
The previous WAGER examined some debatable issues associated with the denominator of pathological gambling prevalence estimates*. The numerator in pathological gambling prevalence estimates is no less complicated than the denominator. Although the numerator of a prevalence estimate portrays the number of individuals with disordered gambling over a specified period of time, reasonable people disagree about what exactly is disordered gambling. Pathological gambling does not (yet) have a marker that can identify an individual as a “case.” Thus, the parameters of given measurements determine this disorder. Common instruments used to identify “cases” of pathological gamblers include the SOGS, DIS, MAGS, and... Read more →