I would be interested in self-report measures assessing
- different forms of addictive behavioures (e.g., Drug, Internet, Gaming, Gambling Addiction)
or
- different underlying general factors or motives (e.g., Impulsivity, Loss of Control, Self-esteem)
Do such measures exist?
What are your experiences in research and clinical practice?
IMHO those, if they exist, tools are in no way possible specific. Even in gambling (gambling disorder) itself there is a lack of homogenity, that researchers may have trouble to compare theyir results without focusing on specific type. There is also a trend to adapt DSM-5 GD criteria to other types of addictions, which seems to be totaly unreasonable (like in the past they did with ICD-10 for AD F10.2 to other dependences). As well as looking for a tool that may measure drugs and gaming on the same scale. What you can use are CGI tools or diagnostic (if they exist) tools to compare CGI results or diagnosis 0/1 within studied groups.
Have you considered using an adapted form of the WHO-ASSIST tool to measure all your constructs of interest? Although this is not fine-grained, the items would "translate" to internet/gaming/gambling. You may want to do some validation studies though...
If you are referring to multiple substances involved in substance use disorders several structured diagnostic interviews could be considered. the CAAPE-5 covers all substance categories of the DSM-5 plus common co-occurring mental health conditions. The SUDDS-5 is a bit more comprehensive with respect to substance use disorders, and screens for PTSD, major depression, and indications of anxiety. It also captures age of onset for each problem by substance that can be helpful for motivational enhancement. Both are available through The Change Companies (www.changecompanies.net).
The answers above are much appreciated and certainly things I will also be following up on. I have used the ASSIST tool and find it very useful however limitations include the respondent not fully understanding what is included in the various substance categories (terminology not reflecting their lived experience) and in the early stages of therapeutic relationship the potential to under-report, which may link to either a denial of the magnitude of the problem, fear of reprisal (illicit substances and activities) and lack of trust. Clear and non-judgmental communication and creating respectful space enhances the outcomes.
If the clinician asks specific, concrete, objective questions, denial tends to be minimal because the affected individuals usually assume that their experiences are typical. Denial tends to be more pronounced when the individuals are asked to make value judgments or to make connections between various behaviors.
Gossop's "Severity of dependence scale" (Gossop et al. Addiction 1995, (90), 607 - 614). is a generic scale (you can insert the name of the drug), though I have not seen it used on behavior addiction.
Best
John-Kåre
Regarding other compulsive or "addictive" behaviors, there is a group in Sweden that has a gambling assessment that attempts to follow the DSM-5. There are a number of assessments for gambling that have been proposed in the USA.
Regarding the concept of severity for substance use disorders, I think the most defensible is viewing severity as the number of positive DSM-5 criteria without regard to trying to segment criteria into categories, such as abuse vs. dependence, as is done with the ICD-10.
Older formulations for severity, such as days of use in the past 30, are likely to involve arbitrary metrics - reliable, valid, and irrelevant (Kazdin, 2006 in American Psychologist). In this instance, someone having one glass of wine with dinner each evening would have a higher score for days of use than a binge drinker positive on all DSM-5 criteria.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Mathematics
- Statistics
- Statistical Techniques
- Meta-Analysis