Divergent validity of measures of cognitive distortions, impulsivity, and time perspective in pathological gambling
Abstract
The present study assessed the divergent validity of several self-report and objective behavioral measures for assessing pathological gambling using three samples divided by South Oaks Gambling Scale score [Lesieur, & Blume (1987). American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1184-1188]: pathological gamblers, potential pathological gamblers, and non-pathological gamblers. Self-report measures included the Gamblers' Beliefs Questionnaire [GBQ; Steenbergh, Meyers, May, & Whelan (2002). Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 16, 143-149], the Gambling Passion Scale [GPS; Rousseau, Vallerand, Ratelle, Mageau, & Provencher, (2002). Journal of Gambling Studies, 18, 45-66], the Eysenck Impulsivity Questionnaire [EIQ; Eysenck, & Eysenck (1978). Psychological Reports, 43, 1247-1255], and the Stanford Time Perspective Inventory [STPI; Zimbardo, & Boyd (1999). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1271-1288]. Behavioral tasks included the delay discounting task [Madden, Petry, Badger, & Bickel (1997). Experimental & Clinical Psychopharmacology, 5, 256-263] and the Future Time Perspectives [FTP; Wallace (1956). Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 52, 240-245]. The GBQ, GPS, Impulsivity subscale of the EIQ, and DDT all exhibited robust divergent validity, however, neither measure of time perspective discriminated between groups. Applications of these findings to etiological research and clinical contexts are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The relation between delay discounting rates and SOG scores was replicated in college students.
“This relation between delay discounting rates and SOG scores was replicated in college students by MacKillop et al. (2006)”
From Excessive discounting of delayed reinforcers as a trans-disease process contributing to addiction and other disease-related vulnerabilities: Emerging evidence (2012) · cites this paper as MacKillop et al. (2006)
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 77 · Cited by 146
- Authors
- MacKillop, J., Anderson, E. J., Castelda, B. A., Mattson, R. E., & Donovick, P. J.
- Affiliations
- Binghamton University (US)
- Corresponding author
- MacKillop, James
- Venue
- Journal of Gambling Studies
- Published
- 2006-07-07
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 339-354
- ISSN
- 1050-5350 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-3602
- OpenAlex
- W2066307049
- Cited by
- 146
- References
- 77
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 2.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Journal of Gambling Studies (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Keywords
- gambling addiction, discriminant validity, cognitive distortions, impulsivity, time perspective, delay discounting, future time perspective
- MeSH terms
- Cognition Disorders, Female, Gambling, Humans, Disruptive, Impulse Control, and Conduct Disorders, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Models, Psychological, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Surveys and Questionnaires, Severity of Illness Index, United States, Reproducibility of Results, Comorbidity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review