Abstract
The validity of a survey's findings is dependent upon the clarity and lack of ambiguity contained in each individual item yet minimal attention has been directed to this issue in most prevalence studies. Researchers have shown a tendency to accept the uncritical assumption that respondents interpret seemingly simple and straightforward items such as ‘how much do you spend gambling?’ in a consistent manner. No attempt is made to confirm the uniformity of responses by clarifying the mathematical formulae used by respondents to derive their answers. The purpose of this paper was to examine the consistency shown by a sample of 181 medical undergraduate subjects in estimating the level of gambling expenditure in a series of five case vignettes describing various scenarios of wins and losses during a session of gambling. Results revealed a wide variation in calculated figures depending upon whether or not subjects interpreted the item to mean net expenditure or turnover. Only two thirds or less of subjects calculated the figure to be the difference between the initial amount risked and the residual at the conclusion of the session. It is suggested that more attention be paid in prevalence and clinical studies to providing subjects with clear instructions on how to calculate expenditure estimates.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Abbott, D.A., & Cramer, S.L. (1993). Gambling attitudes and participation: a Midwestern survey. Journal of Gambling Studies, 9(3), 247–263.
Bergh, C., & Kühlhorn, E. (1994). Social, psychological and physical consequences of pathological gambling in Sweden. Journal of Gambling Studies, 10(3), 275–285.
Dickerson, M. G., Hinchy, J., & Legg England, S. (1990). Minimal treatments and problem gamblers: a preliminary investigation. Journal of Gambling Studies, 6(1), 87–102.
Dickerson, M.G., Allcock, C., Blaszczynski, A., Nicholls, B., Williams, J. & Maddern, R. (1996). An examination of the socio-economic effects of gambling on individuals, families and the community, including research into the costs of problem gambling in New South Wales. Sydney: Australian Institute for Gambling Research.
Dickerson, M. G., Baron, E., Hong, S., Cottrell, D. (1996). Estimating the extent and degree of gambling related problems in the Australian population: a national survey. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12(2), 161–178.
Haig, B. (1985). Expenditure on legal gambling. In G. Caldwell, B. Haig, M. Dickerson, & L. Sylvan (eds.) Gambling in Australia. Sydney: Southwood Press.
Ladouceur, R., Boisvert, J-M., Pépin, M., Loranger, M., & Sylvain, C. (1994). Social cost of pathological gambling, Journal of Gambling Studies, 10(4), 399–409.
Mikesell, J.L. (1991). Lottery expenditure in a non-lottery state. Journal of Gambling Studies, 7(2), 89–98.
Schwarz, J. & Lindner, A. (1992). Inpatient treatment of male pathological gamblers in Germany. Journal of Gambling Studies, 8(1), 93–109.
Smith, G.J. (1992). Sucker bet or sure thing: a critical analysis of sports lotteries. Journal of Gambling Studies, 8(4), 331–349.
Volberg, R.A., Dickerson, M., Ladouceur, R., & Abbott, M.W. (1996). Prevalence studies and the development of services for problem gamblers and their families. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12(2), 215–231.
Walker, M.B., & Dickerson, M.G. (1996). The prevalence of problem and pathological gambling: a critical analysis. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12(2), 233–249.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Blaszczynski, A., Dumlao, V. & Lange, M. “How Much Do You Spend Gambling?” Ambiguities in Survey Questionnaire Items. J Gambl Stud 13, 237–252 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024931316358
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024931316358