Gambling Among Young People, 837 kB

problem gambler since she believes that it is not a matter of pathological gambling if it is based on a
self-assessment screen. The term pathological gambling is, however, used in this review). As I said,
the criteria are based on DSM-IV but have been modified to a certain extent to better fit in with the
reality and vocabulary of adolescents.
As regards lies about gambling – this entails having lied to your family and friends in order to
protect and to hide the extent of your gambling. Included in theft is gambling with money that was
earmarked for bus tickets or food for example, jeopardising social relationships has been changed to
disputes with family and friends. In other words, the questions attempt to narrow down pathological
gambling rather than problem gambling. The tool has above all been used in the UK, but also to a
certain extent in Canada and Norway (38).
SOGS-RA is an adolescent version of SOGS, the most commonly used self-assessment instrument for
adults. It is also the most commonly used tool for young people. It has above all been used in studies
in the USA and Canada. The tool was first tested on adolescents aged between 15 and 18 in Minnesota
in 1993. It differs from SOGS in that certain terms have been replaced because they were not suitable
for young people, for example “concerning” was replaced with “planning” and “spouse, child or
other important person” was replaced with “family and friends”. Questions that are specific to SOGS-
RA have to do with the gambling habits and possible gambling problems of parents and the gambling
habits of the young people themselves.
The tool consists of 16 items which just like DSM-IV-J are based on the clinical pathological gambling
criteria. SOGS-RA also includes further dimensions with regard to gambling problems, namely
gambling habits and behaviour, how gamblers pay for their gambling (for example through theft or by
borrowing money), the type of game played and how the frequency. Only 12 of these questions are
graded, 1 point for each affirmative answer, in other words a maximum of 12 points. Problem
gamblers scoring at least 3 are differentiated from those without problems with 0 – 2 points. All the
items that are graded refer to the last 12 months.
The screen was first tested on adolescents aged between 15 and 18; a majority were boys since
very few girls in the selection said that they gambled a lot (39). After having used the tool in a further
study, two groups of young people with gambling problems were perceived – those who were probable
pathological gamblers and problem/risk gamblers – as well as two ways of defining these groups, one
narrow definition and a broad one. In the narrow definition, 4 points or more corresponded to
probably a pathological gambler, 2–3 points to problem/risk gamblers and 0 or 1 point to without
problems. Questions with regard to gambling frequency, how he/she paid for his/her gambling were
included in the broad definition. This means that a young person can be classified as a problem gambler
based on the gambling frequency without him/her having reported any negative consequences, i.e. any
symptoms of pathological gambling. This still mainly applies to boys aged between 15 and 18 (40).
MAGS is a tool that is intended for clinical use and that is rarely used in studies. Its focus is biological,
psychological and social problems that may be related to problem gambling and consists of 26
questions divided into two scales. You are classified as a pathological, risk or non-pathological gambler.
There is also a shorter version, MAGS-7, which only consists of seven questions and which can be
used to screen gambling problems (41).
GA-20 is a tool that was developed by the self-help association Gamblers Anonymous and consists of
20 items describing situations and behaviour typical for problem gamblers. The instruments are used
clinically above all by Gamblers Anonymous.
Lie/Bet is a very short screening tool. It consists of two questions – “Do you lie about your gambling?”
and “Do you gamble for more and more money”, have you in other words lost control over your
gambling. It has been developed to be able to rapidly establish in a clinical context and above all
in adults whether a person has a gambling problem, and the idea is that if a person answers in the
affirmative to one or both questions, then this is an indication that you should go further and ask more
questions. It has, however, also been used in studies since it seems very good at distinguishing people
with a gambling problem (42, 43)
23