevalence studies
· Figures reflect an estimate of North American (USA and Canada) prevalence
· Distinguished between three levels:
· Level 3: “clinical problem” (“pathology,” “probable pathological,” “compulsive,” etc.)
· Level 2: “sub-clinical problem” (“potential pathological,” “at-risk,” “in-transition,”)
· Level 1: “no problem”