Gambling Among Young People, 837 kB

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3. pathological gambling – the assessment tools
22 Introduction Assessment tools in the shape of questionnaires, so-called self-assessment screens, are used in research and in the clinical context to assess the prevalence of gambling problems in young people. The most common screens for the gambling problems of young people are the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS-RA), DSM-IV-MR-J, Gamblers Anonymous (GA), Massachusetts Gambling Screen (MAGS) and Lie/Bet. A new tool for young people has also been developed in Australia, the Victorian Gambling Screen, VGS. Screens generally differentiate between those who do not gamble, those who gamble but do not have a problem; those who probably have a gambling problem and those who are probably pathological gamblers. Sometimes a further category of gamblers is included, those who are presumed to lie in the risk zone for developing a problem. When these screens have been designed, the clinical criteria for pathological gambling have usually formed the basis of the conceptualisation of what a gambling problem actually entails. Despite this clinical point of departure it is not possible to diagnose a gambling addiction solely based on these self-assessment tools. In order to be able to clinically diagnose an addiction a more extensive clinical interview is required. The different categories or degrees of gambling problems are partly based on the fact that we have seen that young people can have a less or more serious gambling problem and this in turn means more or less serious negative consequences for the individual. The different screens, however, use different categories. Some only differentiate between people “with” or “without” a problem, while others include many more categories for the varying degrees of a gambling problem. It is difficult to categorise different types of problem gamblers and risky gambling habits because there are currently very few studies on different groups of problem gamblers indicating possible disparities between the groups as regards gambling or how the gambling in any particular group will develop in the future. However, the main problem when it comes to judging the prevalence of pathological gambling is the lack of an external standard criterion for young gamblers. There is no agreement as to what is meant by adolescent pathological gambling and researchers tend to use different tools. The screens and what they measure are presented in the following section, followed by a description of the quality of the tools. The most common tools DSM-IV-MR-J is based on the psychiatric criteria for pathological gambling in DSM-IV (see clinical definition of pathological gambling) and has been used by Fisher in the UK for adolescents aged between 12 and 15. The first version of the tool, DSM-IV-J, was presented already at the beginning of the 1990s and subsequently modified in the year 2000. DSM-IV-J was designed for a clinical population, while the later version was adapted so that it could be used on ordinary groups of adolescents. The questionnaire consists of 12 items 1 corresponding to nine criteria, four or more of which must be fulfilled to be classified as pathological gambling. (The test designer, however, uses the term 1 Item = question/statement included in an assessment tool.
Page 1 and 2: Gambling Among Young People A Knowl
Page 3 and 4: © swedish national institute of pu
Page 5 and 6: 6. Prevention _____________________
Page 7 and 8: 6 Summary In 2001, the Swedish Nati
Page 9 and 10: 8 Background Adolescent Swedes gamb
Page 11 and 12: 10 Definitions what is meant by gam
Page 13 and 14: 12 types of games You can divide th
Page 15 and 16: 14 Introduction Most surveys on the
Page 17 and 18: 16 few possibilities of obtaining m
Page 19 and 20: 18 the possibility of winning Child
Page 24 and 25: problem gambler since she believes
Page 26 and 27: who had scored 0 points was 54 per
Page 28 and 29: that first presented the tool, the
Page 30 and 31: 4. pathological gambling in young p
Page 32 and 33: included nine studies of in total 7
Page 34 and 35: • The game often leads to results
Page 36 and 37: however, tended to try to distract
Page 38 and 39: other addictions According to most
Page 40 and 41: 5. risk factors of pathological gam
Page 42 and 43: different types of problem behaviou
Page 44 and 45: Corresponding interview sessions we
Page 46: later in life. Adolescents happily
Page 49 and 50: 48 Introduction By prevention the a
Page 51 and 52: 50 others and where to turn to for
Page 53 and 54: 52 • For adults who are pathologi
Page 55 and 56: 54 Appendix Table 1. A list of the
Page 57 and 58: 56 23. Ide S, Lea SE. Gambling in y
Page 59 and 60: 58 73. Slutske WS, Jackson KM, Sher
Page 61 and 62: 60 122. Evans R. Some theoretical m

Gambling Among Young People, 837 kB

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?