↓ Skip to main content

Validation of the Short Gambling Harm Screen (SGHS): A Tool for Assessment of Harms from Gambling

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Gambling Studies, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
Title
Validation of the Short Gambling Harm Screen (SGHS): A Tool for Assessment of Harms from Gambling
Published in
Journal of Gambling Studies, June 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10899-017-9698-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew Browne, Belinda C. Goodwin, Matthew J. Rockloff

Abstract

It is common for jurisdictions tasked with minimising gambling-related harm to conduct problem gambling prevalence studies for the purpose of monitoring the impact of gambling on the community. However, given that both public health theory and empirical findings suggest that harms can occur without individuals satisfying clinical criteria of addiction, there is a recognized conceptual disconnect between the prevalence of clinical problem gamblers, and aggregate harm to the community. Starting with an initial item pool of 72 specific harms caused by problematic gambling, our aim was to develop a short gambling harms scale (SGHS) to screen for the presence and degree of harm caused by gambling. An Internet panel of 1524 individuals who had gambled in the last year completed a 72-item checklist, along with the Personal Wellbeing Index, the PGSI, and other measures. We selected 10 items for the SGHS, with the goals of maximising sensitivity and construct coverage. Psychometric analysis suggests very strong reliability, homogeneity and unidimensionality. Non-zero responses on the SGHS were associated with a large decrease in personal wellbeing, with wellbeing decreasing linearly with the number of harms indicated. We conclude that weighted SGHS scores can be aggregated at the population level to yield a sensitive and valid measure of gambling harm.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 13 21%
Unknown 20 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 11%
Sports and Recreations 4 7%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 22 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 July 2022.
All research outputs
#8,158,001
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gambling Studies
#373
of 1,023 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,258
of 333,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gambling Studies
#8
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,023 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,646 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.