Sleczka Pawel, Braun Barbara, Piontek Daniela, Bühringer Gerhard, Kraus Ludwig
IFT Institut für Therapieforschung , München, Germany.
Institute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität Dresden , Dresden, Germany.
J Behav Addict. 2015 Dec;4(4):226-35. doi: 10.1556/2006.4.2015.035.
DSM-5 provides nine diagnostic criteria for gambling disorder. All criteria have a pre-assumed equal diagnostic impact and are applied to all individuals and groups in an equal manner. The aims of the study are to analyse the structure underlying the diagnosis and to assess whether DSM-5 is equally applicable to different groups of gamblers.
Data from the 2009 German Epidemiological Survey of Substance Abuse and from a study on slot machine gamblers were used. Item Response Theory analysis was applied to estimate discrimination and severity parameters of the criteria. With the use of Differential Item Functioning analysis, potential criterion biases were analysed. We analysed data from 107 participants from the general population sample and 376 participants from the slot machine gamblers' sample who answered a 19-item diagnostic questionnaire based on the DSM criteria for gambling disorder.
A single underlying factor, the severity of gambling disorder, was identified in both samples. In the general population sample the criteria of preoccupation and chasing were least severe and showed low discriminatory power. Bailout, withdrawal and jeopardized matters criteria had highest severity and discriminatory power. The comparison of the two samples revealed two criterion biases in the preoccupation and tolerance criteria.
The structure underlying the criteria is unidimensional but the disorder is manifested differently depending on disorder severity. The assumed equal impact of each criterion lacks support in the findings. The DSM-5 criteria measure a partially different construct in slot machine gamblers than in gamblers in the general population.
《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版(DSM - 5)为赌博障碍提供了九条诊断标准。所有标准都预先假定具有同等的诊断影响力,并以相同方式应用于所有个体和群体。本研究的目的是分析诊断背后的结构,并评估DSM - 5是否同样适用于不同群体的赌徒。
使用了2009年德国物质滥用流行病学调查的数据以及一项关于老虎机赌徒的研究数据。应用项目反应理论分析来估计各标准的区分度和严重程度参数。通过差异项目功能分析,分析潜在的标准偏差。我们分析了来自一般人群样本的107名参与者和来自老虎机赌徒样本的376名参与者的数据,这些参与者回答了一份基于DSM赌博障碍标准的19项诊断问卷。
在两个样本中都识别出了一个单一的潜在因素,即赌博障碍的严重程度。在一般人群样本中,专注和追逐标准的严重程度最低,区分能力也较低。救助、戒断和危及事务标准的严重程度和区分能力最高。两个样本的比较揭示了专注和耐受性标准存在两个标准偏差。
标准背后的结构是单维的,但该障碍根据障碍严重程度表现不同。各标准具有同等影响力这一假设在研究结果中缺乏支持。DSM - 5标准在老虎机赌徒中所测量的结构与一般人群中的赌徒部分不同。