Building a Brief Multidomain Questionnaire for Gambling Dual Disorder: Psychometric Validation and RDoC‐Based Dimensional Structure.
Saved in:
| Title: | Building a Brief Multidomain Questionnaire for Gambling Dual Disorder: Psychometric Validation and RDoC‐Based Dimensional Structure. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Basurte‐Villamor, Ignacio (AUTHOR), Gomez‐Talal, Ismael (AUTHOR), Vega, Pablo (AUTHOR), Azizsoltani, Mana (AUTHOR), Gonzalez‐Peñas, Javier (AUTHOR), Ferre, Francisco (AUTHOR), Szerman, Nestor (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research. Jun2026, Vol. 35 Issue 2, p1-15. 15p. |
| Subjects: | Dual diagnosis, Questionnaires, Test reliability, Psychological distress, Compulsive gambling, Executive function, Impulsive personality |
| Abstract: | Objectives: Gambling Disorder (GD) frequently co‐occurs with other mental disorders, a clinical condition termed Gambling Dual Disorder (GDD) that is often overlooked. We aimed to develop and validate a brief multidomain questionnaire to assess GDD severity within a dimensional, transdiagnostic framework. Methods: A 55‐item questionnaire was developed and tested across three phases (feasibility, reliability, validity) in 30, 57, and 223 treatment‐seeking adults with DSM‐5‐TR GD. We assessed internal consistency, test–retest reliability, convergent validity against reference instruments (STAI, BDI‐II, ISI, BIS, CAARS, SPIN, MULTICAGE‐CAD‐4, TCI‐R, SDI), ROC‐derived cutoffs, and the latent dimensional structure via exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, mapped onto the NIMH Research Domain Criteria (RDoC). Results: Internal consistency was excellent (α = 0.93); test–retest reliability was moderate (ICC = 0.29–0.62). Convergent validity was strong (r ≈ 0.51–0.72). ROC‐based cutoffs prioritized sensitivity, with negative predictive values generally above 0.80. A global severity threshold near 1.44 enabled clinical stratification. A four‐factor structure emerged: emotional distress and gambling impairment, impulsivity and behavioral activation, social anxiety and interpersonal suspiciousness, and executive dysfunction with negative self‐perception. Conclusion: The instrument is a reliable, valid, RDoC‐aligned tool for stratifying GDD severity and tailoring integrated interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Objectives: Gambling Disorder (GD) frequently co‐occurs with other mental disorders, a clinical condition termed Gambling Dual Disorder (GDD) that is often overlooked. We aimed to develop and validate a brief multidomain questionnaire to assess GDD severity within a dimensional, transdiagnostic framework. Methods: A 55‐item questionnaire was developed and tested across three phases (feasibility, reliability, validity) in 30, 57, and 223 treatment‐seeking adults with DSM‐5‐TR GD. We assessed internal consistency, test–retest reliability, convergent validity against reference instruments (STAI, BDI‐II, ISI, BIS, CAARS, SPIN, MULTICAGE‐CAD‐4, TCI‐R, SDI), ROC‐derived cutoffs, and the latent dimensional structure via exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, mapped onto the NIMH Research Domain Criteria (RDoC). Results: Internal consistency was excellent (α = 0.93); test–retest reliability was moderate (ICC = 0.29–0.62). Convergent validity was strong (r ≈ 0.51–0.72). ROC‐based cutoffs prioritized sensitivity, with negative predictive values generally above 0.80. A global severity threshold near 1.44 enabled clinical stratification. A four‐factor structure emerged: emotional distress and gambling impairment, impulsivity and behavioral activation, social anxiety and interpersonal suspiciousness, and executive dysfunction with negative self‐perception. Conclusion: The instrument is a reliable, valid, RDoC‐aligned tool for stratifying GDD severity and tailoring integrated interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 10498931 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/mpr.70078 |
