The Measurement of Adult Problem and Pathological Gambling
By M. Abbott, R. Volberg. 2006
116 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Clinical Psychology
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f820131d10bbf2bb2933bed5cb5ce0bb6dbcbabb
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Clinical Psychology
- Heather Wardle
- Mark D. Griffiths
- Daria J. Kuss
- Zsolt Demetrovics
- Joël Billieux
- Halley M. Pontes
- Xavier Carbonell
- Jeffrey L. Derevensky
Citations in the corpus
- Quinte longitudinal study of gambling and problem gambling (2015, background): “Both the NODS and CPGI have good internal consistency as well as test-test reliability (Abbott & Volberg, 2006; Neal, Delfabbro & O’Neil, 2005; Stinchfield, Govoni & Frisch, 2007; Williams & Volberg, 2010).”
- PGSI and DSM-IV in the 2007 British Gambling Prevalence Survey: reliability, item response, factor structure and inter-scale agreement (2010, methodology): “A large number of sets of questions, or ‘screens’, have been used at one time or another, of which the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) and a number of derivatives have been the most widely employed (Abbott & Volberg, 2006; Lesieur & Blume, 1987).”