Gambling Among Young People, 837 kB

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.