바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

Multi-Level and Multi-Group Analysis to Evaluate Effectiveness of CPGI

Abstract

This study aimed to address the controversy of whether or not the CPGI(Canadian Problem Gambling Index), which was developed to discriminate those in the general population with a gambling problem, accomplishes its stated purpose. The first controversy is that the items of the CPGI are not much different from existing scales, which are intended to discriminate people who have severe gambling problem. The second controversy is that the items of the CPGI are not appropriate for those people who have a less severe gambling problem or minor gambling problem. Quantitative evaluation through multi-level and multi-group analysis demonstrated configural invariance, metric invariance, scalar invariance, and invariance of factor variances. However, the factor variances of the low-level groups were less than .100 which is much smaller than the value (between .569 and .665) observed in the high-level groups. The distribution of scores seemed to be positively skewed with an apparent floor effect. When cross-level analyses were performed, metric invariance hardly held. Several items satisfying metric invariance did not show scalar invariance. Thus, CPGI is not appropriate to use for high and low level groups since most items of the CPGI showed differential functioning across the two groups. The strengths and weaknesses of the study as well as future research directions are discussed.

keywords
CPGI, multi-level analysis, multi-group analysis, differential functioning, CPGI, 다층분석, 다집단분석, 차별적 기능

Reference

1.

김교헌, 권선중, 김세진, 이순묵 (2011). 저수준 도박행동 연구를 위한 개념화 및 척도 개발. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 30(2), 599-625.

2.

김교헌, 조성겸, 권선중, 이동형 (2010). 사행산업 이용실태 조사. 서울: 사행산업통합감독위원회.

3.

김아영, 차정은, 권선중, 이순묵 (2011). CPGI의 한국판 제작 및 타당화. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 30(4), 1011-1038.

4.

김한조 (2010). 다집단 분석에서의 부분 동일성 전략들: 적절한 전략을 찾기 위한 시뮬레이션 연구. 성균관대학교 석사학위 청구논문.

5.

김현미, 방희정, 소유경, 옥 정, 김은경 (2006). 한국 남녀 대학생 집단에서 자아해석이 심리적 안녕감에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 여성, 11(4), 437-458.

6.

방희정, 윤진영, 김아영, 조혜자, 조숙자, 김현정 (2007). 한국 성인의 관계적 자기 구성요인 탐색 및 척도개발. 한국심리학회지: 사회문제, 13(3), 23-63.

7.

손원숙 (2002). 한국어판 16PF와 영어판 16PF 검사간의 구인 평형성. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 21(1), 91-116.

8.

손은영, 차정은, 김아영 (2007). 사회적 바람직성 상, 하위 집단 간 성격검사의 구인동등성 검증. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 21(2), 71-87.

9.

송주연, 연규월, 이태경 (2005). 여성 도박자의 임상적 특성: 카지노 출입자를 대상으로. 신경정신의학, 44(6), 676-681.

10.

윤미혜, 신희천 (2009). 일상사건의 공유를 통한 부부의 친밀감 발달과정: 지각된 배우자 반응의 매개효과. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 23(1), 17-32.

11.

이순묵 (2002). 사회과학을 위한 측정의 원리. 서울: 학지사.

12.

이순묵 (2010). 역량과 역량관련 프로그램의 타당화를 위한 제안. 한국심리학회지: 산업 및 조직, 23(3), 551-573.

13.

이순묵, 금은희, 이찬순 (2010). 다집단분석의 문제: 평균구조분석에서의 측정원점 동일성 검증필요 여부. 교육평가연구, 23(2), 391-416.

14.

이순묵, 김인혜 (2009). 구조방정식모형에서 다집단 분석의 문제 및 대안으로서의 다특질 다상황 다방법 모형. 교육평가연구, 22 (1), 219-242.

15.

이순묵, 김한조 (2011). 구조방정식 모형의 일반화 또는 집단차 연구를 위한 다집단 분석의 관행과 문제점. 사회과학(성균관대), 43(1), 63-112.

16.

이인혜 (2004). 카지노게임 선호유형, 성별, 도박심각성과 심리적 특성 간의 관계: 비합리적 도박신념과 충동성을 중심으로. 한국심리학회지: 건강, 9(2), 351-378.

17.

조용래, 김정호 (2002). 한국판 Beck Depression Inventory의 확인적 요인분석: 대학생과 임상표본 간 구조 및 측정동일성 검증. 한국심리학회지: 임상, 21(4), 843-857.

18.

최대정, 조현주, 박동건 (2005). 조직 구성원들의 정서 경험: 요인구조의 동등성 및 타당도 분석. 한국심리학회지: 산업 및 조직, 18(2), 385-411.

19.

한태영, 김원형 (2006). 권한위임과 조직공정성이 직무효과성에 미치는 영향에 대한 다수준적 고찰. 인사․조직연구, 14(1), 183- 216.

20.

한태영, 탁진국 (2005). 변혁적 및 거래적 리더십의 효과: 다수준 접근법을 적용한 재조명. 한국심리학회지: 산업 및 조직, 18(2), 337-360.

21.

Afifi, T. O., Cox, B. J., Martens, P. J., Sareen, J. & Enns, M. W. (2010). The relation between types and frequency of gambling activities and problem gambling among women in Canada. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55(1), 21- 28.

22.

American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

23.

Blaszczynski, A., Steel, Z., & McConaghy, N. (1997). Impulsivity in pathological gambling; the antisocial impulsivist. Addiction, 92(1), 75-87.

24.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. Yew York: Wiley & Sons.

25.

Chan, D. (2000). Detection of differential item functioning on the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory using multiple-group mean and covariance structure analyses. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35(2), 169-199.

26.

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233-255.

27.

Crisp, B. R., Thomas, S. A., Jackson, A. C., Thomason, N., Smith, S., Borrell, J., Ho, W., & Holt, T. A. (2000). Sex differences in the treatment needs and outcomes of problem gamblers. Research on Social Work Practice, 10 (2), 229-242.

28.

Delfabbro, P. (2000). Gender differences in Australian gambling: a critical summary of sociological and psychological research. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 35(2), 145- 158.

29.

Desai, R. A., & Potenza, M. N. (2008). Gender differences in the associations between past- year gambling problems and psychiatric disorders. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 43(3), 173-183.

30.

Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001a). The Canadian Problem Gambling Index: User Manual. Canada: Canadian Center on Substance Abuse, Jan. 28.

31.

Ferris, J. & Wynne, H. (2001b). The Canadian Problem Gambling Index: Final Report. Report to the Canadian Inter-Provincial Task Force on Problem Gambling, Feb. 19.

32.

Grant, J. E., & Kim, S. W. (2002). Gender differences in pathological gamblers seeking medication treatment. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 43(1), 56-62.

33.

Ibanez, A., Blanco, C., Moreryra, P., & Saiz-Ruiz, J. (2003). Gender difference in pathological gambling, Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 64(3), 295-301.

34.

Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 36(4), 409-426.

35.

Kenny, D. A. (1979). Correlation and Causality. New York: Wiley.

36.

Kozlowski, S. W., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, Temporal, and Emergent Processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.). Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations(pp.1-90). San- Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

37.

Kroeber, H. L. (1992). Roulette gamblers and gamblers at electronic game machines: What are the differences? Journal of Gambling Studies, 8(1). 79-92.

38.

Ladd, G. T., & Petry, N. M. (2003). A comparison of pathological gamblers with and without substance abuse treatment histories. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 11 (3), 202-209.

39.

Ladouceur, R. (1991). Prevalence estimates of pathological gambling in Quebec. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 36(10), 732-734.

40.

Ladouceur, R., Jacques, C., Chevalier, S., Sevigny, S., & Hamel, D. (2005). Prevalence of pathological gambling in Quebec in 2002. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 50(8), 451-456.

41.

Lee, S., & Kim, H. (2011, July). Interaction between test strategies and invariance/ noninvariance conditions in testing for partial (metric) invariance in structural equation modeling. Paper presented at the 17th International Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Hong Kong.

42.

Lesieur, H. R., & Blume, S. B. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen(SOGS): a new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144(9), 1184-1188.

43.

Mark, M. E., & Lesieur, H. R. (1992). A feminist critique of problem gambling research. British Journal of Addiction, 87(4), 549-565.

44.

Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58(4), 525-543.

45.

Moore, D. S. (2010). The basic practice of statistics. (5th Ed.). NY: Freeman & Company.

46.

Sorbom, D. (1974). A general method for studying differences in factor means and factor structures between groups. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 27, 229- 239.

47.

Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Drasgow, F. (2006). Detecting differential item functioning with confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Toward a unified strategy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1292-1306.

48.

Steiger, J. H. (1989). EzPATH: A supplementary module for SYSTAT and SYGRAPH. Evanson, IL: SYSTAT.

49.

Steiger, J. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling [Computer program]. Tulsa, OH: StatSoft, Inc.

50.

Stevens, M., & Young, M. (2010). Who plays what? Participation profiles in chance versus skill-based gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26(1), 89-103.

51.

Svetieva, E., & Walker, M. (2008). Inconsistency between concept and measurement: The Canadian Problem Gambling Index (CPGI). Journal of Gambling Issues, 22, 157-173.

52.

Tavares, H., Martins, S. S., Lobo, D. S. S., Silveira, C. M., Gentil, V., & Hodgins, D. (2003). Factors at play in faster progression for female pathological gamblers: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 64(4), 433-438.

53.

Vandenberg, R. J. (2002). Toward a further understanding of an improvement in measurement invariance methods and procedures. Organizational Research Methods, 5 (2), 139-158.

54.

Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A Review and Synthesis of the Measurement Invariance Literature: Suggestions, Practices, and Recommendations for Organizational Research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4-70.

55.

Welte, J. W., Barnes, G. M., Wieczorek, W. F., Tidwell, M, O., & Hoffman, J. H. (2007). Type of gambling and availability as risk factors for problem gambling: a tobit regression analysis by age and gender. International Gambling Studies, 7(2), 183-198.

56.

Welte, J. W., Barnes, G. M., Wieczorek, W. F., Tidwell, M. O., & Parker, J. C. (2004). Risk factors for pathological gambling. Addictive Behaviors, 29(2), 323-335.

57.

Yoon, M., & Millsap, R. E. (2007). Detecting Violations of Factorial Invariance Using Data- Based Specification Searches: A Monte Carlo Study. Structural Equation Modeling. 14(3), 435- 463.

logo