↓ Skip to main content

Which Diagnostic Criteria are Most Useful in Discriminating Between Social Gamblers and Individuals with Gambling Problems? An Examination of DSM-IV and DSM-5 Criteria

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Gambling Studies, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
Which Diagnostic Criteria are Most Useful in Discriminating Between Social Gamblers and Individuals with Gambling Problems? An Examination of DSM-IV and DSM-5 Criteria
Published in
Journal of Gambling Studies, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10899-015-9591-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline E. Temcheff, Thomas S. Paskus, Marc. N. Potenza, Jeffrey L. Derevensky

Abstract

The current study sought to identify which diagnostic criteria for gambling disorder have the greatest ability to differentiate between social and problem gamblers. This study was conducted on a sample of male and female college student athletes across the U.S. (n = 8674). Classification and regression tree analysis represents an appropriate technique when addressing the question of an item's diagnostic value, as it sequentially selects variables to isolate sets of observations with similar outcomes. The current results suggest that the item related to preoccupation ("Have there been periods in the past year where you spent a lot of time thinking about gambling?") was the DSM-5 item best able to differentiate between male and female social and problem gamblers in this sample. When considering only the nine criteria retained in the DSM-5, three criteria were identified as key for distinguishing between social and disordered gamblers among men, and one criterion was identified for distinguishing between groups of women. In addition, these results do not support the notion that the illegal acts criterion has a particularly low base rate and found that it can be an important indicator of disordered gambling in a college-aged sample.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
Unknown 35 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Other 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 9 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 17%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Computer Science 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 10 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 04 March 2016.
All research outputs
#15,740,207
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gambling Studies
#611
of 989 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,041
of 406,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gambling Studies
#3
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 406,035 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.