↓ Skip to main content

Reliability, Validity, and Classification Accuracy of the DSM-5 Diagnostic Criteria for Gambling Disorder and Comparison to DSM-IV

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Gambling Studies, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
Title
Reliability, Validity, and Classification Accuracy of the DSM-5 Diagnostic Criteria for Gambling Disorder and Comparison to DSM-IV
Published in
Journal of Gambling Studies, September 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10899-015-9573-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Randy Stinchfield, John McCready, Nigel E. Turner, Susana Jimenez-Murcia, Nancy M. Petry, Jon Grant, John Welte, Heather Chapman, Ken C. Winters

Abstract

The DSM-5 was published in 2013 and it included two substantive revisions for gambling disorder (GD). These changes are the reduction in the threshold from five to four criteria and elimination of the illegal activities criterion. The purpose of this study was to twofold. First, to assess the reliability, validity and classification accuracy of the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for GD. Second, to compare the DSM-5-DSM-IV on reliability, validity, and classification accuracy, including an examination of the effect of the elimination of the illegal acts criterion on diagnostic accuracy. To compare DSM-5 and DSM-IV, eight datasets from three different countries (Canada, USA, and Spain; total N = 3247) were used. All datasets were based on similar research methods. Participants were recruited from outpatient gambling treatment services to represent the group with a GD and from the community to represent the group without a GD. All participants were administered a standardized measure of diagnostic criteria. The DSM-5 yielded satisfactory reliability, validity and classification accuracy. In comparing the DSM-5 to the DSM-IV, most comparisons of reliability, validity and classification accuracy showed more similarities than differences. There was evidence of modest improvements in classification accuracy for DSM-5 over DSM-IV, particularly in reduction of false negative errors. This reduction in false negative errors was largely a function of lowering the cut score from five to four and this revision is an improvement over DSM-IV. From a statistical standpoint, eliminating the illegal acts criterion did not make a significant impact on diagnostic accuracy. From a clinical standpoint, illegal acts can still be addressed in the context of the DSM-5 criterion of lying to others.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users 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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 99 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Researcher 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 6 6%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 32 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 33 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Neuroscience 5 5%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 33 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 27 May 2023.
All research outputs
#3,188,235
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gambling Studies
#165
of 989 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,389
of 286,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gambling Studies
#4
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 286,220 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.