| Title |
Using Opinions and Knowledge to Identify Natural Groups of Gambling Employees
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Gambling Studies, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10899-014-9490-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Heather M. Gray, Matthew A. Tom, Debi A. LaPlante, Howard J. Shaffer |
| Abstract |
Gaming industry employees are at higher risk than the general population for health conditions including gambling disorder. Responsible gambling training programs, which train employees about gambling and gambling-related problems, might be a point of intervention. However, such programs tend to use a "one-size-fits-all" approach rather than multiple tiers of instruction. We surveyed employees of one Las Vegas casino (n = 217) and one online gambling operator (n = 178) regarding their gambling-related knowledge and opinions prior to responsible gambling training, to examine the presence of natural knowledge groups among recently hired employees. Using k-means cluster analysis, we observed four natural groups within the Las Vegas casino sample and two natural groups within the online operator sample. We describe these natural groups in terms of opinion/knowledge differences as well as distributions of demographic/occupational characteristics. Gender and language spoken at home were correlates of cluster group membership among the sample of Las Vegas casino employees, but we did not identify demographic or occupational correlates of cluster group membership among the online gambling operator employees. Gambling operators should develop more sophisticated training programs that include instruction that targets different natural knowledge groups. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 33% |
| Canada | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 51 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 6% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 21 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 13 | 25% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 22 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 14 December 2015.
All research outputs
#6,866,293
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gambling Studies
#305
of 989 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,044
of 240,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gambling Studies
#5
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 989 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 69% 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 240,206 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.