This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 0145445508320927v1 33/2/156    most recent References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Miller, J. C. Articles by Weatherly, J. N. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Miller, J. C. Articles by Weatherly, J. N. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Compulsive Gambling Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Testing the Construct Validity of Dixon and Johnson's (2007) Gambling Functional Assessment

University of North Dakota, Grand Forks

Ellen Meier

University of North Dakota, Grand Forks

Jennifer Muehlenkamp

University of North Dakota, Grand Forks

Jeffrey N. Weatherly

University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, jeffrey_weatherly{at}und.nodak.edu

The Gambling Functional Assessment (GFA; Dixon & Johnson, 2007) is a 20-item self-report inventory identifying four potential consequences maintaining gambling behavior. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses are performed for two large, nonclinical samples of university undergraduates. For the exploratory analysis, the optimal model yields two factors: Positive Reinforcement (correlated with GFA Sensory, Attention, and Tangible scores) and Negative Reinforcement (correlated with GFA Escape scores). One GFA item fails to load on either factor adequately. Factor loadings are confirmed using structural equation modeling for the second sample. The resulting model yields a mix of adequate and suboptimal fit indicators. Although the 2-factor model of the GFA has great theoretical utility and shows significant promise, confirmation within clinical samples of gamblers will be necessary to further validate the model. GFA Escape scores are uniquely distributed in the two samples and may represent functions most likely to maintain pathological gambling.

Key Words: functional assessment • nonpathological gamblers • positive reinforcement • negative reinforcement

This version was published on March 1, 2009

Behavior Modification, Vol. 33, No. 2, 156-174 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/0145445508320927


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?