Abstract
The novel gambling disorder identification test (GDIT) was recently developed in an international Delphi and consensus process. In this first psychometric evaluation, gamblers (N = 603) were recruited from treatment- and support-seeking contexts (n = 79 and n = 185), self-help groups (n = 47), and a population sample (n = 292). Participants completed self-report measures, a GDIT retest (n = 499), as well as diagnostic semistructured interviews assessing gambling disorder (GD; n = 203). The GDIT showed excellent internal consistency reliability (α = .94) and test-retest reliability (6-16 days, intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.93). Confirmatory factor analysis yielded factor loadings supporting the three proposed GDIT domains of gambling behavior, gambling symptoms, and negative consequences. Receiver operator curves and clinical significance indicators were used to estimate GDIT cut-off scores in relation to recreational (<15) and problem gambling (15-19), any GD (≥20), mild GD (20-24), moderate GD (25-29), and severe GD (≥30). The GDIT can be considered a valid and reliable measure to identify and predict GD severity, as well as problem gambling. In addition, the GDIT improves content validity in relation to an international research agreement concerning features of gambling outcome measures, known as the Banff Consensus Agreement.
Highlights
The novel gambling disorder identification test (GDIT) was recently developed in an international Delphi and consensus process
This study evaluated the psychometric properties of a novel gambling measure, the GDIT
The GDIT was developed in a recent international Delphi and consensus process, aiming to establish a comprehensive measure which corresponded to a previous international research agreement regarding features of gambling outcome measures, known as the Gambler cohorts (n = 598)
Summary
The novel gambling disorder identification test (GDIT) was recently developed in an international Delphi and consensus process. In this first psychometric evaluation, gamblers (N = 603) were recruited from treatment- and support-seeking contexts (n = 79 and n = 185), self-help groups (n = 47), and a population sample (n = 292). While numerous instruments have been developed and validated with satisfactory psychometric properties (for reviews, see Caler et al, 2016; Pickering et al, 2017; Williams et al, 2012), most were developed before the introduction of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–Fifth edition (DSM5), where the clinical criteria for gambling disorder (GD). How existing gambling measures relate to GD remains unclear, in particular in relation to levels of symptom severity
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
