Introduction
Methods
Participants
Dataset | Gender Male n (%) Female n (%) | Age Range Mean | Sample size by group Clinical n (%) Community n (%) |
---|---|---|---|
(1) Stinchfield et al. (2012); Ontario; n = 422 | 208 (49) | 18–75 | 200 (47) |
214 (51) | 44.3 | 222 (53) | |
(2) Stinchfield et al. (2012); Minnesota; n = 212 | 91 (43) | 18–68 | 92 (43) |
121 (57) | 42.2 | 120 (57) | |
(3) Jimenez-Murcia et al. (2012); Spain; n = 282 | 252 (90) | 17–79 | 232 (82) |
28 (10) | 43.6 | 50 (18) | |
(4) Jimenez-Murcia et al. (2009); Spain; n = 569 | 522 (92) | 17–88 | 286 (50) |
47 (8) | 40 | 283 (50) | |
(5) Stinchfield et al. (2007); Minnesota; n = 135 | 51 (38 %) | 20–63 | 91 (67) |
84 (62 %) | 42 | 44 (33) | |
(6) Stinchfield et al. (2007); Minnesota; n = 175 | 71 (41) | 18–67 | 150 (86) |
104 (59) | 42 | 25 (14) | |
(7) Stinchfield et al. (2005); Ontario; n = 390 | 170 (44) | 19–78 | 121 (31) |
196 (50) | 44 | 269 (69) | |
(8) Stinchfield (2003); Minnesota; n = 1062 | 506 (48) | 18–90 | 259 (24) |
556 (52) | 44 | 803 (76) |
Instrument
Procedures
Data Analyses
Results
Reliability
Dataset | Internal consistency Cronbach’s coefficient alpha | Temporal stability One week Test–retest Intraclass correlation (ICC) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
DSM-IV | DSM-IV | DSM-IV | DSM-5 | |
(1) Stinchfield et al. (2012); Ontario; n = 422 | .95 | .95 | NA | NA |
(2) Stinchfield et al. (2012); Minnesota; n = 212 | .94 | .94 | NA | NA |
(3) Jimenez-Murcia et al (2012); Spain; n = 282 | .87 | .87 | NA | NA |
(4) Jimenez-Murcia et al. (2009); Spain; n = 569 | .94 | .94 | NA | NA |
(5) Stinchfield et al. (2007); Minnesota; n = 135 | .94 | .94 | .74 | .71 |
(6) Stinchfield et al. (2007); Minnesota; n = 175 | .88 | .88 | .76 | .71 |
(7) Stinchfield et al. (2005); Ontario; n = 390 | .94 | .94 | NA | NA |
(8) Stinchfield (2003); Minnesota; n = 1062 | .98 | .98 | NA | NA |
Validity
Dataset | Convergent and discriminant validity variable | DSM-IV | DSM-5 |
---|---|---|---|
(1) Stinchfield et al. (2012); Ontario; n = 422 | Convergent validity variables | ||
SOGS | .93 | .93 | |
PGSI | .95 | .95 | |
GA-20 | .95 | .95 | |
Gambling frequency | .54 | .54 | |
Money spent gambling | .25 | .25 | |
Time spent gambling | .44 | .43 | |
Days gambling in past month | .40 | .39 | |
Money spent gambling in a typical month | .24 | .24 | |
Discriminant validity variables | |||
Sex | .17 | .17 | |
Age | .15 | .15 | |
Race | .12 | .11 | |
Marital status | .23 | .22 | |
Educational level | −.27 | −.26 | |
Employment status | −.25 | −.23 | |
Personal income | −.06 | −.05 | |
(2) Stinchfield et al. (2012); Minnesota; n = 212 | Convergent validity variables | ||
SOGS | .95 | .94 | |
PGSI | .96 | .96 | |
GA-20 | .96 | .96 | |
Gambling frequency | .46 | .46 | |
Money spent gambling | .42 | .40 | |
Time spent gambling | .21 | .21 | |
Days gambling in past month | .60 | .59 | |
Money spent gambling in a typical month | .44 | .42 | |
Discriminant validity variables | |||
Sex | −.01 | −.01 | |
Age | .40 | .40 | |
Race | .18 | .18 | |
Marital status | .18 | .18 | |
Educational level | −.17 | −.17 | |
Employment status | −.13 | −.14 | |
Personal income | .09 | .08 | |
Household income | .00 | −.02 | |
(3) Jimenez-Murcia et al. (2012); Spain; n = 282 | Convergent validity variables | ||
SOGS | .86 | .86 | |
PGSI | .89 | .89 | |
GA-20 | .90 | .89 | |
Gambling frequency | .50 | .49 | |
Days gambling in past month | .35 | .34 | |
Discriminant validity variables | |||
Sex | −.03 | −.01 | |
Age | −.27 | −.26 | |
Race | .11 | .10 | |
Marital status | .11 | .10 | |
Educational level | .00 | −.02 | |
Employment status | .15 | .14 | |
Personal income | −.29 | −.28 | |
(4) Jimenez-Murcia et al. (2009); Spain; n = 569 | Convergent validity variables | ||
Gambling frequency | .50 | .50 | |
Largest amount gambled in 1 day | .85 | .85 | |
SOGS | .95 | .95 | |
Discriminant validity variables | |||
Sex | .00 | .00 | |
Age | −.01 | .00 | |
Marital status | −.11 | −.11 | |
Educational level | −.21 | −.21 | |
Employment status | .14 | .14 | |
(5) Stinchfield et al. (2007); Minnesota; n = 135 | Convergent validity variables | ||
SOGS | .93 | .92 | |
Gambling frequency | .57 | .57 | |
Number of days gambling in past 30 days | .53 | .51 | |
Largest amount gambled in 1 day | .22 | .21 | |
Gambling debt from past 12 months | .36 | .36 | |
Number of financial problems | .69 | .67 | |
Discriminant validity variables | |||
Gender | .28 | .27 | |
Age | .21 | .23 | |
Marital status | .18 | .18 | |
Level of education | −.35 | −.36 | |
Employment status | −.13 | −.14 | |
Personal income | −.11 | −.12 | |
(6) Stinchfield et al. (2007); Minnesota; n = 175 | Convergent validity variables | ||
SOGS | .88 | .87 | |
Gambling frequency | .50 | .50 | |
Number of financial problems | .65 | .62 | |
Discriminant validity variables | |||
Gender | .11 | .10 | |
Age | .04 | .04 | |
Race | .05 | .05 | |
Marital status | .19 | .16 | |
Level of education | .02 | .00 | |
Employment status | .20 | .18 | |
Personal income | .20 | .18 | |
(7) Stinchfield et al. (2005); Ontario; n = 390 | Convergent validity variables | ||
SOGS | .97 | .97 | |
Gambling frequency | .71 | .71 | |
Largest amount gambled in 1 day | .65 | .66 | |
Discriminant validity variables | |||
Gender | −.08 | −.08 | |
Age | −.18 | −.18 | |
Marital status | .05 | .05 | |
Level of education | −.05 | −.06 | |
Employment status | −.07 | −.07 | |
Personal income | −.34 | −.34 | |
(8) Stinchfield (2003); Minnesota; n = 1062 | Convergent validity variables | ||
SOGS | .97 | .97 | |
Gambling frequency | .71 | .71 | |
Largest amount gambled in 1 day | .65 | .65 | |
Discriminant validity variables | |||
Gender | −.08 | −.08 | |
Age | −.18 | −.18 | |
Marital status | .05 | .05 | |
Level of education | −.05 | −.06 | |
Employment status | −.07 | −.07 | |
Personal income | −.34 | −.34 |
Classification Accuracy
Source of data | Classification indices | DSM-IV | DSM-5 |
---|---|---|---|
(1) Stinchfield et al. (2012); Ontario; n = 422; treatment = 200; community = 222 | Base rate | .47 | .47 |
Hit rate | .95 | .94 | |
Sensitivity | .96 | .98 | |
Specificity | .94 | .91 | |
FPR | .06 | .09 | |
FNR | .04 | .02 | |
PPP | .93 | .91 | |
NPP | .96 | .98 | |
(2) Stinchfield et al. (2012); Minnesota; n = 212; treatment = 92; community = 120 | Base rate | .43 | .43 |
Hit rate | .94 | .90 | |
Sensitivity | .99 | 1.00 | |
Specificity | .90 | .83 | |
FPR | .10 | .17 | |
FNR | .01 | .00 | |
PPP | .88 | .81 | |
NPP | .99 | 1.00 | |
(3) Jimenez-Murcia et al. (2012); Spain; n = 282; treatment = 232; community = 50 | Base rate | .82 | .82 |
Hit rate | .81 | .90 | |
Sensitivity | .77 | .88 | |
Specificity | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
FPR | 0 | 0 | |
FNR | .23 | .13 | |
PPP | 1.00 | 1.00 | |
NPP | .49 | .63 | |
(4) Jimenez-Murcia et al. (2009); Spain; n = 569; treatment = 286; community = 283 | Base rate | .50 | .50 |
Hit rate | .95 | .97 | |
Sensitivity | .92 | .95 | |
Specificity | .99 | .99 | |
FPR | .01 | .01 | |
FNR | .08 | .05 | |
PPP | .99 | .99 | |
NPP | .92 | .96 | |
(5) Stinchfield et al. (2007); Minnesota; n = 135; treatment = 91; community = 44 | Base rate | .33 | .33 |
Hit rate | .95 | .95 | |
Sensitivity | .97 | .98 | |
Specificity | .93 | .91 | |
FPR | .07 | .09 | |
FNR | .03 | .02 | |
PPP | .97 | .96 | |
NPP | .93 | .95 | |
(6) Stinchfield (2003); Minnesota; n = 175; treatment = 150; community = 25 | Base rate | .86 | .86 |
Hit rate | .95 | .97 | |
Sensitivity | .95 | .97 | |
Specificity | .96 | .96 | |
FPR | .04 | .04 | |
FNR | .05 | .03 | |
PPP | .99 | .99 | |
NPP | .77 | .86 | |
(7) Stinchfield et al. (2005); Ontario; n = 390; treatment = 121; community = 269 | Base rate | .31 | .31 |
Hit rate | .94 | .96 | |
Sensitivity | .83 | .92 | |
Specificity | .99 | .98 | |
FPR | .01 | .02 | |
FNR | .17 | .08 | |
PPP | .97 | .96 | |
NPP | .93 | .96 | |
(8) Stinchfield (2003); Minnesota; n = 1062; treatment = 259; community = 803 | Base rate | .25 | .25 |
Hit rate | .98 | .99 | |
Sensitivity | .95 | .97 | |
Specificity | .996 | .993 | |
FPR | .004 | .007 | |
FNR | .05 | .03 | |
PPP | .99 | .98 | |
NPP | .98 | .99 |
Source of data: Investigator, date, and type of study | DSM-IV | DSM-5 | Difference in prevalence | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Difference | z |
p
| |||
(1) Stinchfield et al. (2012); Ontario; n = 422 | 205/422 = .486 | 215/422 = .509 | .023 | −.69 | .49 |
(2) Stinchfield et al. (2012); Minnesota; n = 212 | 103/212 = .486 | 113/212 = .533 | .047 | −.97 | .33 |
(3) Jimenez-Murcia et al. (2012); Spain n = 282 | 179/282 = .635 | 203/282 = .720 | .085 | −2.16 | .03 |
(4) Jimenez-Murcia et al. (2009); Spain; n = 569 | 265/569 = .466 | 277/569 = .487 | .021 | −.71 | .48 |
(5) Stinchfield et al. (2005); Minnesota; n = 135 | 87/130 = .669 | 89/130 = .685 | .016 | −.27 | .79 |
(6) Stinchfield (2003); Minnesota; n = 175 | 144/175 = .823 | 147/175 = .840 | .017 | −.43 | .67 |
(7) Stinchfield et al. (2005); Ontario; n = 390 | 104/390 = .267 | 116/390 = .297 | .030 | −.96 | .34 |
(8) Stinchfield (2003); Minnesota; n = 1062 | 248/1059 = .234 | 256/1059 = .242 | .008 | −.41 | .68 |
Source of data: Investigator, date, and sample size | Endorsement rate in clinical sample | Endorsement rate in community sample | Number diagnosed with GD with illegal acts criterion | Number diagnosed with GD without illegal acts criterion | Number of people no longer diagnosed with GD after illegal acts criterion was deleted |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
(1) Stinchfield et al. (2012); Ontario | 66/133 = .50 | 0/222 = .00 | 215 | 215 | 0 |
(2) Stinchfield et al. (2012); Minnesota | 52/92 = .57 | 1/120 = .01 | 113 | 113 | 0 |
(3) Jimenez-Murcia et al. (2012); Spain | 43/232 = .19 | 0/50 = .00 | 204 | 203 | 1 |
(4) Jimenez-Murcia et al. (2009); Spain | 53/284 = .19 | 1/283 = .004 | 277 | 277 | 0 |
(5) Stinchfield et al. (2007); Minnesota | 53/87 = .61 | 2/43 = .05 | 90 | 89 | 1 |
(6) Stinchfield et al. (2007); Minnesota | 76/150 = .51 | 0/25 = .00 | 147 | 146 | 1 |
(7) Stinchfield et al. (2005); Ontario | 81/121 = .67 | 4/269 = .01 | 118 | 116 | 2 |
(8) Stinchfield (2003); Minnesota | 135/259 = .52 | 1/800 = .001 | 256 | 256 | 0 |