IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0233222.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Presence of problematic and disordered gambling in older age and validation of the South Oaks Gambling Scale

Author

Listed:
  • Roser Granero
  • Susana Jiménez-Murcia
  • Fernando Fernández-Aranda
  • Amparo del Pino-Gutiérrez
  • Teresa Mena-Moreno
  • Gemma Mestre-Bach
  • Mónica Gómez-Peña
  • Laura Moragas
  • Neus Aymamí
  • Isabelle Giroux
  • Marie Grall-Bronnec
  • Anne Sauvaget
  • Ester Codina
  • Cristina Vintró-Alcaraz
  • María Lozano-Madrid
  • Marco Camozzi
  • Zaida Agüera
  • Jéssica Sánchez-González
  • Gemma Casalé-Salayet
  • Isabel Sánchez
  • Hibai López-González
  • Eduardo Valenciano-Mendoza
  • Bernat Mora
  • Isabel Baenas
  • José M Menchón

Abstract

The use of instruments originally developed for measuring gambling activity in younger populations may not be appropriate in older age individuals. The aim of this study was to examine the presence of problematic and disordered gambling in seniors aged 50 or over, and study the reliability and validity properties of the SOGS (a screening measure to identify gambling related problems). Two independent samples were recruited: a clinical group of n = 47 patients seeking treatment at a Pathological Gambling Outpatient Unit, and a population-based group of n = 361 participants recruited from the same geographical area. Confirmatory factor analysis verified the bifactor structure for the SOGS with two correlated underlying dimensions [measuring the impact of gambling on the self primarily (Cronbach’s alpha α = 0.87) or on both the self and others also (α = 0.82)], and a global dimension of gambling severity (also with excellent internal consistency, α = 0.90). The SOG obtained excellent accuracy/validity for identifying gambling severity based on the DSM-5 criteria (area under the ROC curve AUC = 0.97 for discriminating disordered gambling and AUC = 0.91 for discriminating problem gambling), and good convergent validity with external measures of gambling (Pearson’s correlation R = 0.91 with the total number of DSM-5 criteria for gambling disorder, and R = 0.55 with the debts accumulated due to gambling) and psychopathology (R = 0.50, 0.43 and 0.44 with the SCL-90R depression, anxiety and GSI scales). The optimal cutoff point for identifying gambling disorder was 4 (sensitivity Se = 92.3% and specificity Sp = 98.6%) and 2 for identifying problem gambling (Se = 78.8% and Sp = 96.7%). This study provides empirical support for the reliability and validity of the SOGS for assessing problem gambling in elders, and identifies two specific factors that could help both research and clinical decision-making, based on the severity and consequences of the gambling activity.

Suggested Citation

  • Roser Granero & Susana Jiménez-Murcia & Fernando Fernández-Aranda & Amparo del Pino-Gutiérrez & Teresa Mena-Moreno & Gemma Mestre-Bach & Mónica Gómez-Peña & Laura Moragas & Neus Aymamí & Isabelle Giro, 2020. "Presence of problematic and disordered gambling in older age and validation of the South Oaks Gambling Scale," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-22, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0233222
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233222
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0233222
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0233222&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0233222?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Max W. Abbott & Rachel A. Volberg, 2006. "The Measurement of Adult Problem and Pathological Gambling," International Gambling Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(2), pages 175-200.
    2. Robert J. Williams & Rachel A. Volberg, 2014. "The classification accuracy of four problem gambling assessment instruments in population research," International Gambling Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1), pages 15-28, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maria E. Bellringer & Nick Garrett, 2021. "Risk Factors for Increased Online Gambling during COVID-19 Lockdowns in New Zealand: A Longitudinal Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-13, December.
    2. Maxence Miéra & Sophie Massin & Vincent Eroukmanoff, 2023. "The social value of gambling: surplus estimates by gambling types for France," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(9), pages 1531-1543, December.
    3. Margo Hilbrecht & Steven E. Mock, 2019. "Low-Risk, Moderate-Risk, and Recreational Gambling Among Older Adults: Self-Complexity as a Buffer for Quality of Life," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 14(5), pages 1205-1227, November.
    4. Terri-Lynn MacKay & David C. Hodgins, 2011. "Cognitive distortions as a problem gambling risk factor in Internet gambling," International Gambling Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 163-175, December.
    5. Hing, Nerilee & Gainsbury, Sally, 2013. "Workplace risk and protective factors for gambling problems among gambling industry employees," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(9), pages 1667-1673.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0233222. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.