Validity and Reliability Study of Online Gambling Addiction Scale (OGAS)

Key Findings & Data:For the study, a draft scale with 57 items related to online gambling addiction was prepared, and ten experts evaluated it for content validity.

💡

Conclusion & Impact:In conclusion, the Online Gambling Addiction Scale (OGAS) is a valid and reliable scale consisting of 21 items and 3 sub-dimensions.

🔬Design:Research Article

📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample

⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study was aimed at developing a scale to determine the level of addiction to online gambling. For the study, a draft scale with 57 items related to online gambling addiction was prepared, and ten experts evaluated it for content validity. A candidate scale consisting of 28 items with a content validity index (CVI) of 0.893 was obtained. The study was completed with 650 participants in total. Cronbach’s alpha value was calculated as 0.920 for the reliability analysis. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used for the validity analysis. The three-factor and 26-item structure obtained with EFA was confirmed by CFA. With a few minor modifications, the final structure consisting of 3 factors and 21 items was obtained. In conclusion, the Online Gambling Addiction Scale (OGAS) is a valid and reliable scale consisting of 21 items and 3 sub-dimensions.

🔖

Cite This Article

KARAİBRAHİMOĞLU, A., KİŞİOĞLU, A. N., ÇOBAN, B., YILDIRIM, A., YILMAZ, S. D. (2022). Validity and Reliability Study of Online Gambling Addiction Scale (OGAS). Addicta: The Turkish Journal on Addictions, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 3, 186–193. https://ajindex.com/articles/428274

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

Open in New Tab ↗

↗New Tab

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (2)

Aguinis, H., Henle, C. A., & Ostroff, C. (2009). Endüstri ve Örgüt Psikolojisinde Ölçüm. In N. Anderson, D. S. Öneş, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Endüstri, İş ve Örgüt Psikolojisi El Kitabı, 1. Cilt: Örgüt Psikolojisi (pp. 35-61). Literatür Yay. Dağ. Paz. San. Tic. Ltd. şti. Aksayan, S., & Gözüm, S. (2003). Kültürlerarası Ölçek Uyarlaması İçin Rehber II: Psikometrik özellikler ve kültürlerarası karşılaştırma [A guıde for transcultural adaptatıon of the scale II: Psychometric characteristics and cross-cultural comparison]. Hemşirelikte Arastırma Gelistirme Dergisi, 1, 3-14.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed). American Psychiatric Association. [CrossRef] Arcan, K., & Karancı, A. N. (2014). Kumar oynama nedenleri ölçeǧinin uyarlama, geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik çalışması [Adaptation, validity, and reliability study of the five-factor gambling motives scale]. Journal of Psychiatry, 15(3), 248-256. [CrossRef] Çapık, C. (2014). Geçerlik ve Güvenilirlik Çalışmalarında Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizinin Kullanımı [Use of confirmatory factor analysis in validity and reliability studies]. Anadolu Hemşirelik ve Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 17(3), 196-205. [CrossRef] Çelik, A. (2016). Spor Bahis Oyunlarına Katılımı Etkileyen Faktörler [The factors that effect to take part in betting]. Sportif Bakış: Spor ve Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(2), 89-98. Chóliz, M., Marcos, M., & Lázaro-Mateo, J. (2021). The risk of online gambling: a study of gambling disorder prevalence rates in Spain. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. 19(2), 404- 417. [CrossRef] Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Çok Değişkenli İstatistik SPSS ve LISREL Uygulamaları (2. Baskı). Pegem Akademi. Egger, O., & Rauterberg, M. (1996). Internet behaviour and addiction. pp. 1-173. Retrieved from http: //www.idem ploye e.id. tue.n l/g.w.m.ra uterb erg/i bq/re port. pdf. Erkorkmaz, Ü., Etikan, İ., Demir, O., Özdamar, K., & Sanisoǧlu, Y. (2013). Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi ve Uyum İndeksleri [Confirmatory factor analysis and fit indices: Review]. Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Medical Sciences, 33(1), 210-223. [CrossRef] Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment ınstruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286-299. [CrossRef] Gainsbury, S. M., Russell, A., Wood, R., Hing, N., & Blaszczynski, A. (2015). How risky is Inte