Cuestionario breve para juego patológico: desempeño psicométrico en universitarios

• Main Authors: Ceballos-Ospino Guillermo, Barliza-De-La-Rosa Luisa, Villafañe-Martínez Yulieth, Herazo Acevedo Edwin, Oviedo Acevedo Heidi Celina, Campo-Arias Adalberto
• Format: Article
• Language: Spanish
• Published: Universidad de Cartagena 2013-12-01
• Series: Revista Ciencias Biomédicas
• Online Access: http://revistacienciasbiomedicas.com/index.php/revciencbiomed/article/view/284/227

Introduction: gambling disorder is an emerging clinical condition with unfavorable consequences in the academic context. It is important to know the psychometric performance of a brief scale for the identification of possible cases in the college context. Objective: To examine the psychometric performance of the Gambling disorder Brief Questionnaire (GDBQ) in college students of a university from the Colombian Caribbean. Methods: A validation study was carried out without a reference criterion about the performance of the four items of the GDBQ. A group of 1,349 students of different academic programs with mean of age of 20.6 years of age (SD=3.4) and 50,7% men completed the GDBQ and the brief Zung´s scale for screnning anxiety. The reliability coefficients (Kuder-Richardson -equivalent to Cronbach´s alpha- and mcdonald´s omega) and the validity coefficients (divergent, nomological, construct) were calculated. Results: GDBQ showed Kuder-Richardson of 0.761, mcdonald´s omega of 0.769, good divergent validity (Pearson´s correlation (r) of 0.038 with the score in the brief Zung´s scale for screnning anxiety), acceptable nomological validity (Men showed mean of 0.50 (SD=1.01) and women showed mean of 0.11 (SD=0.45), t=9.324; gl=946.250; p<0.001) and a construct with a dimension which indicated 58.4% of variance. Conclusions: GDBQ is a brief instrument with good internal consistency and good divergent, nomological and construct validity. It is necessary to explore the convergent validity of this scale and the performance in front of the best reference criterion Rev. cienc.biomed. 2013;4(2):242-246