| Popis: |
The Short Gambling Harm Screen (SGHS) is currently the most frequently used dedicated measure of gambling-related harm (GRH). Despite evidence of robust psychometric properties, concerns have been raised about the validity of the scale. Specifically, several prominent researchers have suggested several SGHS items may not depict ‘genuine’ harms – instead reflecting either rational opportunity costs or mere engagement in alternative activities. As the SGHS is designed to measure GRH at a population-level, an over-estimation of harm may have serious ramifications for policy development and resource allocation. A research project was undertaken to probe the validity of the SGHS. A retrospective quantitative analysis of survey data from Australian adults was conducted to answer various hypotheses drawn from these questions. Two novel research articles present the findings of these investigations. These articles comprise the substantive chapters (2-3) of this thesis. In Article I, we sought to determine whether the SGHS – and constituent items – predicted gambling harms that were ‘unimpeachably’ harmful, i.e., items that conservatively reflected ‘genuine’ harm. We found strong concordance between the SGHS and a novel scale consisting entirely of ‘unimpeachable’ harms. In Article II, we tested whether the SGHS predicted external benchmarks of harm. We found that higher scores on the SGHS – as well as endorsement of any individual constituent item – predicted both lower wellbeing and higher psychological distress. Results from both studies indicate that SGHS scores predict changes in benchmarks that would be expected of a measure that captured GRH. More research is required to determine whether question-ordering and other contextual elements affect replicability of these findings across different cohorts and jurisdictions. In conclusion, this program of research supports the validity of the SGHS as a population screen for GRH. |
