Brief Description:
•Toneatto (2008)
• Created for use with the organization Gamblers Anonymous (GA) and has been used since 1958
• Screens for problem gambling
Versions:
• English
• Spanish
Type of Measure:
• Self- completed
• 20 items
• Yes/No questions
Target Population:
• Adults
• Adolescents
Scoring:
• Summed total
• Scores range from 0 to 20
• Score of 7 or higher is indicative of a gambling problem
Psychometrics:
Source reference: Toneatto (2008): Three independent samples totalling 456 participants consisting of problem gamblers in treatment and non-treatment problem gamblers
• Reliability: Cronbach’s alpha across groups = 0.84, 0.85, and 0.87
• Validity: The 20Q correlated with the DSM-IV-PG as well as the SOGS; The 20Q correlated with a number of gambling related measures: cognitive distortions (r = 0.26 to 0.43), estimated lifetime gambling-related financial loss (r = 0.33), frequency of high-risk gambling situations (r = 0.53 to 0.70), number of gambling-related negative consequences (r = 0.66), and number of problem gambling behaviours (r = 0.30); The 20Q correlated with a number of non-gambling yet conceptually based measures: boredom proneness (r = 0.47), clinical stress (r = 0.53), dissociation (r = 0.19), recent emotional distress (r = 0.52), and relationship stress (r = -0.20)
• Predictive validity: Participants who had attended Gamblers Anonymous at any time scored significantly higher on the 20Q than those who had never been to GA.
• Both DSM-IV defined pathological gambling and problem gamblers in treatment, and non-treatment seeking gamblers who scored above the established cut-off on the SOGS, associated with 20Q scores ranging between 14 and 15.
Ursua & Uribelarrea (1998): 127 problem gamblers and 142 social gamblers from Madrid; Used the Spanish version of the 20Q
• Reliability: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.94
• Validity: Correlation between the 20Q’s and the SOGS (r = 0.94)
• Discriminative power is high (diagnostic efficacy = 99%)
• Uni-dimensional
Utility for Prevalence Surveys:
• Fair
Research Applicability:
• Fair – not widely used
Copyright, Cost, and Source Issues:
• Public domain
Source References:
Toneatto, T. (2008). Reliability and validity of the Gamblers Anonymous Twenty Questions. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioural Assessment, 30(1), 71-78.
Supporting References:
Gamblers Anonymous. (1984). (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Gamblers Anonymous Publishing.
Ursua, M. P., & Uribelarrea, L. L. (1998). 20 questions of Gamblers Anonymous: A psychometric study with population of Spain. Journal of Gambling Studies, 14(1), 3-13.
Hodgins, D. C., Wild, C., Thygesen, K., & Cooper, E. (2002). A review of screening and assessment instruments: Substance use, gambling and family functioning. A report submitted to AADAC.
Strengths:
• Accepted in the Gamblers Anonymous community
Weaknesses:
• High false positive rate
• Prone to type 1 error
• Theoretical model lacking