Development of Korean Gambling Behavior Scale-H: A Scale for Inquiry of Problematic Gambling

이순묵; 김교헌; 최용성; 이흥표; 김종남; 김수진; 권선중; 김세진; 김인혜

Korean Journal of Psychology: General

KOREAN
P-ISSN1229-067X
E-ISSN2734-1127
KCI

Home

OA Policy

ISSN : 1229-067X

Article Contents

Prev Next

e-Submission

Vol.30 No.4

Citation Share

Development of Korean Gambling Behavior Scale-H: A Scale for Inquiry of Problematic Gambling

Korean Journal of Psychology: General / Korean Journal of Psychology: General, (P)1229-067X; (E)2734-1127

2011, v.30 no.4, pp.1053-1082

& (2011). Development of Korean Gambling Behavior Scale-H: A Scale for Inquiry of Problematic Gambling. Korean Journal of Psychology: General, 30(4), 1053-1082.

copy

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to develop Korean Gambling Behavior Scale(KGBS)-H for conducting research on problematic gambling. To develop the scale, we identified limitations of the existing scales used in Korea now, and then selected several constructs to be measured by the new scale, integrating theoretical approach and experiential approach. First, we collected items included in the existing gambling addiction scales, 32 behavioral features of gamblers obtained from many sources such as literature review, second handed data of individual interviews with 33 gamblers, and our focus group interviews with counselors, G.A. members and gamblers’ families. Through the item development process, we could get 143 items. Excluding overlapping items, 78 items were used for the preliminary survey of gamblers and undergraduates. And then we selected 53 items for main study through item analysis, item selection, and addition of new items. After the main survey for 581 gamblers, we selected 32 items for H scale. We identified 3 factors through exploratory factor analysis. The factors was labeled as ‘influences of reinforcing factors’, ‘control difficulty’, and ‘preoccupation and damages’. In this process, we found that one item has low correlations with other items, so we decided finally 31 items as the KGBS-H scale. Since the correlations among 3 factors were very high, we proposed a simplex model of gambling behavior. Actually, the model fit of the simplex model was good. In addition, we demonstrated concurrent validity and convergent/discriminant validity of the H scale. Lastly, we discussed the implications and the limitations of this study.

keywords: 도박중독, H척도, 척도개발, 도박행동 변별, 단일체모형, gambling problems, H scale, scale development, gambling problems, H scale, scale development

Reference

김교헌 (2003). 병적 도박 선별을 위한 K-NODS의 신뢰도와 타당도. 한국심리학회지: 건강, 8(3), 487-509.

김교헌 (2006). 중독과 자기조절: 인지신경과학적 접근. 한국심리학회지: 건강, 11(1), 63- 105.

김교헌, 권선중, 김세진, 이순묵 (2011). 저수준 도박행동 연구를 위한 개념화 및 척도개발. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 30(2), 599-628.

김종남, 이흥표, 이순묵 (2011). 문제 도박의 조기탐지 및 대처를 위한 가족용 척도의 개발. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 30(1), 135- 163.

이경희 (2009). 한국판 캐나다 문제도박 척도(CPGI)의 타당화를 위한 예비연구. 한국심리학회지: 건강, 14, 667-675.

이순묵 (1995). 요인분석Ⅰ. 서울: 학지사.

이순묵, 김교헌, 최용성, 이흥표, 김종남, 김수진 (2009). 한국형 도박중독 변별척도 개발연구. 서울: 사행산업통합감독위원회.

이순묵, 김종남, 최삼욱, 현명호, 김수진 (2009). 도박의 정의와 범주화에 대한 개념의 명확화. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 28(1), 1-27.

이순묵, 김아영, 권선중, 김종남, 차정은, 김인혜 (2011). 전국민 대상 도박문제 선별척도 및 기준점수 타당화 연구. 서울: 사행산업통합감독위원회.

10.

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

11.

이흥표 (2003). 비합리적 도박신념, 도박동기 및 위험감수 성향과 병적 도박의 관계. 고려대학교 박사학위 청구논문.

12.

이흥표, 김정수, 고효진, 김갑중 (2003). 병적 도박의 충동성과 감각추구: 알코올중독과의 비교. 신경정신의학. 42, 89-95.

13.

충남대 산학협력단 (2010). 사행산업 이용실태조사. 서울: 사행산업통합감독위원회

14.

최완철, 김경빈, 오동열, 이태경 (2001). 한국형 사우스 오크 병적 도박 검사 표준화에 대한 예비연구. Journal of Korean Academy of Addiction Psychiatry, 5(1), 46-52.

15.

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

16.

Baker, F. B. (1985). The basics of item response theory. Portmouth, NH: Heineman.

17.

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

18.

Brill, I. (2010). A SASⓡ program computes the crude, stratified and Mantel-Haenzel odds ratio for case-control study analysis of Nx2xk tables. SUGI 29, Paper 197-29. http://www2. sas.com/proceedings/sugi29/197-29.pdf. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.

19.

Browne, M. W., Cudeck, R., Tateneni, K., & Mels, G. (1998). CEFA: Comprehensive exploratory factor analysis, WWW document and computer program. URL http://quantrm2.psy.ohio -state.edu/browne/.

20.

Cronbach, L. J. (1988), “Five perspectives on validity argument”. In Test Validity. H. Wainer & H. I. Braun(Eds.), NJ: LEA. 3-17.

21.

Culleton, R. P. (1989). “The Prevalence Rates of Pathological Gambling: A Look at Methods,” Journal of Gambling Behavior5: 22-41.

22.

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

23.

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

24.

Guttman, L. A. (1954). A new approach to factor analysis: The radix. In P.F. Lazarsfeld(Ed.): Mathematical thinking in the social sciences. New York: Columbia University Press.

25.

Joreskog, K. G. & Sorbom, D. (1989). Lisrel 7: A guide to the program and applications, 2nd Ed.. Chicago, IL: SPSS.

26.

Lee, S-M. (2010). A review of CEFA software: Comprehensive Exploratory Factor Analysis Program. International Journal of Testing, 10, 95 -103.

27.

Lesieur, H. R. (1994). “Epidemiological Surveys of Pathological Gambling: Critique and Suggestions for Modification,” Journal of gambling Studies, 10(4), 385-398.

28.

Miller, T. R. & Spray, J. A. (1993). Logistic Discriminant Function Analysis for DIF Identification of Polytomously Scored Items. Journal of Educational measurement, 30(2), 107- 122.

29.

Moore, S., & Ohtsuka, K. (1999). Beliefs about control over gambling among young people, and their relation to problem gambling. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 13, 339-347.

30.

Muraki, E. & Bock, R. D. (1999). PARSCALE: IRT Item Analysis and Test Scoring for Rating- scale Data. Chicago, IL: SSI.

31.

National Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC, 1999a). Gambling Impact and Behavior Study. Washington, D.C.: Author.

32.

National Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC, 1999b). Pathological gambling: A critical review. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

33.

Petry, N. (2001). Substance abuse, pathological gambling, and impulsiveness. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 63, 29-38.

34.

Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55, 68- 78.

35.

Toneatto, T., Blitz-Miller, T., Calderwood, K., Dragonetti, R. & Tsanos, A. (1997) Cognitive distortions in heavy gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 13, 253-266.

36.

Volberg, R. A. (1994). “Assessing Problem and Pathological Gambling in the General Population: A Methodological Review.” In Gambling in Canada: The Bottom Line, Colin S. Campbell(ed.). Vancouver: Simon Fraser University Press. 137-146.

바로가기메뉴

Article Contents

Vol.30 No.4

Development of Korean Gambling Behavior Scale-H: A Scale for Inquiry of Problematic Gambling

Abstract

Reference

Korean Journal of Psychology: General