The Definition, Dimensionalization, and Assessment of Gambling Participation
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
1 2017Gambling Participation Instrument (GPI) March 14, 2014 Dr. Robert Williams & Dr. Rachel Introduction THE DEFINITION, It is typical for gambling research surveys to assess peoples’ participation level in gambling and to then examine the intensity of gamblingDIMENSIONALIZATION, participation as it relates to things such as demographic AND characteristics, gambling availability, gambling attitudes, gambling motivations, gambling fallacies, and problem gambling status. However, despite the frequency of this practice, there is: 1. No universally accepted definition of whatASSESSMENT constitutes gambling; 2. No standard OF way GAMBLING of measuring gambling participation across researchers and across jurisdictions, and 3. Very little research investigating the most reliable and valid wayPARTICIPATION of assessing gambling participation (especially relative to the amount of research that has been devoted to assessing problem gambling) (Rogers, Caldwell & Butterworth, 2009). Moreover, current participation measures are based on certain underlying assumptions that give good reason to question their reliability and validity; namely, that respondents interpret the questions being asked of them in the sameRobert way as the J. researchers Williams, intended, Ph.D. and that respondents are willing and ab le to divulge accurate informationProfessor, about stigmatizedFaculty of behavioursHealth Sciences, such as gambling. and Cognitive distortions, faulty memories and repressionCoordinator, of losses mayAlberta combine Gambling to lead toResearch response Institute errors, and issues of survey design may further impede accurate reporting of past behaviour. University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada There are two significant problems that derive from this state of affairs. First, it produces a range of different ways of measuringRachel gambling A. participation, Volberg, which Ph.D. makes comparisons between studies and jurisdictions very difficult. Associate A second, equally Professor serious, School problem, of Publicis that it Health calls into & question Health Sciencesresearch results that posit a link betweenUniversity gambling of Massachusettsparticipation and the aforementioned variables (e.g., low risk guidelines for gambling; Currie et al., 2008). It is typical for gambling researAmherstch surveys, Massachusetts, to assess peoples’ United participation States level in gambling and to then examine the intensity of gambling participation as it relates to things such as demographic characteristics, gambling availability,Rhys M.G. gambling Stevens, attitudes, M.L.I.S. and problem gambling status. Despite the frequency of this practice, there is no standard way of measuring gambling participation across researchers and across jurisdictions,Librarian, and Alberta very little Gambling research Researc investigatingh Institute the most reliable and valid way of assessing gambling participation.University There of Lethbridge, are two significant Lethbridge, problems Alberta, that arise Canada from this state of affairs. First, it produces a range of different ways of measuring gambling participation, making comparisons between studiesLauren and jurisdictions A. Williams, very difficult. B.Sc. Second, it calls into question research results that posit a link between gambling participation and the aforementioned variables. Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada The Canadian Consortium for Gambling Research has funded Dr. Robert Williams and Dr. Rachel Volberg to rectify this situation by developingJennifer a N. reliable, Arthur, valid, M.Sc.and widely -agreed upon measure of gambling participation. University of Adelaide This instrument needs to haveAdelaide, the following South features: Australia Comprehensive assessment of gambling involvement across the important dimensions. REPORT PREPARED FOR THE CANADIAN CONSORTIUM FOR GAMBLING RESEARCH February 1, 2017 2 Citation Williams, R.J., Volberg, R.A., Stevens, R.M.G., Williams, L.A. & Arthur, J.N. (2017). The Definition, Dimensionalization, and Assessment of Gambling Participation. Report prepared for the Canadian Consortium for Gambling Research. February 1, 2017. The following are the current members of the Canadian Consortium for Gambling Research: Alberta Gambling Research Institute Centre Dollard Cormier - Institut universitaire sur les dépendances Gambling Research Exchange Ontario Liquor and Gaming Authority of Manitoba Loto-Québec Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming Authority Contact Information Dr. Robert J. Williams Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences & Research Coordinator, Alberta Gambling Research Institute University of Lethbridge Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada; T1K 3M4 [email protected] Dr. Rachel Volberg Research Associate Professor School of Public Health and Health Sciences University of Massachusetts (Amherst) Amherst, Massachusetts, United States; 01003-9304 [email protected] Rhys M.G. Stevens Librarian and Information Specialist, Alberta Gambling Research Institute University of Lethbridge Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada; T1K 3M4 [email protected] Lauren A. Williams [email protected] Jennifer N. Arthur [email protected] Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the external reviewers for their helpful critiques of earlier versions of this document, the international panel of experts for their contributions and valuable feedback, the Canadian Consortium for Gambling Research for funding this project, and Leger for their assistance in validating the Gambling Participation Instrument. 3 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 6 DEFINITION OF GAMBLING ........................................................................................................................... 7 Public Perception ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Academic Definitions of Gambling ............................................................................................................ 8 Legal Definitions of Gambling ................................................................................................................. 10 Proposed Definition of Gambling ........................................................................................................... 11 Related Constructs That Are Not Gambling ................................................................................. 13 DIMENSIONS OF GAMBLING PARTICIPATION ............................................................................................. 16 Types and Subtypes of Gambling ............................................................................................................ 16 Provider ................................................................................................................................................... 22 Means of Access ...................................................................................................................................... 23 Frequency of Participation ...................................................................................................................... 24 Expenditure ............................................................................................................................................. 24 Time Spent .............................................................................................................................................. 24 Conventional Dimensionalization and Assessment of Gambling Participation ...................................... 25 Dimensionalization Feedback from International Gambling Experts ..................................................... 28 CONSTRUCTION AND EVALUATION OF THE GAMBLING PARTICIPATION INSTRUMENT (GPI) ................... 29 A Review of the Reliability and Validity of Retrospective Self-Report .................................................... 29 Principles Guiding Optimal Self-Report .................................................................................................. 32 Other Essential Elements Needed for the Gambling Participation Instrument...................................... 36 Areas of Uncertainty ............................................................................................................................... 40 Evaluation of the Reliability and Validity of GPI Variants ....................................................................... 45 Method ......................................................................................................................................... 45 Validity .......................................................................................................................................... 49 Utility of Time Spent Gambling .................................................................................................... 57 Reliability ...................................................................................................................................... 59 Conclusions................................................................................................................................... 64 Reliability and Validity of the Finalized