South oaks gambling screen description

The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A rebuttal to

The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) was developed by Henry Lesieur, Ph.D., and Sheila Blume, M.D., as a screen for compulsive gambling. RESPONSES TO THIS SCREEN ARE FOR YOUR REFERENCE ONLY. THE INSTITUTE DOES NOT ACCEPT ONLINE EVALUATIONS. 1. Please indicate which of the following types of gambling you ... SOUTH OAKS GAMBLING SCREEN: REVISED FOR ADOLESCENTS (SOGS-RA) SOUTH OAKS GAMBLING SCREEN: REVISED FOR ADOLESCENTS (SOGS-RA) The 12 scored items for the SOGS-RA from Winters, K.C., Stinchfield R.D. and Fulkerson, J. (1993a) are listed below. SOUTH OAKS GAMBLING SCREEN (SOGS) SOUTH OAKS GAMBLING SCREEN (SOGS) 1. Indicate which of the following types of gambling you have done in your lifetime. For each type, mark one answer: “not at all,” “less than once a

Oaks gambling screen. South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS)

Problem gambling - Wikipedia The Canadian Problem Gambling Inventory (CPGI) and the Victorian Gambling Screen (VGS) are newer assessment measures. The Problem Gambling Severity Index, which focuses on the harms associated with problem gambling, is composed of nine items from the longer CPGI. The VGS is also harm based and includes 15 items. SOUTH OAKS GAMBLING SCREEN: REVISED FOR ADOLESCENTS (SOGS-RA) SOUTH OAKS GAMBLING SCREEN: REVISED FOR ADOLESCENTS (SOGS-RA) The 12 scored items for the SOGS-RA from Winters, K.C., Stinchfield R.D. and Fulkerson, J. (1993a) are listed below. The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): a new instrument ...

South Oaks Gambling Screen

Evaluation of a Shortened South Oaks Gambling Screen... |… The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS; H. R. Lesieur & S. B. Blume, 1987) has filled this need. Previous research (M. Oehlert & K. Nelson, 2004) has considered the feasibility of reducing the length of the SOGS while maintaining its ability to identify people at risk for problematic gambling.

The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) is a psychometric instrument widely used internationally to assess the presence of pathological gambling. Developed by Lesieur and Blume (1987) in the United States of America (USA) as a self-rated screening instrument, it is based on DSM-III and DSM-III-R criteria.

The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS; Lesieur & Blume, 1987) is a 20-item multiple-choice instrument that was introduced as a method for identifying individuals with pathological gambling (PG). Positive responses to 5 or more items result in a designation of “probable pathological gambler” Comparisons Between the South Oaks Gambling Screen … Original Research Comparisons Between the South Oaks Gambling Screen and a DSM-IV–Based Interview in a Community Survey of Problem Gambling Brian J Cox, PhD1, Murray W Enns, MD2, Valerie Michaud, MA3 Key Words: pathological gambling, probable pathological gambling… Developing a brief problem gambling screen using including the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS; Lesieur & Blume (1987)), the DSM-IV criteria (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) and the Gamblers Anonymous 20 Questions (GA-20). Validation involved administering a list of 35 items to problem gamblers in treatment and to

i. Played slot machines, poker machines, or other gambling machines. j. Bowled, shot pool, played golf, or some other game of skill for money. k. Played pull tabs or "paper" games other than lotteries. l. Some form of gambling not listed above (please specify): 2. What is the largest amount of money you have...

Identifying a gambling disorder | Mass.gov Canadian Problem Gambling Index (CPGI) An evaluation of the scale and its accompanying profiler software in a clinical setting. Journal of Gambling Studies, 27 (3), 467-485. The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) A new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144 (9), 1184-1188. Description and pre-post evaluation of a telephone and ...

South Oaks Gambling Screen South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) SCORE SHEET Scores on the SOGS are determined by adding up the number of questions which show an “at risk” response: