The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
The Gambling Self-Efficacy Questionnaire: An Initial Psychometric Evaluation
Abstract
Instruments to assess individuals' self-efficacy for the control of addictive behaviors have been useful for monitoring behavior change, predicting maintenance of treatment gains, and identifying potential relapse situations. The Gambling Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (GSEQ) was developed to assess perceived self-efficacy to control gambling behavior. A demographically diverse sample of 309 adult gamblers completed an initial set of 42 items, of which 16 were selected to form the final version of the GSEQ. The GSEQ showed high internal consistency (alpha =.96) and good test-retest reliability (r =.86). A factor analysis provided some support for a unitary factor structure. As expected, GSEQ scores were negatively correlated with reports of problematic gambling behavior. Participants experiencing problems related to their gambling behavior scored significantly lower on the GSEQ than those who were not experiencing gambling problems. This psychometric examination of the GSEQ supported its potential utility for treatment planning and outcome evaluation with problem gamblers.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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 GSEQ has evidence of convergent and discriminant validity and high internal consistency (α = 0.99) in a community sample.
“There is evidence of convergent and discriminant validity, and the internal consistency is high (α = 0.99) in a community sample.”
From Efficacy of an internet-based psychological intervention for problem gambling and gambling disorder: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (2021) · cites this paper as May et al., 2003
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 48 · Cited by 81
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Annis, H. M., & Graham, J. M. (1988). Situational Confidence Questionnaire (SCQ) user's guide. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation.
- National Opinion Research Center. (1999). Overview of national survey and community database research on gambling behavior: Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago.
- Shaffer, H. J., Hall, M. N., & VanderBilt, J. (1997). Estimating the prevalence of disordered gambling behavior in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Metadata
- Authors
- May, R. K., Whelan, J. P., Steenbergh, T. A., & Meyers, A. W.
- Affiliations
- Marietta College (US)
- University of Memphis (US)
- Indiana Wesleyan University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Whelan, James P.
- Venue
- Journal of Gambling Studies
- Published
- 2003-12
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 339-357
- ISSN
- 1050-5350 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-3602
- OpenAlex
- W1521017823
- Cited by
- 81
- References
- 48
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 2.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Gambling Studies (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Assisi Foundation of Memphis
- University of Memphis
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Keywords
- self-efficacy, problem gambling, psychometric properties, scale development, factor structure, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, treatment outcome assessment
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Female, Gambling, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Self Efficacy
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
