development and psychometric evaluation of the brief adolescent gambling screen (bags)
Clicks: 222
ID: 178850
2017
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
30.0
/100
222 views
30 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #819 of 1,131 articles by views in accounts of chemical research
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 1,131 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate the initial reliability, validity and classification accuracy of a new brief screen for adolescent problem gambling. The three-item Brief Adolescent Gambling Screen (BAGS) was derived from the nine-item Gambling Problem Severity Subscale (GPSS) of the Canadian Adolescent Gambling Inventory (CAGI) using a secondary analysis of existing CAGI data. The sample of 105 adolescents included 49 females and 56 males from Canada who completed the CAGI, a self-administered measure of DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for Pathological Gambling, and a clinician-administered diagnostic interview including the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for Pathological Gambling (both of which were adapted to yield DSM-5 Gambling Disorder diagnosis). A stepwise multivariate discriminant function analysis selected three GPSS items as the best predictors of a diagnosis of Gambling Disorder. The BAGS demonstrated satisfactory estimates of reliability, validity and classification accuracy and was equivalent to the nine-item GPSS of the CAGI and the BAGS was more accurate than the SOGS-RA. The BAGS estimates of classification accuracy include hit rate = 0.95, sensitivity = 0.88, specificity = 0.98, false positive rate = 0.02, and false negative rate = 0.12. Since these classification estimates are preliminary, derived from a relatively small sample size, and based upon the same sample from which the items were selected, it will be important to cross-validate the BAGS with larger and more diverse samples. The BAGS should be evaluated for use as a screening tool in both clinical and school settings as well as epidemiological surveys.
| Reference Key |
stinchfield2017frontiersdevelopment
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Randy Stinchfield;Harold Wynne;Jamie Wiebe;Joel Tremblay |
| Journal | accounts of chemical research |
| Year | 2017 |
| DOI |
10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02204
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.