Setting Criterion Thresholds for Estimating Prevalence: What is Being Validated?

Overview

Journal J Gambl Stud

Date 2013 Mar 26

PMID 23526052

Citations 2

Authors

Blase Gambino

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Much of the debate over how best to estimate the prevalence of problem gambling in the general population is driven by a number of misconceptions, misinterpretations, and questionable, sometimes erroneous assumptions. Among the latter is the failure to understand that what is being validated is not the test but the interpretation of test scores for a specific purpose. In addition there has been a lack of attention to defining the clinical and/or epidemiologic relevance of case definitions in terms of severity and other clinical attributes, a misunderstanding of how test values are interpreted when criterion thresholds or cut-off points are selected, and a failure to replicate the validation of criterion thresholds for defining cases of problem gambling. It is argued further that the distinction between dichotomy and continuum is a false choice, and any emphasis on overestimation is misdirected. Alternative methods for evaluating tests and estimating prevalence are described and a pragmatic empirical approach to the interpretation of prevalence estimates 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.

References

Obuchowski N, Zhou X . Prospective studies of diagnostic test accuracy when disease prevalence is low. Biostatistics. 2003; 3(4):477-92. DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/3.4.477. View

Yerushalmy J . Statistical problems in assessing methods of medical diagnosis, with special reference to X-ray techniques. Public Health Rep (1896). 2010; 62(40):1432-49. View

Kraemer H . DSM categories and dimensions in clinical and research contexts. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2007; 16 Suppl 1:S8-S15. PMC: 6879071. DOI: 10.1002/mpr.211. View

Mayes R, Horwitz A . DSM-III and the revolution in the classification of mental illness. J Hist Behav Sci. 2005; 41(3):249-67. DOI: 10.1002/jhbs.20103. View

Saunders J, Cottler L . The development of the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders version V substance use disorders section: establishing the research framework. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2007; 20(3):208-12. DOI: 10.1097/YCO.0b013e3280fb2720. View

Tolchard B, Battersby M . The Victorian Gambling Screen: reliability and validation in a clinical population. J Gambl Stud. 2009; 26(4):623-38. DOI: 10.1007/s10899-009-9172-6. View

Volberg R, Banks S . A review of two measures of pathological gambling in the United States. J Gambl Stud. 2013; 6(2):153-63. DOI: 10.1007/BF01013495. View

Carragher N, McWilliams L . A latent class analysis of DSM-IV criteria for pathological gambling: Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Psychiatry Res. 2011; 187(1-2):185-92. DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2010.12.022. View

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

10.

Tang C, Wu A, Tang J, Yan E . Reliability, validity, and cut scores of the south oaks gambling screen (SOGS) for Chinese. J Gambl Stud. 2009; 26(1):145-58. PMC: 2953627. DOI: 10.1007/s10899-009-9147-7. View

11.

Obuchowski N . Receiver operating characteristic curves and their use in radiology. Radiology. 2003; 229(1):3-8. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2291010898. View

12.

Gambino B . The validation of screening tests: meet the new screen same as the old screen?. J Gambl Stud. 2011; 28(4):573-605. DOI: 10.1007/s10899-011-9285-6. View

13.

Kraemer H, Noda A, OHara R . Categorical versus dimensional approaches to diagnosis: methodological challenges. J Psychiatr Res. 2003; 38(1):17-25. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3956(03)00097-9. View

14.

Slutske W, Piasecki T, Blaszczynski A, Martin N . Pathological gambling recovery in the absence of abstinence. Addiction. 2010; 105(12):2169-75. PMC: 2975751. DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03080.x. View

15.

Gambino B . Reflections on accuracy. J Gambl Stud. 2006; 22(4):393-404. DOI: 10.1007/s10899-006-9025-5. View

16.

Youden W . Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer. 1950; 3(1):32-5. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(1950)3:1<32::aid-cncr2820030106>3.0.co;2-3. View

17.

Reilly M . Optimal sampling strategies for two-stage studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1996; 143(1):92-100. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a008662. View

18.

Stinchfield R . Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy of the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS). Addict Behav. 2002; 27(1):1-19. DOI: 10.1016/s0306-4603(00)00158-1. View

19.

Gambino B . An Epidemiologic Note on Verification Bias: Implications for Estimation of Rates. J Gambl Stud. 2003; 15(3):223-232. DOI: 10.1023/a:1023045328771. View

20.

Bachmann L, Juni P, Reichenbach S, Ziswiler H, Kessels A, Vogelin E . Consequences of different diagnostic "gold standards" in test accuracy research: Carpal Tunnel Syndrome as an example. Int J Epidemiol. 2005; 34(4):953-5. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyi105. View