Cited by 257Gambling Behavior and TreatmentsObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The gambling symptom assessment scale (G-SAS): a reliability and validity study

Open access
Suck Won Kim, Grant, Jon E., Potenza, Marc N., Blanco, Carlos, Hollander, Eric·2009·Psychiatry Research

Abstract

Two hundred seven patients with DSM-IV Pathological Gambling Disorder completed both the Gambling Symptom Assessment Scale (G-SAS) and the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale--modified for Pathological Gambling (PG-YBOCS) at baseline visit and weekly or biweekly thereafter during the 12-week study period. The week 1 to week 2 visit data were used to assess test-retest reliability. Weekly or biweekly data were used for the G-SAS validity. The PG-YBOCS reliability and validity data have been published previously. We used the PG-YBOCS as the established scale and compared the G-SAS performance with the PG-YBOCS. Test-retest reliability was statistically significant. The correlations between the G-SAS and the PG-YBOCS and Clinical Global Impression rating were excellent. Findings suggest that the G-SAS is reliable and valid in assessing changes in symptoms during a drug treatment study.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.psychres.2007.11.008

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 20 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kim, S. W., Grant, J. E., Potenza, M. N., Blanco, C., & Hollander, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
Corresponding author
Suck Won Kim
Venue
Psychiatry Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-03
Volume
166
Issue
1
Pages
76-84
ISSN
0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1983336654
Cited by
257
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 15
FWCI
9.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychiatry Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5k23mh069754-03)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (K23 MH069754)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA019039, R01 DA013039)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
gambling addiction, test-retest reliability, scale validity, symptom assessment, Clinical Global Impression Scale, obsessive-compulsive symptoms
MeSH terms
Follow-Up Studies, Gambling, Humans, Disruptive, Impulse Control, and Conduct Disorders, Naltrexone, Narcotic Antagonists, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Personality Inventory, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results

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