Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Level of Agreement Between Problem Gamblers’ and Collaterals’ Reports: A Bayesian Random-Effects Two-Part Model
Show others and affiliations
2019 (English)In: Journal of Gambling Studies, ISSN 1050-5350, E-ISSN 1573-3602, Vol. 35, no 4, p. 1127-1145Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This study investigates the level of agreement between problem gamblers and their concerned significant others (CSOs) regarding the amount of money lost when gambling. Reported losses were analyzed from 266 participants (133 dyads) seeking treatment, which included different types of CSO–gambler dyads. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) concerning the money lost when gambling during the last 30 days were calculated based on the timeline followback. In order to model reports that were highly skewed and included zeros, a two-part generalized linear mixed-effects model was used. The results were compared from models assuming either a Gaussian, two-part gamma, or two-part lognormal response distribution. Overall, the results indicated a fair level of agreement, ICC = .57, 95% CI (.48, .64), between the gamblers and their CSOs. The partner CSOs tended to exhibit better agreement than the parent CSOs with regard to the amount of money lost, ICCdiff = .20, 95% CI (.03, .39). The difference became smaller and inconclusive when reports of no losses (zeros) were included, ICCdiff = .16, 95% CI (− .05, .36). A small simulation investigation indicated that the two-part model worked well under assumptions related to this study, and further, that calculating the ICCs under normal assumptions led to incorrect conclusions regarding the level of agreement for skewed reports (such as gambling losses). For gambling losses, the normal assumption is unlikely to hold and ICCs based on this assumption are likely to be highly unreliable.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2019. Vol. 35, no 4, p. 1127-1145
Keywords [en]
gambling, CSO–gambler agreement, skewed data, intraclass correlations, two-part models
National Category
Psychology
Research subject
Psychology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-176367DOI: 10.1007/s10899-019-09847-yISI: 000494041700003OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-176367DiVA, id: diva2:1374938
Note

This work was supported by Svenska Spels’ Independent Research Council (2013-0015).

Available from: 2019-12-03 Created: 2019-12-03 Last updated: 2019-12-09Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Carlbring, Per
By organisation
Clinical psychology
In the same journal
Journal of Gambling Studies
Psychology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 5 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf