The ten diagnostic criteria enumerated in DSM-IV, along with their corresponding NODS items, are displayed in Table 1 . The most prevalent criterion, chasing, is reported by about 8% of all survey respondents in the sample surveys used here (see below); the least prevalent, illegal acts, by about 0.5%.
The DSM-IV specifies that meeting 5 or more criteria establishes a diagnosis of pathological gambling. While the DSM-IV has no formal nomenclature for persons below this level, researchers in the field have constructed a variety of descriptors for individuals in the subclinical range, i.e, meeting 1—4 of the criteria. Consistent with most of the prior survey literature (as described in Abbott & Volberg 1999 ; Shaffer et al. 1997; Lesieur & Blume 1987 (link)), and the original report on NODS data (Gerstein et al. 1999 ), we label persons in the upper subclinical range (3 or 4 criteria) “problem gamblers.” Consistent with the naming conventions in public health and numerous gambling studies, we label those meeting 1 or 2 criteria “at-risk gamblers,” and those reporting no criteria, “low-risk” gamblers.
Prior to fielding the NODS, its authors pilot-tested for reliability and validity in a random telephone sample of 45 respondents in the Chicago metropolitan area and a convenience sample of 40 persons recently enrolled in gambling treatment programs in the Midwest. Ninety-five percent of the clinical sample scored five or more points on the lifetime NODS; the remaining two cases scored four points—the clinical cut-point originally recommended by Lesieur and Rosenthal (1998) and confirmed by others (Jimenez-Murcia et al. 2008 ; Lakey et al. 2007 (link)). These results are very similar to those reported by Stinchfield (2003) (link) using a comparable DSM-IV-based instrument. The lifetime NODS therefore appears to have strong validity in identifying clinically confirmed pathological gamblers. The test–retest reliability of the NODS was examined in a half-sample of 44 cases drawn equally from the clinical sample and the general population pilot survey. The lifetime and past-year scores were found to be highly reliable, r=0.99 and 0.98, respectively, by Gerstein et al. (1999) , further confirmed by other investigators (Hodgins 2004 (link); Wickwire et al. 2008 (link)).
The DSM-IV specifies that meeting 5 or more criteria establishes a diagnosis of pathological gambling. While the DSM-IV has no formal nomenclature for persons below this level, researchers in the field have constructed a variety of descriptors for individuals in the subclinical range, i.e, meeting 1—4 of the criteria. Consistent with most of the prior survey literature (as described in Abbott & Volberg 1999 ; Shaffer et al. 1997; Lesieur & Blume 1987 (link)), and the original report on NODS data (Gerstein et al. 1999 ), we label persons in the upper subclinical range (3 or 4 criteria) “problem gamblers.” Consistent with the naming conventions in public health and numerous gambling studies, we label those meeting 1 or 2 criteria “at-risk gamblers,” and those reporting no criteria, “low-risk” gamblers.
Prior to fielding the NODS, its authors pilot-tested for reliability and validity in a random telephone sample of 45 respondents in the Chicago metropolitan area and a convenience sample of 40 persons recently enrolled in gambling treatment programs in the Midwest. Ninety-five percent of the clinical sample scored five or more points on the lifetime NODS; the remaining two cases scored four points—the clinical cut-point originally recommended by Lesieur and Rosenthal (1998) and confirmed by others (Jimenez-Murcia et al. 2008 ; Lakey et al. 2007 (link)). These results are very similar to those reported by Stinchfield (2003) (link) using a comparable DSM-IV-based instrument. The lifetime NODS therefore appears to have strong validity in identifying clinically confirmed pathological gamblers. The test–retest reliability of the NODS was examined in a half-sample of 44 cases drawn equally from the clinical sample and the general population pilot survey. The lifetime and past-year scores were found to be highly reliable, r=0.99 and 0.98, respectively, by Gerstein et al. (1999) , further confirmed by other investigators (Hodgins 2004 (link); Wickwire et al. 2008 (link)).