A2.1 Summary of Adult, adolescent and children Screening and Assessment Tools

Transcription

1 A2.1 Summary of Adult, adolescent and children Screening and Assessment Tools Table 1. Adult screening and assessment tools Tool Stated purpose Country of development Brief BioSocial Screen (BBGS) (1) Early Intervention Health Test (EIGHT screen) (2) To develop a screen for efficient application to the household population and for clinicians to use with treatment seekers A brief screen originally designed for use by family doctors No. of items Normative sample US 3 Participants from nationally representative random sample from the general household population who gambled 5 or more times during a year (N=11,027) NZ 8 A variety of populations were compared, including: specialist treatment clinicians (N=66), patients of family doctors (pilot N=80; male patients N=241; male and female patients Scoring categories Positive screen (positive endorsement of one or more items) Serious (level 2 or 3 ) (score of 4 or more) Timeframe Internal Consistency (Cronbach s α) Lifetime.96 (3, 4).97 (2) Testretest reliability Sensitivity Lie/bet):.96 (1).91 (5).75 (3).78 (3).90 (4) 1.00 (4) Specificity Lie/bet):.99 (1).50 (5).95 (4).11 (4)

2 Gamblers Anonymous Twenty Questions (GA20) (6) To help the individual decide if he or she is a compulsive gambler and wants to stop N=798), clients attending a day clinic for (N=246) and clients and staff at the day to test the screen s reliability (N=65) (2) US 20 Compulsive (score of 7 or more) (7) Lifetime (7).89 (8).94 (9) (7).98 (9) (7).99 (9) Lie/bet:.78 (10).92 (11) Lie/bet:.99 (11) 1.00 (10) Lie-Bet Questionnaire (11) To provide a brief screening tool for a DSM-IV diagnosis of US 2 Pathological and non males (N=362) Pathological of 1 or more) Lifetime.92 (12) GA20:.99 (11) 1.00 (10).96 (12) GA20:.85 (10).91 (11)

3 National Opinion Research Center DSM Screen for Problems (NODS) (13) To develop a population based telephone screening tool to identify s according to DSM-IV criteria US 17 (12- mth) + 17 (lifetime) Participants from a nationally representative sample of households (N=2,417). No (score of 0), at risk (score of 1-2), of 3-4) and of 5-10) Lifetime.86 (14).88 (15).69 (16).71 (16).79 (17).87 (14).99 (13).46 (15).98 (13).69 (16).68 (16).94 (18).97 (15).86 (18).96 (16).99 (16).57 (17).96 (17) NODS-CLiP (19) Problem and Pathological Measure To develop an efficient standardised diagnostic interview instrument for identifying adult and in epidemiological research and settings An assessment instrument for and general US 3 Experienced gamblers in eight general adult population field studies conducted in the US between 1999 and 2003 (N = I,867) Canada 14 Two validation samples: Adults from the Kitchener Positive screen (positive endorsement of one or more items) Recreational Gambler; atrisk gambler; Lifetime.76 (16).81 (16) EIGHT:.68 (4) (19).94 (16) EIGHT: 1.00 (4) (19).98 (16)

4 (PPGM) (16) populations (16) Census Metropolitan Area in Ontario, Canada (N= 607) and adults from 105 countries who completed online surveys (N=3,464) (overall N=4,071) Problem Severity Index (PGSI) of the Canadian Problem Index (CPGI) (20) To measure prevalence of in the community and distinguish between subtypes of gamblers in general population surveys Canada 9 Nationally representative random sample of individuals from the general household population (N = 3,120) gambler; gambler Non- gambler/nongambler (score of 0); low risk of 1 or 2); moderate risk of 3-7); of 8-27).69 (21).80 (16).84 (20).86 (22).86 (23).90 (24).90 (16).92 (14).92 (25).92 (8).78 (20).78 (20).80 (16).92 (16) 1.00(16) 1.00 (16).64 (3+ cut off) (24).83 (20).62 (20).79 (16).98 (16) 1.00 (20) 1.00 (3+ cut off) (24) 1.00 (22) 1.00 (20) South Oaks Screen (SOGS) (26)/South Oaks Screen-Revised (SOGS-R) (27) Developed to screen populations (28) U.S 20 Stage 2: Inpatients with diagnosis of alcohol or drug abuse (N=297) Stage 3 (cross validation): Members of Gambler s Probable (score of 5 or more) Lifetime (26).72 (29).85 (14).93 (15).97 (26).71 (26) counsellor DSM-III-R rating:.92 (26) DSM-III-R:.54 (26) counsellor DSM-III-R rating:.98 (26) DSM-III-R:.50 (26)

5 Anonymous (N=213), University students (N=384) and hospital employees (N=152) 1.00 (26) 1.00 (26).82 (15).99 (26).99 (26).84 (15) (30).22 (31).69 (32).78 (33).79 (16).82 (34).83 (16).84 (14).86 (25).69 (16).92 (16) DIGS:.71 (34).79 (16).99 (16) DIGS:.88 (34).67 (32) 1.00 (32).97 (17).49 (17)

6 SOGS-R: Past 6 (27).86 (32) DSM-III-R:.86 (27).99 (32) DSM-III-R:.76 (27).75 (32) Sydney Laval University Screen (SLUGS) (31) Victorian Screen (VGS) (35) To determine the number of gamblers who report impaired control (putative gamblers), gamblers more time or money then can be afforded resulting in harm that may require intervention, and those who express a desire for treatment To develop a new instrument that could be used in surveys of general population to assess the extent of and for people Scotland 7 Staff and students from specific college and university institutions in Scotland (N=2069) Australia 21 (15 item harm to self scale) Pre-pilot version: administered to individuals in a number of settings and by both face-toface and computer aided telephone Non- (score of 0-8), borderline of 9-13), of 14-20) and.85 (31) VGS:.85 (36).94 (25) Harm to self scale:.89 (36).96 (35)

7 presenting for treatment or assistance in a setting interview formats (N=138). Pilot version: Contained 25 questions and was administered to a variety of subjects from a number of settings (N=261). The validation exercise consisted of a subsample of n=71 that had a semi-structured interview. of 21+)

8 Table 2. Adolescent and children screening and assessment tools Tool Canadian Adolescent Inventory (CAGI) Problem Severity Subscale (GPSS) (37) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-IV- Adapted for Stated purpose To develop an instrument for assessing risk and in adolescent populations (aged 13 to 17 years) (GPSS), as well as the psychological and social harms, financial consequences and loss of control related to behaviour (CAGI factors). To develop a measure to define and count Country of origin No. items Canada 24 CAGI; 9 GPSS Normative sample Phase II: Secondary schools students in Manitoba and Québec (N = 2,394). Phase III validation: adolescents (scoring 3 or more on the SOGS-RA) recruited from adolescent substance abuse treatment and delinquency centres (N = 39) and highest frequency gamblers from Phase II (N = 66) U.K. 12 Adolescents between 12 and 15 years recruited Scoring categories CAGI factors: Psychological consequences (6 items); Social consequences (5 items); Financial consequences (6 items); Preoccupation and impaired control (4 items) GPSS: No /green light (scores of 0 1), low to moderate severity/yellow light (scores of 2-5), high severity/red light (scores of 6 or more) Probable of 4 or more); social Timeframe Internal consistency CAGI factors: (37).75 (39).78 (41, 43).80 (42) Testretest reliability CAGI factors: (37) Sensitivity GPSS: clinician rating of adolescent s severity:.91 (37) clinician rated.97 (37) selfrated.96 (37) SOGS- RA:.55 (41).79 (42) Specificity GPSS: clinician rating of adolescent s severity:.96 (37) clinician rated DSM- IV:.93 (37) selfrated DSM- IV:.89 (37) SOGS-RA:.99 (41) 1.00 (42)

9 Juveniles (DSM- IV-J (38) / Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-IV- Multiple Response- Adapted for Juveniles (DSM- IV-MR-J) (39) Massachusetts Adolescent Screen (MAGS) (44) with pre-adult gamblers (38). To present a revised version of DSM-IV-J criteria for youth in order to screen for in youth (39) To develop a brief screening instrument that can yield an index of non and during a 5 to US 26 2 subscales: (1) DSM- IV (12 items); (2) MAGS (14 items) MAGS subscale from schools (N = 9,774) Adolescents who were students in suburban Boston high schools (N = 856) gambler (less than 4) (38). Development article: non gambler (score of less than 4), of 4 or more). Other frequently employed cutoffs: (1) No (score of 0), at risk (scores of 1 to 3), (score of 4 or more) (40); (2) No (score of 0 or 1), at risk (score of 2 or 3), (score of 4 or more) (41, 42) Non- (scores less than 0), atrisk (scores between 0 and 2), probable or (scores greater than 2) Lifetime MAGS 7:.65 (45).83 (44).87 (44) MAGS-7: DSM- IV:.81 (44) SOGS- RA:.23 (45) MAGS-7: DSM- IV:.97 (44) SOGS-RA:.99 (45)

10 South Oaks Screen Revised for Adolescents (SOGS-RA) (46, 47) 10 minute survey To develop and evaluate an adolescent severity measure (revision of the SOGS) comprises 7 scored items to form MAGS-7 US 16 (12 scored) Older Minnesota adolescents aged 15 to 18 years recruited by telephone or schools (N = 1,101) Development article: (score of 3 or more). Later publications: Two different scoring protocols (47). Most common is non- (scores of 0 or 1), at-risk (scores of 2 or 3), (scores of 4 or more).75 (42) (48).80 (45).80 (46).81 (41).98 (49).57 (48) DSM- IV-MR-J:.73 (41).97 (42) MAGS- 7:.69 (45) Lie/bet:.24 (50) daily :.22 (51) selfidentified need for help:.59 (49) DSM- IV-MR-J:.99 (42).99 (41) MAGS-7:.95 (45) Lie/bet:.99 (50) daily :.99 (51) selfidentified need for help:.96 (49) receiving help:.62 (49) receiving help:.96 (49)

11 References 1. Gebauer L, LaBrie R, Shaffer HJ. Optimizing DSM-IV-TR classification accuracy: A brief biosocial screen for detecting current disorders among gamblers in the general household population. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 2010;55(2): Sullivan S. The GP 'Eight' Screen. Auckland: Auckland University; Abacus Counselling Training & Supervision Ltd. Eight Screen validation: final report. New Zealand: Abacus Counselling Training & Supervision Ltd Sullivan S. Don t let an opportunity go by: validation of the EIGHT screen. International Journal of Mental Health. 2007;5: Sullivan S, Brown R, Skinner B. Pathological and sub- in a New Zealand prison: a comparison of EIGHT and SOGS screens. International Journal of Mental Health Addiction. 2008;6: Gamblers Anonymous. Available from: 7. Toneatto T. Reliability and validity of the gamblers anonymous twenty questions. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment. 2008;30(1): Arthur D, Tong WL, Chen CP, Hing AY, Sagara-Rosemeyer M, Kua EH, et al. The validity and reliability of four measures of behaviour in a sample of Singapore university students. Journal of Studies Dec;24(4): Ursua MP, Uribelarrea LL. 20 questions of Gamblers Anonymous: A psychometric study with population of Spain. Journal of Studies Spr;14(1): Johnson EE, Hamer RM, Nora RM. The Lie/Bet Questionnaire for screening gamblers: a follow-up study. Psychological Reports Dec;83(3 Pt 2): Johnson EE, Hamer R, Nora RM, Tan B, Eisenstein N, Engelhart C. The Lie/Bet Questionnaire for screening gamblers. Psychological Reports Feb;80(1): Gotestam K, Johansson A, Wenzel HG, Simonsen I-E. Validation of the Lie/Bet Screen For Pathological on Two Normal Population Data Sets. Psychological Reports Dec;95(3,Part1): Gerstein D, Murphy S, Toce M, Hoffman J, Palmer A, Johnson R, et al. impact and behaviour study: report to the national impact study commission. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center Wulfert E, Hartley J, Lee M, Wang N, Franco C, Sodano R. Screens: Does Shortening the Time Frame Affect their Psychometric Properties? Journal of Studies Dec;21(4): Wickwire EM, Jr., Burke RS, Brown SA, Parker JD, May RK. Psychometric evaluation of the National Opinion Research Center DSM-IV Screen for Problems (NODS). The American Journal on Addictions Sep;17(5): Williams RJ, Volberg RA. Best Practices in the Population Assessment of Problem. Guelph, Ontario: Report prepared for the Ontario Problem Research Centre2010.

12 17. Hodgins DC. Using the NORC DSM Screen for Problems as an outcome measure for : Psychometric evaluation. Addictive Behaviors. 2004;29(8): Murray V, Ladouceur R, Jacques C. Classification of Gamblers According to the NODS and a Clinical Interview. International Studies Jun;5(1): Toce-Gerstein M, Gerstein DR, Volberg RA. The NODS-CLiP: A rapid screen for adult and. Journal of Studies. 2009;25: Ferris J, Wynne H. The Canadian index: Final report. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse Doiron JP, Nicki RM. Epidemiology of in prince edward island: A Canadian microcosm? Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 2001;46(5): Brooker IS, Clara IP, Cox BJ. The Canadian Problem Index: Factor structure and associations with psychopathology in a nationally representative sample. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement. 2009;41(2): Holtgraves T, Holtgraves T. Evaluating the severity index. Journal of Studies. [Evaluation Studies Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't] Mar;25(1): Orford J, Wardle H, Griffiths M, Sproston K, Erens B. PGSI and DSM-IV in the 2007 British Prevalence Survey: reliability, item response, factor structure and inter-scale agreement. International Studies. 2010;10: McMillen J, Wenzel M. Measuring : Assessment of three prevalence screens. International Studies Nov;6(2): Lesieur HR, Blume SB. The South Oaks Screen (SOGS): A new instrument for the identification of Pathological gamblers. American Journal of Psychiatry. 1987;144(9): Abbott MW, Volberg RA. The New Zealand National Survey of and. Journal of Studies Sum;12(2): Hodgins DC, Stinchfield R. Disorders. In: Hunsley J, Mash EJ, editors. Assessments that work. New York: Oxford University Press; Petry NM. Concurrent and predictive validity of the addiction severity index in gamblers. American Journal on Addictions. 2007;16(4): Laundergan J, Shaffer J, Eckhoff K. Adult survey of Minnesota behavior: a benchmark, University of Minnesota, Duluth: Center for Addiction Studies Blaszczynski A, Ladouceur R, Moodie C. The Sydney Laval Universities Screen: preliminary data. Addiction Research & Theory. 2008;16(4): Stinchfield R. Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy of the South Oaks Screen (SOGS). Addictive Behaviors. 2002;27(1):1-19.

13 33. Orford J, Sproston K, Erens B. SOGS and DSM-IV in the British Prevalence Survey: Reliability and factor structure. International Studies Jun;3(1): Weinstock J, Whelan JP, Meyers AW, McCausland C. The performance of two screens in college students. Assessment Dec;14(4): Ben-Tovim DI, Esterman A, Tolchard B, Battersby M. The Victorian Screen. Melbourne: Research Panel Tolchard B, Battersby M. The Victorian screen: reliability and validation in a population. Journal of Studies. 2010;26: Tremblay J, Wiebe J, Stinchfield R, Wynne H. Canadian Adolescent Inventory (CAGI): Phase III final report. Canada: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and the Interprovincial Consortium on Research Fisher SE. Measuring in children: The case of fruit machines in the U.K. Journal of Studies Fal;8(3): Fisher S. Developing the DSM-IV-MR-J criteria to identify adolescent in non- populations. Journal of Studies Fal;16(2-3): Pelletier A, Ladouceur R, Fortin J-M. Assessment of High School Students' Understanding of DSM-IV-MR-J Items. Journal of Adolescent Research Mar;19(2): Olason DT, Sigurdardottir KJ, Smari J. Prevalence Estimates of Participation and Problem among year-old Students in Iceland: A Comparison of the SOGS-RA and DSM-IV-MR-J. Journal of Studies Mar;22(1): Skokauskas N, Burba B, Freedman D. An assessment of the psychometric properties of Lithuanian versions of DSM-IV-MR-J and SOGS- RA. Journal of Studies. 2009;25(2): Dowling N, Jakson A, Thomas S, Frydenberg E. Children at risk of developing. Melbourne: Research Australia Shaffer HJ, LaBrie R, Scanlan KM, Cummings TN. Pathological among adolescents: Massachusetts Screen (MAGS). Journal of Studies Win;10(4): Langhinrichsen-Rohling J, Rohling ML, Rohde P, Seeley JR. The SOGS-RA vs. the MAGS-7: Prevalence Estimates and Classification Congruence. Journal of Studies Fal;20(3): Winters KC, Stinchfield RD, Fulkerson J. Toward the development of an adolescent severity scale. Journal of Studies Spr;9(1): Winters KC, Stinchfield RD, Kim LG. Monitoring adolescent in Minnesota. Journal of Studies Sum;11(2): Poulin C, Poulin C. An assessment of the validity and reliability of the SOGS-RA. Journal of Studies. [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Validation Studies]. 2002;18(1):67-93.

14 49. Boudreau B, Poulin C. The South Oaks Screen-Revised Adolescent (SOGS-RA) revisited: A cut-point analysis. Journal of Studies Sep;23(3): Rossow I, Molde H. Chasing the criteria: Comparing SOGS-RA and the Lie/Bet screen to assess prevalence of and 'atrisk' among adolescents. Journal of Issues Oct;18: Poulin C. Problem among adolescent students in the Atlantic provinces of Canada. Journal of Studies Spr;16(1):53-78.