» Articles » PMID: 22203270

The Validation of Screening Tests: Meet the New Screen Same As the Old Screen?

Overview
Journal J Gambl Stud
Date 2011 Dec 29
PMID 22203270
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The focus of this report is to examine the process of validation of new screening tests designed to detect the problem gambler in research and practice settings. A hierarchical or phases of evaluation model is presented as a conceptual framework to describe the basic features of the validation process and its implications for application and interpretation of test results. The report describes a number of threats to validity in the form of sources of unintended bias that when unrecognized may lead to incorrect interpretations of study results and the drawing of incorrect conclusions about the usefulness of the new screening tests. Examples drawn from the gambling literature on problem gambling are used to illustrate some of the more important concepts including spectrum bias and clinical variation in test accuracy. The concept of zones of severity and the bias inherent in selecting criterion thresholds are reviewed. A definition of reference or study gold standard is provided. The use of 2-stage designs to establish validity by efficiently using reference standards to determine indices of accuracy and prevalence is recommended.

Citing Articles

Comparative Test Evaluation: Methods and Challenges.

Gambino B J Gambl Stud. 2018; 34(4):1109-1138.

PMID: 29368061 DOI: 10.1007/s10899-018-9745-3.


Test Performance Variation Between Settings and Populations.

Gambino B J Gambl Stud. 2017; 34(4):1085-1108.

PMID: 29119356 DOI: 10.1007/s10899-017-9728-9.


Reliability, Validity, and Classification Accuracy of the DSM-5 Diagnostic Criteria for Gambling Disorder and Comparison to DSM-IV.

Stinchfield R, McCready J, Turner N, Jimenez-Murcia S, Petry N, Grant J J Gambl Stud. 2015; 32(3):905-22.

PMID: 26408026 PMC: 4993799. DOI: 10.1007/s10899-015-9573-7.


Decoding Problem Gamblers' Signals: A Decision Model for Casino Enterprises.

Ifrim S J Gambl Stud. 2014; 31(4):1671-93.

PMID: 24938732 DOI: 10.1007/s10899-014-9478-x.


Setting criterion thresholds for estimating prevalence: what is being validated?.

Gambino B J Gambl Stud. 2013; 30(3):577-607.

PMID: 23526052 DOI: 10.1007/s10899-013-9380-y.

References
1.
LaPlante D, Nelson S, LaBrie R, Shaffer H . Stability and progression of disordered gambling: lessons from longitudinal studies. Can J Psychiatry. 2008; 53(1):52-60. DOI: 10.1177/070674370805300108. View

2.
Sica G . Bias in research studies. Radiology. 2006; 238(3):780-9. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2383041109. View

3.
Lijmer J, Leeflang M, Bossuyt P . Proposals for a phased evaluation of medical tests. Med Decis Making. 2009; 29(5):E13-21. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09336144. View

4.
Hayen A, Macaskill P, Irwig L, Bossuyt P . Appropriate statistical methods are required to assess diagnostic tests for replacement, add-on, and triage. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63(8):883-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.08.024. View

5.
Alonzo T, Pepe M . Using a combination of reference tests to assess the accuracy of a new diagnostic test. Stat Med. 1999; 18(22):2987-3003. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19991130)18:22<2987::aid-sim205>3.0.co;2-b. View