4.2 Article

The NODS-CLiP: A Rapid Screen for Adult Pathological and Problem Gambling

Journal

JOURNAL OF GAMBLING STUDIES
Volume 25, Issue 4, Pages 541-555

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10899-009-9135-y

Keywords

Pathological gambling; Problem gambling; Diagnostic screening; NODS-CLiP

Funding

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON ALCOHOL ABUSE AND ALCOHOLISM [R01AA012982] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIAAA NIH HHS [R01 AA012982, AA12982] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To describe and evaluate tests of the performance of the NODS-CLiP, an efficient standardized diagnostic interview instrument for adult pathological and problem gambling. Identical batteries of diagnostic questions about gambling behavior, motives, and thoughts were administered to participants in eight general adult population field studies conducted in the United States between 1999 and 2003, including six state-level random-digit-dial (RDD) telephone surveys, one national RDD survey, and one in-person systematic random sample survey of commercial gambling patrons in eight states. Total survey N = 17,180. Response rates ranged from 24 to 71%. Data from all experienced gamblers (N = 8,867) were re-analyzed to compare diagnostic status derived from the 17-item NORC Diagnostic Screen for Gambling Disorders (NODS), a validated DSM-IV-based instrument, with results from all 2- to 4-item subsets of NODS items. Three NODS questions pertaining to loss of Control, Lying, and Preoccupation (the CLiP), requiring one minute to administer, identified virtually all pathological gamblers and most problem gamblers diagnosed by the complete NODS. The CLiP has excellent sensitivity and specificity for NODS constructs. A two-stage NODS-CLiP procedure appears quite promising as an efficient epidemiological instrument for general population research and clinical triage for gambling disorders.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available