• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

使用半结构化访谈或自我报告评估赌博障碍?瑞典赌徒中赌博障碍定式临床访谈的评估。

Assessing Gambling Disorder Using Semistructured Interviews or Self-Report? Evaluation of the Structured Clinical Interview for Gambling Disorder Among Swedish Gamblers.

机构信息

Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Solna, Sweden.

Stockholm Region Health Services, Sweden.

出版信息

Assessment. 2023 Dec;30(8):2387-2397. doi: 10.1177/10731911221147038. Epub 2023 Jan 21.

DOI:10.1177/10731911221147038
PMID:36680458
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10623606/
Abstract

The Structured Clinical Interview for Gambling Disorder (SCI-GD) has the potential to bridge a diagnostic clinical gap, but psychometric evaluations have been scarce, in particular in relation to self-reported diagnostic criteria. This study analyzed existing data, including Swedish gamblers ( = 204) from treatment- and help-seeking contexts, self-help groups, and the general population, who were interviewed with the SCI-GD and completed self-report measures. The results indicated that fewer individuals fulfilled the diagnostic criteria for gambling disorder (GD) with the SCI-GD ( = 110, 54%), compared to a self-report () questionnaire on GD ( = 145, 71%; < .001). Agreement between interviews and self-reported criteria was generally low (Fleiss kappa range: 0.31-0.52; range: 0.35-0.55). A Rasch analysis showed that specific diagnostic criteria varied in difficulty, indicating a general pattern of higher item difficulty for the SCI-GD compared to self-reported criteria. Both the SCI-GD and the self-reported criteria performed well in terms of internal consistency, convergent, and discriminant validity. We conclude that the SCI-GD is a reliable and valid diagnostic tool to assess GD among individuals with various gambling behavior patterns. Further research-related and clinical implications are discussed.

摘要

《赌博障碍结构化临床访谈》(SCI-GD)有可能弥合诊断临床差距,但心理测量评估却很少,特别是在自我报告的诊断标准方面。本研究分析了现有数据,包括来自治疗和寻求帮助的背景、自助团体和一般人群中的瑞典赌徒(= 204),他们使用 SCI-GD 进行访谈并完成了自我报告的措施。结果表明,与自我报告的赌博障碍(GD)问卷(= 145,71%;<.001)相比,使用 SCI-GD 符合赌博障碍诊断标准的人较少(= 110,54%)。访谈和自我报告标准之间的一致性通常较低(Fleiss kappa 范围:0.31-0.52;范围:0.35-0.55)。Rasch 分析表明,特定的诊断标准在难度上存在差异,这表明与自我报告的标准相比,SCI-GD 的项目难度总体较高。SCI-GD 和自我报告的标准在内部一致性、收敛性和判别有效性方面表现良好。我们得出结论,SCI-GD 是一种可靠且有效的诊断工具,可用于评估具有各种赌博行为模式的个体的 GD。进一步讨论了与研究相关和临床的影响。

相似文献

1
Assessing Gambling Disorder Using Semistructured Interviews or Self-Report? Evaluation of the Structured Clinical Interview for Gambling Disorder Among Swedish Gamblers.使用半结构化访谈或自我报告评估赌博障碍?瑞典赌徒中赌博障碍定式临床访谈的评估。
Assessment. 2023 Dec;30(8):2387-2397. doi: 10.1177/10731911221147038. Epub 2023 Jan 21.
2
The Gambling Disorders Identification Test (GDIT): Psychometric Evaluation of a New Comprehensive Measure for Gambling Disorder and Problem Gambling.赌博障碍识别测试(GDIT):一种新的全面赌博障碍和问题赌博衡量标准的心理测量评估。
Assessment. 2023 Jan;30(1):225-237. doi: 10.1177/10731911211046045. Epub 2021 Oct 7.
3
Assessing gambling disorder using frequency- and time-based response options: A Rasch analysis of the gambling disorder identification test.使用基于频率和时间的反应选项评估赌博障碍:赌博障碍识别测试的 Rasch 分析。
Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2024 Mar;33(1):e2018. doi: 10.1002/mpr.2018.
4
DSM-5 gambling disorder: prevalence and characteristics in a substance use disorder sample.《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版赌博障碍:物质使用障碍样本中的患病率及特征
Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2014 Feb;22(1):50-6. doi: 10.1037/a0034518.
5
Validation of the Gambling Disorder Screening Questionnaire, a self-administered diagnostic questionnaire for gambling disorder based on the DSM-5 criteria.基于《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版标准的赌博障碍自填式诊断问卷——《赌博障碍筛查问卷》的验证
Riv Psichiatr. 2016 Sep-Oct;51(5):206-211. doi: 10.1708/2476.25892.
6
Latent class analysis of gambling subtypes and impulsive/compulsive associations: Time to rethink diagnostic boundaries for gambling disorder?赌博亚型的潜在类别分析及其与冲动/强迫的关联:是时候重新思考赌博障碍的诊断界限了吗?
Addict Behav. 2017 Sep;72:79-85. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.03.020. Epub 2017 Mar 28.
7
Psychometric evaluation of the NORC diagnostic screen for gambling problems (NODS) for the assessment of DSM-5 gambling disorder.用于评估 DSM-5 赌博障碍的 NORC 诊断屏幕(NODS)对赌博问题的心理测量评估。
Addict Behav. 2022 Jul;130:107310. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2022.107310. Epub 2022 Mar 18.
8
Reliability, Validity, and Classification Accuracy of the DSM-5 Diagnostic Criteria for Gambling Disorder and Comparison to DSM-IV.《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版(DSM-5)中赌博障碍诊断标准的信度、效度和分类准确性及其与《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版(DSM-IV)的比较
J Gambl Stud. 2016 Sep;32(3):905-22. doi: 10.1007/s10899-015-9573-7.
9
DSM-5 criteria for gambling disorder: Underlying structure and applicability to specific groups of gamblers.《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版中赌博障碍的标准:潜在结构及其对特定赌徒群体的适用性。
J Behav Addict. 2015 Dec;4(4):226-35. doi: 10.1556/2006.4.2015.035.
10
Endorsement of Criminal Behavior Amongst Offenders: Implications for DSM-5 Gambling Disorder.罪犯中犯罪行为的认可:对《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第5版中赌博障碍的影响。
J Gambl Stud. 2016 Mar;32(1):35-45. doi: 10.1007/s10899-015-9540-3.

引用本文的文献

1
Treatment of harmful gambling: a scoping review of United Kingdom-based intervention research.有害赌博的治疗:基于英国干预研究的范围综述。
BMC Psychiatry. 2024 May 23;24(1):392. doi: 10.1186/s12888-024-05843-8.
2
Assessing gambling disorder using frequency- and time-based response options: A Rasch analysis of the gambling disorder identification test.使用基于频率和时间的反应选项评估赌博障碍:赌博障碍识别测试的 Rasch 分析。
Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2024 Mar;33(1):e2018. doi: 10.1002/mpr.2018.

本文引用的文献

1
Emotion regulation-enhanced group treatment for gambling disorder: a non-randomized pilot trial.情绪调节增强型团体治疗赌博障碍:一项非随机试点试验。
BMC Psychiatry. 2022 Jan 6;22(1):16. doi: 10.1186/s12888-021-03630-3.
2
The Gambling Disorders Identification Test (GDIT): Psychometric Evaluation of a New Comprehensive Measure for Gambling Disorder and Problem Gambling.赌博障碍识别测试(GDIT):一种新的全面赌博障碍和问题赌博衡量标准的心理测量评估。
Assessment. 2023 Jan;30(1):225-237. doi: 10.1177/10731911211046045. Epub 2021 Oct 7.
3
Primary and Secondary Diagnoses of Gambling Disorder and Psychiatric Comorbidity in the Swedish Health Care System-A Nationwide Register Study.瑞典医疗保健系统中赌博障碍与精神疾病共病的原发性和继发性诊断——一项全国性登记研究
Front Psychiatry. 2018 Sep 7;9:426. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00426. eCollection 2018.
4
Minnesota Impulse Disorders Interview (MIDI): Validation of a structured diagnostic clinical interview for impulse control disorders in an enriched community sample.明尼苏达州冲动障碍访谈(MIDI):在丰富的社区样本中对冲动控制障碍进行结构化诊断临床访谈的验证。
Psychiatry Res. 2018 Jul;265:279-283. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.05.006. Epub 2018 May 8.
5
Initial validation of a transdiagnostic compulsivity questionnaire: the Cambridge-Chicago Compulsivity Trait Scale.剑桥-芝加哥强迫特质量表:一种跨诊断强迫问卷的初步验证。
CNS Spectr. 2018 Oct;23(5):340-346. doi: 10.1017/S1092852918000810. Epub 2018 May 7.
6
Latent class analysis of gambling subtypes and impulsive/compulsive associations: Time to rethink diagnostic boundaries for gambling disorder?赌博亚型的潜在类别分析及其与冲动/强迫的关联:是时候重新思考赌博障碍的诊断界限了吗?
Addict Behav. 2017 Sep;72:79-85. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.03.020. Epub 2017 Mar 28.
7
Gambling disorder, DSM-5 criteria and symptom severity.赌博障碍、《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版标准及症状严重程度
Compr Psychiatry. 2017 May;75:1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2017.02.006. Epub 2017 Feb 21.
8
Multilevel multiple imputation: A review and evaluation of joint modeling and chained equations imputation.多层次多重插补:联合建模和链式方程插补的综述与评价。
Psychol Methods. 2016 Jun;21(2):222-40. doi: 10.1037/met0000063. Epub 2015 Dec 21.
9
Gambling problems in bipolar disorder in the UK: prevalence and distribution.英国双相情感障碍中的赌博问题:患病率与分布情况
Br J Psychiatry. 2015 Oct;207(4):328-33. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.114.154286. Epub 2015 Jun 18.
10
COMT genotype, gambling activity, and cognition.儿茶酚-O-甲基转移酶基因型、赌博活动与认知
J Psychiatr Res. 2015 Sep;68:371-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2015.04.029. Epub 2015 May 9.