South Oaks Gambling Screen Wikipedia

South Oaks Gambling Screen Wikipedia Download

Abbott, M., & Volberg, R. A. (1991). Gambling in New Zealand-Report to the New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs.Google Scholar
Abbott, M., & Volberg, R. A. (1992). Frequent Gamblers and Problem Gamblers in New Zealand: Report on Phase Two of the National Survey-Report to the New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs.Google Scholar
Abbott, M. W., & Volberg, R. A. (1996). The New Zealand National Survey of problem and pathological gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12(2), 143–160.Google Scholar
Allcock, C. (1995). Some ponderings on pathological gambling: An introspective essay. Paper presented at the Sixth National Conference of the National Association for Gambling Studies, Sydney.Google Scholar
Allcock, C. C., & Grace, D. M. (1988). Pathological gamblers are neither impulsive nor sensationseekers. Australia & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 22(3), 307–11.Google Scholar
American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic & Statistical Manual 3rd edition. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, Third edition, revised, DSM-III-R. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
Andrews, G. H. C. (1998). Treatments that work in anxiety disorders. [Review]. Medical Journal of Australia, 168(12), 628–34.Google Scholar
Baron, E., Dickerson, M., & Blaszczynski, A. (1995). The Scale of Gambling Choices: Preliminary development of an instrument to measure impaired control of gambling behaviour. Paper presented at the Sixth National Conference of the National Association for Gambling Studies, Sydney.Google Scholar
Battersby, M., & Tolchard, B. (1996). The effects of treatment on pathological gamblers referred to a behavioural psychotherapy unit: I-Changes in psychiatric co-morbidity following treatment. Conference Proceedings, 7th annual conference of the National Association of Gambling Studies, Adelaide.Google Scholar
Blaszczynski, A., & McConaghy, N. (1989). Anxiety and/or depression in the pathogenesis of addictive gambling. International Journal of Addiction, 24(4), 337–50.Google Scholar
Blaszczynski, A., Steel, Z., & McConaghy, N. (1997). Impulsivity in pathological gambling: the antisocial impulsivist. Addiction, 92(1), 75–87.Google Scholar
Blume, S. B. (1991). Pathological Gambling: Addiction without a Drug. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Bondolfi, G., Osiek, C., & Ferrero, F. (2000). Prevalence estimates of pathological gambling in Switzerland. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 101(6), 473–5.Google Scholar
Dickerson, M. (1993). Internal and External Determinants of Persistent Gambling: Problems in Generalising From One Form of Gambling to Another. Journal of Gambling Studies, 9(3), 225–245.Google Scholar
Dickerson, M. G., Baron, E., Hong, S. M., & 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.Google Scholar
Duvarci, I., Varan, A., Coskunol, H., & Ersoy, M. A. (1997). DSM-IV and the South Oaks Gambling Screen: Diagnosing and Assessing Pathological Gambling in Turkey. Journal of Gambling Studies, 13(3), 193–206.Google Scholar
Ladouceur, R. (1992). Prevalence Estimates of Pathological Gamblers in Quebec, Canada. Paper presented at the Gambling Behavior and Problem Gambling: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Risk and Gambling, University of Nevada, Reno.Google Scholar
Ladouceur, R., Jacques, C., Ferland, F., & Giroux, I. (1999). Prevalence of problem gambling: a replication study 7 years later. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 44(8), 802–4.Google Scholar
Ladouceur, R., Sylvain, C., Letarte, H., Giroux, I., & Jacques, C. (1998). Cognitive treatment of pathological gamblers. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 36(12), 1111–9.Google Scholar
Lesieur, H. R. (1994). Epidemiological surveys of pathological gambling: Critique and suggestions for modification. Journal of Gambling Studies, 10(4), 385–398.Google Scholar
Lesieur, H. R., & Blume, S. B. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): a new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 144(9), 1184–8.Google Scholar
Lesieur, H. R., & Blume, S. B. (1990). Characteristics of pathological gamblers identified among patients on a psychiatric admissions service. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 41, 1009–1012.Google Scholar
Lesieur, H. R., & Blume, S. B. (1991). Evaluation of patients treated for pathological gambling in a combined alcohol, substance abuse and pathological gambling treatment unit using the Addiction Severity Index. British Journal of Addiction, 86(8), 1017–28.Google Scholar
Lesieur, H. R., & Blume, S. B. (1993). Revising the South Oaks Gambling Screen in different settings. Journal of Gambling Studies, 9(3), 213–223.Google Scholar
Petry, N. M. (2001). Substance abuse, pathological gambling, and impulsiveness. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 63(1), 29–38.Google Scholar
Productivity Commission. (1999). iAustralia's Gambling Industries, Report No. 10, AusInfo, Canberra.Google Scholar
Specker, S. M., Carlson, G. A., Edmonson, K. M., Johnson, P. E., et al. (1996). Psychopathology in pathological gamblers seeking treatment. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12(1),–81.Google Scholar
Steel, Z., & Blaszczynski, A. (1998). Impulsivity, personality disorders and pathological gambling severity. Addiction, 93(6), 895–905.Google Scholar
Stinchfield, R. (2002). Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy of the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS). Addictive Behaviors, 27(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
Tolchard, B., & Battersby, M. W. (1996). The effect of treatment of pathological gamblers referred to a Behavioural Psychotherapy unit: II-Outcome of three kinds of behavioural intervention. Conference Proceedings, 7th annual conference of the National Association for gambling Studies, Adelaide.Google Scholar
Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., Ladouceur, R., & Tremblay, R. E. (2001). Gambling, delinquency, and drug use during adolescence: mutual influences and common risk factors. Journal of Gambling Studies, 17(3), 171–90.Google Scholar
Volberg, R. A. (1991). A Study of Legal Gaming in Connecticut: Problem Gambling.Google Scholar
Volberg, R. A. (1994). The prevalence and demographics of pathological gamblers: Implications for public health. American Journal of Public Health, 84, 237–241.Google Scholar
Volberg, R. A., & Banks, S. M. (1990). A Review of two measures of pathological gambling in the United States. Journal of Gambling Studies, 6, 153–163.Google Scholar
Volberg, R. A., & Steadman, H. J. (1988). Refining prevalence estimates of pathological gambling. American Journal of Psychiatry, 145, 502–505.Google Scholar
Volberg, R. A., & Steadman, H. J. (1989). Prevalence estimates of pathological gambling in New Jersey and Maryland. American Journal of Psychiatry, 146(12), 1618–9.Google Scholar
Volberg, R. A., & Steadman, H. J. (1992). Accurately Depicting Pathological Gamblers: Policy and Treatment Implications. Journal of Gambling Studies, 8, 401–412.Google Scholar
Walker, M. (1992). The Psychology of Gambling. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar

Other intrinsic motivators include a distorted sense of control over the outcomes of uncertain events (Goodie, 2005; Lam, 2007). Based on cognitive theory and research, a study by Goodie (2005) used the South Oaks Gambling Screen and targeted tasks to assess frequent gamblers' sense of control and confidence. The results indicated that problem. GA has a list of twenty questions that can be used to self-diagnose compulsive gambling. The results from their instrument have correlated strongly with other tests that screen for compulsive gambling (e.g. The Total Sensation Seeking Scale, Boredom Susceptibility, Experience Seeking, South Oaks Gambling Screen, and Disinhibition subscales). Nov 20, 2017 Addiction - Gambling and Prisoners - Psychology bibliographies - in Harvard style. Change style. Problem Gambling in a Federal Prison Population: Results from the South Oaks Gambling Screen. Journal of Gambling Studies, 13(1), pp.7-24. Short-Term Outcome of Inmates Participating in the Lifestyle Change.

Gamblers Anonymous (GA) is a twelve-step program for people who have a gambling problem. The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop gambling.

4Criticism

History[edit]

The organization began in Los Angeles on September 13, 1957. By 2005 there were over 1000 GA groups in the United States, and groups had been established in Mexico, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain, New Zealand, Australia, Brazil, Israel, Kenya, Uganda, Korea, Japan and many other locations throughout the world.^[1]

Incidence rate and evaluation[edit]

Problem gambling is estimated to occur in 1.6% of the adult population in the United States.^[2] GA has a list of twenty questions that can be used to self-diagnose compulsive gambling. The results from their instrument have correlated strongly with other tests that screen for compulsive gambling (e.g. the Total Sensation Seeking Scale, Boredom Susceptibility, Experience Seeking, South Oaks Gambling Screen, and Disinhibition subscales).^[3]^[4]

Effectiveness[edit]

Compared to problem gamblers who do not attend GA, GA members tend to have more severe gambling problems, are older, have higher incomes, are less likely to be single, have more years of gambling problems, have larger debts, have more serious family conflicts, and less serious substance abuse problems.^[2] GA may not be as effective for those who have not had significant gambling problems. GA is effective to prevent 'relapses' (inability to remain abstinent from gambling), but not as effective when helping members deal with the consequences of their relapse.^[5]

GA spends much of its time and energy counseling members on how to deal with financial and legal problems. GA supports 'pressure relief groups' where members take each other to task and encourage them to 'get honest' with people in their lives and get their affairs in order. Gamblers who are able to moderate their activity are not likely to continue attending GA meetings. GA members who stopped attending meetings were more likely to consider the sharing at the meetings 'meaningless' and were more critical of GA literature. Those who felt particularly elated at their first GA meetings were less likely to continue than those who had a more balanced first impression. GA, therefore, may be most suitable for severe problem gamblers who do not have compounding issues.^[6]

Criticism[edit]

Attrition[edit]

Less than 8% of those who initially attend GA remain in the program and abstinent from gambling for over a year.^[7] Program participation and abstinence increase if members are involved in additional therapy, or if one or more of their family members are involved in Gam-Anon or Gam-A-Teen.^[8]^[9]^[10]

Gender bias[edit]

Although the likelihood of attending GA is the same for males and females,^[11] GA has been characterized as a predominately male fellowship. The number of female members, however, is increasing and there is an increasing sensitivity within GA to women's attitudes.^[6] GA's lack of appeal towards females has been attributed to GA's lack of focus on the principles of spirituality in other twelve-step programs, like Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). A causal link, however, has not been shown. GA is often described as more secularized than AA.^[12]

Among problem gamblers, it has been found that women are more focused on interpersonal issues, and that social issues were more likely to cause them to 'relapse.' Males more frequently discuss 'external concerns' such as jobs and legal problems, and are more likely to relapse because of substance abuse. Therefore, it does seem plausible that GA's downplaying of spiritual, interpersonal, and psychoemotional issues, inhibits its effectiveness for women.^[6]^[13]