Blaszczynski, A., McConaghy, N. 1989Anxiety and/or depression in the pathogenesis of addictive gamblingThe International Journal of Addiction24337350Google Scholar
Blaszczynski, A., Nower, L. 2002A pathways model of problem and pathological gamblingAddiction97487499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bondolfi, G., Ladouceur, R. 2000Pathological gambling: an increasing public health problemActa Psychiatrica Scandinavica104241242Google Scholar
Craig, J. C., Irwig, L. M., Stockler, M. R. 2001Evidence-based medicine: useful tools for decision makingMedical Journal of Australia174248253Google Scholar
Dickerson, M. G. 1990Gambling: the psychology of a non-drug compulsionDrug and Alcohol Review91871999Google Scholar
Dickerson, M. G., Cunningham, R., Legg-England, S., Hinchy, J. 1991On the determinants of persistent gambling. III. Personality, prior mood and poker machine playInternational Journal of the Addictions26531548Google Scholar
Korn, D. A., Shaffer, H. J. 1999Gambling and the health of the public: adopting a public health perspectiveJournal of Gambling Studies15289365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korn, D. A. 2000Expansion of gambling in Canada: implications for health and social policyCanadian Medical Association Journal1636164Google Scholar
Ladouceur, R., Jacques, C., Ferland, F., Giroux, I. 1999Prevalence of problem gambling: a replication study 7 years laterCanadian Journal of Psychiatry44802804Google Scholar
Lesieur, H. R., Blume, S. B. 1987The South Oaks Gambling Screen (the SOGS): a new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblersAmerican Journal of Psychiatry14411841188Google Scholar
Loba, P., Stewart, S., Klein, R. M., Blackburn, J. R. 2002Manipulations of the features of standard video lottery terminal (VLT) games: effects in pathological and non-pathological gamblersJournal of Gambling Studies17297320Google Scholar
Marfels C., (1999). Slot machine play in America. Automatenspiele: Homo Ludens – Der spielende Mensch IX, Salzburg: Internationale Beitrage de Institutes fur Spielforschung und Spielpadagogik. Universtat Mozarteum, 67–89.Google Scholar
Peterson, P. L., Dimeff, L. A., Tapert, S. E., Stern, M., Gorman, M. 1998Harm reduction and HIV/AIDS preventionMarlat, G. A. eds. Harm ReductionThe Guilford PressNew York218300Google Scholar
Shaffer, H. J. 1999Strange bedfellows: a critical view of pathological gambling and addictionAddiction9414451448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, H. J., Hall, M. N., Vander Bilt, J. 1999Estimating the prevalence of disordered gambling behaviour in the United States and Canada: a research synthesisAmerican Journal of Public Health8913691376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharpe, L. 2002A reformulated cognitive-behavioural model of problem gambling: A biopsychosocial perspectiveClinical Psychology Review22125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharpe L., Blaszczynski A., Walker M., Enersen K., Coughlan M-J., (submitted to Addiction). A recipe for disaster: Young men, alcohol and electronic gaming machines.Google Scholar
Walker, M. 1992The Psychology of gamblingPergamonLondonGoogle Scholar
SOUTH OAKS GAMBLING SCREEN (SOGS) Name: Date: 1. Please indicate which of the following types of gambling you have done in your lifetime. For each type, mark one answer: 'Not at All,' 'Less than Once a Week', or 'Once a Week or More.' The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS; Lesieur & Blume, 1987) is a 20-item multiple-choice instrument that was introduced as a method for identifying individuals with pathological gambling (PG). Positive responses to 5 or more items result in a designation of “probable pathological gambler”.
South Oaks Gambling Screen Pdf
The South Oaks Gambling Screen–Modified Japanese version (SOGS-J), which has been shown to have high sensitivity (100.0%) and specificity (94.5%); thus it is appropriate for screening Japanese individuals for gambling disorder. The Cronbach’s alpha for this study was acceptable α. Experiences or high South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) scores were also more likely to seek and complete treatment than those with less education, no prior treatment experience or those testing with low SOGS scores. Key Stakeholder Findings A workgroup was established with 16 representatives from a broad variety of.