Session Title

Poster Session

Presentation Type

Poster Presentation

Location

Park MGM, Las Vegas, NV

Start Date

24-5-2023 10:30 AM

End Date

24-5-2023 11:15 AM

Disciplines

Clinical Psychology | Health Psychology | Substance Abuse and Addiction

Abstract

Abstract: Retrospective reports are less accurate than objective measures of behavior and must be interpreted with consideration of the amount of distortion and error introduced by this methodology. The Gambling-Timeline Followback (G-TLFB) method is the gold standard retrospective assessment tool that is designed to minimize such error by asking for a specific recall of precise gambling behavior day-by-day using recall aids as compared to a global summation over time (e.g., how many gambling days in last month, how much money gambled in the last month). It remains an empirical question whether this difference in measurement format, G-TLFB versus global reports, alters the estimates of gambling treatment efficacy. Eighteen studies were identified for inclusion in a meta-analysis to explore this question. A mixed-effects subgroup analysis indicated that the effect of treatment relative to nonactive control on gambling frequency at posttreatment was significantly lower for studies using the G-TLFB (g = -0.20) than studies using other assessments (g = -0.71). There was no significant difference in the effect of treatment relative to nonactive control on gambling intensity at posttreatment between studies using the G-TLFB (g = -0.22) and studies using other assessments (g = -0.38).

Implications: The G-TLFB yields more conservative and likely more precise estimates of the effect of gambling treatment on gambling frequency but not intensity than other retrospective assessments. The use of global retrospective assessments to assess gambling frequency and intensity may overestimate effects of gambling treatment on gambling frequency.

Keywords

Gambling, timeline followback, G-TLFB, measure, gambling treatment, meta-analysis

Author Bios

Margaret L. Paul, BS, is a clinical psychology doctoral student at Saint Louis University in the Wellness, Addiction, Gambling & Exercise Research (WAGER) Lab. Her research is primarily focused on substance use and gambling disorders, including risk factors, motives, and treatment. Ms. Paul also serves on APA Division 12 Committee on Science and Practice as a student committee member, working to maintain Division 12’s list of empirically supported psychological treatments.

Maria E. Meinerding, MS is a clinical psychology doctoral candidate in the Wellness, Addiction, Gambling & Exercise Research (WAGER) lab at Saint Louis University. Her research broadly focuses on psychometrics and health behaviors. Ms. Meinerding is additionally interested in examining sociocultural identity and interpersonal relationships in relation to overall wellbeing among individuals in early substance use remission. She also serves as a student member on APA Division 12’s Committee on Science and Practice.

Jeremiah Weinstock, PhD is a Professor and Chair of the Department of Psychology at Saint Louis University. His research examines the characterization of gambling disorder and its treatment. He has over 65 peer-review publications and has received funding from the International Center for Responsible Gaming.

Meredith K. Ginley, PhD is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology at East Tennessee State University and a co-investigator at The Institute for Gambling Education and Research. Her research focuses on efforts to improve outcomes and retention in treatment for substance use disorders and behavioral addictions.

James P. Whelan, PhD is a University of Memphis Professor of Psychology and Director of The Institute for Gambling Education and Research. He leads the Institute’s initiative to develop a research center response for all living in the U.S. state of Tennessee – a project funded by Tennessee’s Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services. His research spans prevention, assessment, and treatment of gambling disorder.

Rory A. Pfund, PhD is a Research Assistant Professor of Psychology and the Clinic and Research Director of The Institute of Gambling Education and Research at the University of Memphis. Dr. Pfund’s research focuses on understanding the effects of psychological treatments for gambling disorder. He is currently the co-investigator on a grant from the Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services to develop a web-based portal to facilitate the initiation of gambling disorder treatment.

Funding Sources

This project was funded by the Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services. The funding source had no involvement in any aspects of the research, including the decision to submit the abstract.

Competing Interests

None

Download

Share

COinS
 
May 24th, 10:30 AM May 24th, 11:15 AM

Measurement Models Matter: How Retrospective Calendar Versus Global Reports Yield Different Estimates of Treatment Outcome

Park MGM, Las Vegas, NV

Abstract: Retrospective reports are less accurate than objective measures of behavior and must be interpreted with consideration of the amount of distortion and error introduced by this methodology. The Gambling-Timeline Followback (G-TLFB) method is the gold standard retrospective assessment tool that is designed to minimize such error by asking for a specific recall of precise gambling behavior day-by-day using recall aids as compared to a global summation over time (e.g., how many gambling days in last month, how much money gambled in the last month). It remains an empirical question whether this difference in measurement format, G-TLFB versus global reports, alters the estimates of gambling treatment efficacy. Eighteen studies were identified for inclusion in a meta-analysis to explore this question. A mixed-effects subgroup analysis indicated that the effect of treatment relative to nonactive control on gambling frequency at posttreatment was significantly lower for studies using the G-TLFB (g = -0.20) than studies using other assessments (g = -0.71). There was no significant difference in the effect of treatment relative to nonactive control on gambling intensity at posttreatment between studies using the G-TLFB (g = -0.22) and studies using other assessments (g = -0.38).

Implications: The G-TLFB yields more conservative and likely more precise estimates of the effect of gambling treatment on gambling frequency but not intensity than other retrospective assessments. The use of global retrospective assessments to assess gambling frequency and intensity may overestimate effects of gambling treatment on gambling frequency.