As noted in the section Defining Problem and Pathological Gambling on Page 3, individuals are classified as problem gamblers or probable pathological gamblers in prevalence surveys on the basis of their responses to the South Oaks Gambling Screen items. It is important to remember that not all lifetime problem and probable pathological gamblers meet sufficient criteria to be classified as current problem and probable pathological gamblers.
Research on the performance of the South Oaks Gambling Screen has shown that the lifetime screen is very good at detecting pathological gambling among those who currently experience the disorder (see Appendix A for a full discussion of the accuracy of the SOGS). However, as expected, the screen identifies at-risk individuals at the expense of generating a substantial number of false positives. The current SOGS produces fewer false positives than the lifetime measure but more false negatives and thus provides a weaker screen for identifying pathological gamblers in the clinical sense. However, the greater efficiency of the current SOGS makes it a more useful tool for detecting rates of change in the prevalence of problem and pathological gambling over time.
Following established criteria for discriminating between respondents without gambling-related difficulties and those with moderate to severe problems (Abbott & Volberg 1996; Lesieur & Blume 1987), Oregon respondents' scores on the lifetime and current (past-year) South Oaks Gambling Screen items were tallied. In accordance with these criteria, prevalence rates were calculated as follows:
· lifetime problem gamblers are those respondents who score 3 or 4 points on the lifetime SOGS items. In Oregon, 3.1% (±0.9%) of the respondents scored as lifetime problem gamblers.
· lifetime probable pathological gamblers are those respondents who score 5 or more points on the lifetime SOGS items. In Oregon, 1.8% (±0.7%) of the respondents scored as lifetime probable pathological gamblers.
· current problem gamblers are those respondents who score 3 or 4 points on the past year SOGS items. In Oregon, 1.9% (±0.7%) of the respondents scored as current problem gamblers.
· current probable pathological gamblers are those respondents who score 5 or more points on the past year SOGS items. In Oregon, 1.4% (±0.6%) of the respondents scored as current probable pathological gamblers.
In the tables that follow in this and the next section, lifetime and current problem and probable pathological gamblers are grouped together. This approach is based on discriminant analysis that has established a strong and significant separation between non-problem gamblers and those who score as problem and probable pathological gamblers (Abbott & Volberg 1996; Volberg & Abbott 1994).
According to the most recent population projections from the University of Portland Center for Population Research, the population aged 18 and over in Oregon in 1996 is 2,362,617 individuals. Based on these figures, we estimate that between 52,000 (2.2%) and 94,500 (4.0%) of Oregon residents aged 18 and over can be classified as lifetime problem gamblers. In addition, we estimate that between 26,000 (1.1%) and 59,000 (2.5%) of Oregon residents aged 18 and over can be classified as lifetime probable pathological gamblers.
Table 5 shows that lifetime problem and probable pathological gamblers in Oregon are significantly more likely than other respondents in the sample to be male, under the age of 30, non-White and divorced, separated or never married. Despite these significant differences, it is important to note that the majority of lifetime problem and probable pathological gamblers are White and between the ages of 30 and 54. Differences between lifetime problem and probable pathological gamblers and other respondents in education, income and employment status are relatively small and do not attain statistical significance.
In terms of their gambling involvement, lifetime problem and probable pathological gamblers are significantly more likely than other respondents to gamble once a week or more on one or more activities and to spend $100 or more on gambling in a typical month. In addition, the average number of types of gambling tried by lifetime problem and pathological gamblers is significantly higher than the average number of types of gambling tried by other respondents.
Table 5: Comparing Lifetime Problem Gamblers with Non-Problem Respondents
|
Non-Problem
|
Problem &
|
|||
(N=1,427) |
(N=75) |
|||
Gender |
** | |||
Male |
44.2 |
63.8 |
||
Female |
55.8 |
36.2 |
||
Age |
* | |||
18 - 20 |
4.8 |
11.5 |
||
21 - 29 |
16.7 |
23.0 |
||
30 - 54 |
49.2 |
43.3 |
||
55 and over |
29.3 |
22.3 |
||
Ethnicity |
** | |||
White |
93.0 |
78.6 |
||
Non-White |
7.0 |
21.4 |
||
Marital Status |
** | |||
Married |
58.4 |
35.4 |
||
Widowed |
9.1 |
7.4 |
||
Divorced/Separated |
12.9 |
23.5 |
||
Never Married |
19.7 |
33.7 |
||
Education |
||||
Less than HS |
7.9 |
14.0 |
||
HS and Over |
92.1 |
86.0 |
||
Employment |
||||
Working |
63.4 |
71.5 |
||
Unemployed |
1.8 |
2.5 |
||
Other |
34.8 |
26.0 |
||
Income |
||||
Less than $25,000 |
32.6 |
39.3 |
||
$25,000 to $50,000 |
37.8 |
33.9 |
||
$50,000 or More |
29.7 |
26.8 |
||
Gambled Past Week (1 or more activities) |
16.3 |
53.9 |
** | |
Spent $100 or more Past Month |
6.8 |
43.2 |
** | |
Mean Lifetime Gambling Activities |
3.5 |
6.0 |
** | |
* Significant (p<=.05)
** Highly significant (p<=.01)
Based on current prevalence and 1990 census information, we estimate that between 28,300 (1.2%) and 61,400 (2.6%) of Oregon residents aged 18 and over can be classified as current problem gamblers. In addition, we estimate that between 18,900 (0.8%) and 47,200 (2.0%) of Oregon residents aged 18 and over can be classified as current probable pathological gamblers.
Comparison of Table 5 and Table 6 shows that most of the differences between respondents who score as lifetime problem or probable pathological gamblers and the remainder of the sample in Oregon hold true for current problem and probable pathological gamblers. One important difference is that current problem and probable pathological gamblers in Oregon are not significantly different from other respondents in terms of gender.
Table 6: Comparing Current Problem Gamblers with Non-Problem Respondents
|
Non-Problem
|
Problem &
|
|||
(N=1,453) |
(N=50) |
|||
Gender |
||||
Male |
44.8 |
55.9 |
||
Female |
55.2 |
44.1 |
||
Age |
** | |||
18 - 20 |
4.8 |
14.9 |
||
21 - 29 |
16.7 |
24.8 |
||
30 - 54 |
48.9 |
47.3 |
||
55 and over |
29.5 |
13.1 |
||
Ethnicity |
** | |||
White |
92.7 |
78.3 |
||
Non-White |
7.3 |
21.7 |
||
Marital Status |
* | |||
Married |
57.7 |
42.2 |
||
Widowed |
9.1 |
5.6 |
||
Divorced/Separated |
13.3 |
17.4 |
||
Never Married |
19.9 |
34.7 |
||
Education |
||||
Less than HS |
8.1 |
11.2 |
||
HS and Over |
91.9 |
88.8 |
||
Employment |
||||
Working |
63.5 |
72.1 |
||
Unemployed |
1.9 |
--- |
||
Other |
34.6 |
27.9 |
||
Income |
||||
Less than $25,000 |
32.7 |
40.6 |
||
$25,000 to $50,000 |
37.7 |
34.1 |
||
$50,000 or More |
29.6 |
25.4 |
||
Gambled Past Week (1 or more activities) |
16.9 |
55.3 |
** | |
Spent $100 or more Past Month |
7.3 |
44.7 |
** | |
Mean Lifetime Gambling Activities |
3.6 |
6.2 |
** | |
* Significant (p<=.05)
** Highly significant (p<=.01)
As with lifetime problem gamblers, current problem and probable pathological gamblers are significantly more likely than other respondents to gamble once a week or more on one or more activities and to spend $100 or more on gambling in a typical month. In addition, the average number of types of gambling tried by current problem and pathological gamblers is significantly higher than the average number of types of gambling tried by other respondents.
Gambling surveys conducted since 1990 have collected information on current as well as lifetime prevalence rates of problem and probable pathological gambling. The difference between lifetime and current prevalence rates represents individuals who have experienced a gambling problem at some time in their lives but do not score as having a gambling problem currently. Since there are few available treatment services for problem and pathological gamblers in most states, these individuals can be regarded as problem and pathological gamblers in natural recovery.
The proportion of problem and pathological gamblers in natural recovery in the general population ranges from 29% in New Brunswick to 57% in British Columbia (Baseline Market Research 1992; Angus Reid Group & Gemini Research 1994). As in other jurisdictions, a proportion of the Oregon respondents who score as lifetime problem or probable pathological gamblers do not score as having a current problem or pathology. In Oregon, 43% of lifetime problem and probable pathological gamblers do not score as having a current problem or pathology. Another explanation of this number is that six out of every ten individuals who have ever experienced gambling problems in Oregon are currently experiencing such difficulties.
Comparing Problem Gambling Prevalence Across States
The jurisdictions where problem gambling surveys have been done in the United States differ substantially in the types of gambling available, in levels of gambling participation and in the demographic characteristics of the general population. Figure 2 shows prevalence rates of lifetime problem and probable pathological gambling in all of the United States jurisdictions where surveys based on the South Oaks Gambling Screen have been completed. The data in Figure 2 are arrayed geographically from West to Northeast. In states where replication surveys have been completed (Iowa, New York, South Dakota and Texas), the most recent prevalence rates are shown.
Figure 2: Lifetime Prevalence Rates in the United States
Figure 2 shows that, in general, lifetime prevalence rates are lower in Central and Midwestern states than in the Northeast, South and West. In contrast to the Midwest, states in the Northeast and West tend to be ethnically more diverse and to have had access to legal gambling for longer periods of time. Like the Northeast and West, states in the South tend to be ethnically diverse. However, legal gambling is a recent introduction in all of the Southern states where surveys of gambling and problem gambling have been completed. The lifetime prevalence rate in Oregon in 1997 is similar to lifetime prevalence rates in Washington State in the West, Texas and Georgia in the South and Iowa in the Midwest. The lifetime prevalence rate in Oregon is lower than in Colorado in the West, Louisiana and Mississippi in the South and New York and Connecticut in the Northeast but higher than in the Midwestern and Central states as well as in Northeastern states surveyed in the 1980s.
Figure 3 shows prevalence rates of current problem and probable pathological gambling in all of the United States jurisdictions where surveys based on the South Oaks Gambling Screen have been completed. As in Figure 2, the data in Figure 3 are arrayed geographically from West to Northeast. The current prevalence rate in Oregon in 1997 is lower than in Louisiana and Mississippi in the South and Minnesota in the Midwest. The current prevalence rate in Oregon is similar to current prevalence rates in other Western states as well as to Texas and Georgia in the South, Montana and Iowa in the Midwest and Central region and New York in the Northeast.
Figure 3: Current Prevalence Rates in the United States
Current prevalence rates tend to be higher in jurisdictions where casino gambling has recently been introduced. In the Midwest, Iowa and Minnesota have the highest current prevalence rates of problem and pathological gambling. Iowa legalized riverboat casinos in 1992 and Minnesota has nearly 20 Native American casinos which have become operational since the passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988. In the South, current prevalence rates in Louisiana and Mississippi, where casinos have become operational since 1992, are also high.
In Oregon, 3.1% of the respondents scored as lifetime problem gamblers and an additional 1.8% scored as lifetime probable pathological gamblers. In Oregon, 1.9% of the respondents scored as current problem gamblers and another 1.4% scored as current probable pathological gamblers. While the lifetime prevalence of problem and pathological gambling in Oregon is lower than in many other states where similar surveys have been completed, the current prevalence of problem and, particularly, pathological gambling in Oregon is higher than in many other jurisdictions.
In Oregon, lifetime problem and probable pathological gamblers are significantly more likely than other respondents to be male, under the age of 30 and non-White. As we noted above, it is important to remember that the majority of lifetime problem and probable pathological gamblers are White and between the ages of 30 and 54. Lifetime problem and probable pathological gamblers in Oregon are also significantly more likely than other respondents to be divorced, separated or never married. Current problem and probable pathological gamblers are significantly more likely than other respondents in Oregon to be under the age of 30, non-White and divorced, separated or never married. Six out of every ten individuals who have ever experienced gambling problems in Oregon are experiencing those difficulties now.
In this section, we have examined the prevalence of problem and probable pathological gambling among respondents in the Oregon survey. Here, and in the first section of the report on Gambling in Oregon, our focus has been on the entire sample of 1,502 respondents. In the next section, we turn our attention to differences between non-problem and problem gamblers in the Oregon survey. Only those respondents who have ever tried one or more types of gambling (N=1,305) are included in analyses of the differences between non-problem and problem gamblers in the following section.
