Measuring Problem Gambling: Assessment of Three Prevalence Screens

138 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The Measurement of Adult Problem and Pathological Gambling (2006, methodology): “Apart from the New Zealand national prevalence and prospective studies (Abbott, 2001; Abbott and Volberg, 1991, 1992, 1996, 2000; Abbott et al., 1999, 2004b; Volberg and Abbott, 1994) and a few early Australian and North American studies, a 12 months frame has been used instead of the original six m”
PGSI and DSM-IV in the 2007 British Gambling Prevalence Survey: reliability, item response, factor structure and inter-scale agreement (2010, background): “…money in order to gamble (several with very low rates of endorsement in general population surveys), and because it tends to over-estimate problem gambling prevalence in comparison with other sets of questions (Abbott & Volberg, 2006; McMillen & Wenzel, 2006; Orford, Sproston & Erens, 2003).”
Is boredom associated with problem gambling behaviour? It depends on what you mean by ‘boredom’ (2010, background): “Whereas the SOGS was based on studies of clinical populations of problem gamblers, the CPGI was based on studies with the general population.”