Merih ALTINTAŞ, Emine Burcu TUNÇ, Duygu DİNÇER, Merve ÖZDENLER, Ayşe Nazlı HUNCA OLCAY, Can BARIN

Kumar Oynama Bozukluğu Tanısı Olan Hastalarda Problemli Kumar Oynama Şiddet Endeksi Türkçe Versiyonunun Psikometrik Özellikleri

Amaç: Bu çalışmada Problemli Kumar Oynama Şiddet Endeksi’nin kumar oynama bozukluğu tanısı olan ve olmayan katılımcılardan oluşan bir çalışma grubunda psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Yöntem: Altmışı kumar oynama bozukluğu tanısı olan 539 kişiden veri toplanmıştır. Verilerin toplanmasında Problemli Kumar Oynama Şiddet Endeksi, South Oaks Kumar Tarama Testi ve demografik bilgi formu kullanılmıştır. Endeksin dilsel eşdeğerlik, geçerlik, güvenirlik ve madde istatistikleri incelenmiştir. Bulgular: Geçerlik kestirimleri için yapı geçerliği ve ölçüt bağıntılı geçerlik analizi yapılmıştır. Yapı geçerliğini incelemek için yapılan doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda ölçeğin dokuz maddeden ve tek alt boyuttan oluşan yapısının Türk kültüründe geçerli olduğu görülmüştür. Ölçüt bağıntılı geçerliği tespit etmek için Kumar Oynama Şiddet Endeksi ile South Oaks Kumar Tarama Testi arasındaki ilişki incelenmiştir. Yapılan analizler iki ölçek arasında anlamlı bir ilişki olduğunu göstermiştir. Güvenirlik kestirimleri için endeksin iç tutarlık analizi ve test-tekrar test güvenirliği incelenmiştir. İç tutarlılık düzeyi Cronbach alfa katsayısı ile hesaplanmış ve iç tutarlılığının yüksek olduğu görülmüştür. Yapılan test-tekrar test analizlerinde ölçeğin iki farklı zamanda aynı gruptaki uygulamaları arasındaki ilişkinin yüksek olduğu görülmüştür. Sonuç: Araştırma bulguları, Problemli Kumar Oynama Şiddet Endeksi’nin Türkiye’de yürütülecek hem klinik araştırma ve uygulama çalışmalarında hem de genel nüfus üzerinden yürütülecek tarama çalışmalarında kullanılabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğunu ortaya koymuştur.

Psychometric Properties of Turkish Version of the Problematic Gambling Severity Index in Patients with a Diagnosis of Gambling Disorder

Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the Problematic Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) in a study group consisting of participants with and without a diagnosis of pathological gambling disorder. Method: Data were collected from 539 individuals, 60 of whom were diagnosed with gambling disorder. The Problematic Gambling Severity Index (PGSI), South Oaks Gambling Screening Test (SOGS) and demographic information form were used to collect data. Linguistic equivalence, validity, reliability and item statistics of the index were examined. Results: Construct validity and criterion-related validity analysis were performed for validity estimations. As a result of the confirmatory factor analysis performed to examine the construct validity, it was seen that the structure of the scale consisting of nine items and a single sub-dimension was valid in Turkish culture. To determine criterion-related validity, the relationship between the PGSI and the SOGS was examined. The analysis showed that there was a significant relationship between the two scales. For the reliability estimations, the internal consistency analysis of the index and test-retest reliability were examined. The internal consistency level was calculated with the Cronbach's alpha coefficient and it was seen that the internal consistency was high. In the test-retest analysis, it was seen that the relationship between the administrations of the scale in the same group at two different times was high. Conclusion: The PGSI is a valid and reliable measurement that can be used both in clinical research and practical studies to be conducted in Turkey, and in survey studies to be conducted on the general population.

PDF

___

1. World Health Organization. Addictive behaviors. Available from: URL: https:// www.who.int/health-topics/addictive-behaviour#tab=tab_2. Accessed date: 10.08.2021.
2. Baumgartner C, Bilevicius E, Khazaal Y, Achab S, Schaaf S. et al. Efficacy of a web-based self-help tool to reduce problem gambling in Switzerland: Study protocol of a two-Armed randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open, 2019; 9(12): 1-11.
3. WHO. ICD 11 for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics. 6C50 Gambling disorder. Geneva: WHO, 2021.
4. Yakovenko I, Quigley L, Hemmelgarn BR., Hodgins D, Ronksley P. The efficacy of motivational interviewing for disordered gambling: systematic review and meta-analysis. Addict Behav 2015; 43: 72-82.
5. Gooding P, Tarrier N. A systematic review and meta-analysis of cognitive- behavioural interventions to reduce problem gambling: Hedging our bets? Behav Res Ther 2009; 47(7): 592-607.
6. Kessler RC, Hwang I, LaBrie R, Petukhova M, Sampson NA, Winters KC, Shaffer HJ. DSM-IV pathological gambling in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication, Psychol. Med 2008; 38(9): 1351-1360.
7. Ögel K. Bağımlılık ve Tedavisi Temel Kitabı. İstanbul: IQ Yayınları, 2018.
8. Dinç M. Online Kumar ve Cinsel Bağımlılığı Mizaç ve Bağlanma Üzerinden Anlamak. İstanbul: Kaknüs Yayınları, 2021.
9. Altıntaş M. Anxiety, depression, rumination and impulsivity in patients with gambling disorder. Çukurova Med J 2018; 43(3): 624-633.
10. Petry NM, Stinson FS, Grant BF. Comorbidity of DSM-IV pathological gambling and other psychiatric disorders: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. J Clin Psychiatry 2005; 66(5): 564- 574.
11. Amerikan Psikiyatri Birliği (APA). Ruhsal Bozuklukların Tanısal ve Sayımsal El Kitabı, Köroğlu, E. (çeviren). Ankara: Hekimler Yayın Birliği, 2014.
12. Lesieur HR, Blume SB. The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. Am J Psychiatry 1987; 144(9): 1184–1188.
13. Abbott MW, Volberg, RA. The measurement of adult problem and pathological gambling. Int Gambl Stud 2006; 6(2): 175-200.
14. Svetieva E, Walker, M. Inconsistency between concept and measurement: The Canadian Problem Gambling Index (CPGI). J Gamb Issues 2008; 22: 157– 173.
15. Sharp C, Steinberg L, Yaroslavsky I, Hofmeyr A, Dellis A, Ross D, Kincaid, H. An item response theory analysis of the Problem Gambling Severity Index. Assessment 2012; 19(2): 167–175.
16. Rosenthal RJ. Pathological gambling and problem gambling: problems of definition and diagnosis. Shaffer HJ, Stein SA, Gambino B, Cummings TN (editors). Compulsive Gambling: Theory, Research and Practice. Massachusetts: Lexington Books, Mass, 1989, 101-125.
17. Stein SA. A developmental approach to understanding compulsive gambling behavior. Shaeffer HJ, Stein SA, Gambino B, Cummings TN (editors). Compulsive Gambling: Theory, Research and Practice. Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 1989:: 65-88.
18. Culleton RP. The prevalence rates of pathological gambling: A look at methods, Journal of Gambling Behavior 1989; 5, 22-41.
19. Robins LN, Helzer JE, Orvaschel H, Anthony JC, Blazer DG, Burnam A, Burke J. The Diagnostic Interview Schedule. Eaton WW, Kessler LG (editors). Epidemiological Field Methods in Psychiatry: The NIMH Epidemiological Catchment Area Program, Orlando: Academic Press, 1985, 143-170.
20. Zimmerman MA, Meeland T, Krug SE. Measurement and structure of pathological gambling behavior. J Pers Assess 1985; 49(1): 76–81.
21. Shaffer HJ, Labrie R, Scanlan KM, Cummings TN. Pathological gambling among adolescents: Massachusetts Gambling Screen (MAGS). J Gambl Stud 1994; 10(4): 339-62.
22. Winters KC, Specker S, Stinchfield, R. 1997. Brief Manual for Use of the Diagnostic Interview for Gambling Severity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Medical School, 1997.
23. Stinchfield R, Winters KC. Outcome of Minnesota’s Gambling Treatment Programs. J Gambl Stud 2001; 17(3): 217–245.
24. Fisher S. Measuring the prevalence of sector-specific problem gambling: A study of casino patrons. J Gambl Stud 2000; 16(1): 25–51.
25. Gerstein DR, Hoffmann J, Larison C, et al. Gambling Impact and Behavior Study: Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, 1999.
26. Grant JE, Steinberg MA, Kim SW, Rounsaville BJ, Potenza MN. Preliminary validity and reliability testing of a structured clinical interview for pathological gambling. Psychiatry Res 2004; 128(1): 79–88.
27. Wenzel M, McMillen J, Marshall D, Ahmed E. Validation of the Victorian Gambling Screen. Australia: Gambling Research Panel, 2004.
28. Holtgraves T. Evaluating the Problem Gambling Severity Index. J Gambl Stud 2009; 25(1): 105–120.
29. Strong DR, Breen RB, Lesieur HR, Lejuez CW. Using the Rasch model to evaluate the South Oaks Gambling Screen for use with nonpathological gamblers. Addict Behav 2003; 28(8): 1465–1472.
30. Ursua MP, Uribelareea LL. 20 Questions of Gamblers Anonymous: A psychometric study with population of Spain. J Gambl Stud 1998; 14(1): 3-15.
31. Ferris J, Wynne H. The Canadian Problem Gambling Index: Final Report. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, 2001.
32. Calado F, Griffiths MD. Problem gambling worldwide: An update and systematic review of empirical research (2000-2015). J Behav Addict 2016; 5(4): 592-613.
33. Currie SR, Hodgins DC, Casey DM. Validity of the Problem Gambling Severity Index Interpretive Categories. J Gambl Stud 2013; 29(2): 311-327.
34. Colasante E, Gori M, Bastiani L, Siciliano V, Giardoni P, Grassi M, Molinaro S. An assessment of the psychometric properties of Italian version of CPGI. J Gambl Stud 2013; 29(4): 765-774.
35. Devlin ME, Walton D. The prevalence of problem gambling in New Zealand as measured by the PGSI: Adjusting prevalence estimates using meta- analysis. Int Gambl Stud 2012; 12(2): 177–197.
36. Gyollai A, Urbán R, Farkas J, Kun B, Kökönyei G, Eisinger A, Demetrovics Z. The Hungarian version of the problem gambling severity index (PGSI-HU). Psychiatr Hung 2013; 28(3): 274–280.
37. Lee KH. Preliminary study for validation of Korean Canadian problem gambling index. Korean J Health Psychol 2009; 14: 667–675.
38. Loo JM, Oei TP, Raylu N. Psychometric evaluation of the problem gambling severity index-Chinese version (PGSI-C). J Gambl Stud 2011; 27(3): 453–466.
39. Lopez-Gozalez H, Estevez A, Griffiths MD. Spanish validation of the Problem Gambling Severity Index: A confirmatory factor analysis with sports bettors. J Behav Addict 2018; 7(3): 814-820.
40. So R, Matsushita S, Kishimoto S, Frukawa, TA. Development and validation of the Japanese version of the Problem Gambling Severity Index. Addict Behav 2019; 98: 1-6.
41. Svensson J. Romild, U. Problem gambling features and gendered gambling domains amongst regular gamblers in a Swedish population-based study. Sex Roles 2014; 70(5–6): 240–254.
42. Orford J, Wardle H, Griffiths M, Sproston K, Erens B. PGSI and DSM-IV in the 2007 British gambling prevalence survey: Reliability, item response, factor structure and inter-scale agreement. Int Gambl Stud 2010; 10(1): 31–44.
43. Duvarcı İ, Varan A. South Oaks Kumar Tarama Testi Türkçe formu güvenirlik ve geçerlik çalışması. Turk Psikiyatri Derg 2001; 12(1): 34-45.
44. Erdoğdu Y, Arcan K. Validity and reliability study of South Oaks Gambling Screen-Revised for Adolescents in a sample of Turkish high school students. Addicta: The Turkish Journal on Addictions 2020; 7(2): 99-106.
45. Evren C, Evren B, Dalbudak E, Topcu M, Kutlu N. Development and psychometric validation of the Turkish Gambling Disorder Screening Test: A measure that evaluates gambling disorder regarding the American Psychiatric Association framework. Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences 2020; 10(3): 116-124.
46. Arcan K. Turkish version of the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI-T): Psychometric properties among the university students. Addicta: The Turkish Journal on Addictions 2020; 7(2): 90-98.
47. Derevensky JL. Foreword. Meyer G, Hayer T, Griffiths M. (editors). Problem Gambling in Europe. New York: Springer, 2009: xv-xviii.
48. Byrne BM. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group, 2010
49. Şimşek ÖF. Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesine Giriş: Temel İlkeler ve LISREL Uygulamaları. Ankara: Ekinoks Yayıncılık, 2007.
50. Crocker L, Algina J. Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory. Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc, 1986.
51. Kline RB. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: The Guilford Press, 2011.
52. Tabachnick B, Fidell S. Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston: Pearson Education Inc, 2007.
53. Hanley J A, Mcneil B J. A Method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 1983; 148(3): 839-843.
54. Zou KH, O’malley AJ, Mauri L. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis for evaluating diagnostic tests and predictive models. Circulation, 2007; 115(5): 654-657.
55. Pontes HM, Griffiths MD. Portuguese validation of the Internet Gaming Disorder Scale-Short-Form. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 2016; 19(4): 288– 293.
56. Griffiths M, Hayer T, Meyer G. Problem gambling: A European perspective. Meyer G, Hayer, T, Griffiths MD (editors). Problem Gambling in Europe. New York: Springer, 2009, xix-xxx.
57. Abbott MW, Volberg RA, Bellringer M, Reith G. A Review of Research aspects of problem gambling. London: Responsibility in Gambling Trust, 2004.
58. Dickson L, Derevensky JL, Gupta R. Youth gambling problems: Examining risk and protective factors. Int Gambl Stud 2008; 8(1): 25-47.