Assessment of High School Students’ Understanding of DSM-IV-MR-J Items

Abstract

The current study examines the understanding of the DSM-IV-MR-J items to assess pathological gambling among adolescents aged 12 to 15, and explores its accuracy. The DSM-IV-MR-J was first administered in the classroom. Participants were assigned to either an experimental or a control group. Participants in the first group were asked to explain the meaning of each DSM-IV-MR-J item during an individual interview. If the item was not properly understood, the investigator corrected the participant’s understanding of the item. The questionnaire was then administered a second time. The control group was only submitted to a test-retest procedure. The results showed that 22% of the items were misunderstood. Changes in diagnostic categories emerged on the second administration for both groups. A 20% and 29.4% decrease in the number of problem/pathological gamblers was observed in the experimental and control group. The implications of these results are discussed in terms of the reliability of the DSM-IV-MR-J as a measure of problem gambling among adolescents.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abbott, M. W., & Volberg, R. A. (1996). The New Zealand national survey of problem and pathological gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 143-159.

Fisher, S. (1992). Measuring pathological gambling in children: The case of fruit machines in the U.K. Journal of Gambling Studies, 8, 263-285.

Fisher, S. (2000). Developing the DSM-IV-MR-J criteria to identify adolescent problem gambling in non-clinical populations. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16, 253-273.

Gupta, R., & Derevensky, J.L. (1998). Adolescent gambling behavior: A prevalence study and examination of the correlates associated with problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 14, 319-345.

Knowles, E. S., & Condon, C. A. (1999). Why people say “yes”: A dual-process theory of acquiescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 379-386.

Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review Psychology, 50, 537-567.

Ladouceur, R., Bouchard, C., Rhéaume, N., Jacques, C., Ferland, F., Leblond, J., et al. (2000). Is the SOGS an accurate measure of pathological gambling among children, adolescents and adults? Journal of Gambling Studies, 16, 1-24.

Ladouceur, R., Boudreault, N., Jacques, C., & Vitaro, F. (1999). Pathological gambling and related problems amongadolescents. Journal of Child& Adolescent Substance Abuse, 8, 55-68.

Lesieur, H. R., & Blume, S. B. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): Anewinstrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1184-1188.

10.

Shaffer, H. J., & Hall, M. N. (1996). Estimating the prevalence of adolescent gambling disorders: A quantitative study and guide toward standard gambling nomenclature. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 193-214.

11.

Walker, M. B., & Dickerson, M. G. (1996). The prevalence of problem and pathological gambling: A critical analysis. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 233-249.

12.

Winters, K. C., Stinchfield, R., & Fulkerson, J. (1993). Patterns and characteristics of adolescent gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 9, 371-386.