OBJECTIVE: To provide preliminary data on the Gambling Follow-Up Scale (GFS), a new scale assessing recovering gamblers. Secondary goals included assessing the impact of "work status," "family relationship," "leisure," and "enrolment in Gamblers Anonymous (GA)" on gambling (all items from the scale), together with the impact of treatment. METHOD: Using the GFS, 3 independent raters interviewed gamblers under treatment. The sample was collected in 2 university centres in the city of São Paulo, Brazil. Patients attended psychotherapy coupled with psychiatric follow-up, participation in GA, or both. RESULTS: We interviewed 47 pathological gamblers; 13 were interviewed twice, with a minimum interval of 6 months, for a total of 60 GFS interviews. Interviews took on average 6.0 minutes, SD 2.7. Interrater concordance ranged from 82% to 95% (intraclass correlation coefficient range 0.85 to 0.99, P < 0.001). A factorial analysis showed a 1-factor solution (Eigenvalue = 2.4, 47.6% of total variance accounted). "Leisure," "frequency and time gambling," and "family relationship" showed considerable loadings (0.84; 0.71; 0.71),whereas "enrolment in GA" and "work status" showed moderate loadings (0.59; 0.56). A linear regression model significantly correlated gambling (R2 = 0.356; P < 0.001) with "leisure" and length of treatment. Treatment modalities affected "leisure" (F2,43 = 5.00, P = 0.011), with GA attendees reporting more regular and gratifying activities. CONCLUSIONS: The GFS showed interrater reliability and construct validity. More leisure and lengthier treatment were significantly relAted to less gambling. GA enrolment seemed to particularly benefit the quality of leisure. Future studies could profit from the quickness and simple structure of the GFS in providing shareable outcome measures.
OBJECTIVE: To provide preliminary data on the Gambling Follow-Up Scale (GFS), a new scale assessing recovering gamblers. Secondary goals included assessing the impact of "work status," "family relationship," "leisure," and "enrolment in Gamblers Anonymous (GA)" on gambling (all items from the scale), together with the impact of treatment. METHOD: Using the GFS, 3 independent raters interviewed gamblers under treatment. The sample was collected in 2 university centres in the city of São Paulo, Brazil. Patients attended psychotherapy coupled with psychiatric follow-up, participation in GA, or both. RESULTS: We interviewed 47 pathological gamblers; 13 were interviewed twice, with a minimum interval of 6 months, for a total of 60 GFS interviews. Interviews took on average 6.0 minutes, SD 2.7. Interrater concordance ranged from 82% to 95% (intraclass correlation coefficient range 0.85 to 0.99, P < 0.001). A factorial analysis showed a 1-factor solution (Eigenvalue = 2.4, 47.6% of total variance accounted). "Leisure," "frequency and time gambling," and "family relationship" showed considerable loadings (0.84; 0.71; 0.71),whereas "enrolment in GA" and "work status" showed moderate loadings (0.59; 0.56). A linear regression model significantly correlated gambling (R2 = 0.356; P < 0.001) with "leisure" and length of treatment. Treatment modalities affected "leisure" (F2,43 = 5.00, P = 0.011), with GA attendees reporting more regular and gratifying activities. CONCLUSIONS: The GFS showed interrater reliability and construct validity. More leisure and lengthier treatment were significantly relAted to less gambling. GA enrolment seemed to particularly benefit the quality of leisure. Future studies could profit from the quickness and simple structure of the GFS in providing shareable outcome measures.
Authors: Andrée Schuler; Peter Ferentzy; Nigel E Turner; Wayne Skinner; Kathryn E McIsaac; Carolyn P Ziegler; Flora I Matheson Journal: J Gambl Stud Date: 2016-12