CHANGES IN GAMBLING AND PROBLEM GAMBLING IN OREGON: RESULTS FROM A REPLICATION STUDY, 1997 TO 2000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rachel A. Volberg, Ph.D.

Gemini Research, Ltd.

PO Box 628

Northampton, MA 01061

413-584-4667

www.geminiresearch.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

February 2001

 


 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................................................................................... i

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................... ii

 

INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 1

 

METHODS............................................................................................................................. 8

 

COMPARING THE 1997 AND 2000 SAMPLES........................................................................ 17

 

CHANGES IN GAMBLING PARTICIPATION............................................................................ 23

 

CHANGES IN THE CHARACTERISTICS OF GAMBLERS......................................................... 18

 

CHANGES IN PROBLEM GAMBLING PREVALENCE............................................................. 22

 

CHANGES IN THE CHARACTERISTICS OF PROBLEM GAMBLERS........................................ 32

 

COMPARING OREGON WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS........................................................... 40

 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION............................................................................................. 47

 

REFERENCES..................................................................................................................... 52

 

 

APPENDIX A: Methods to Assess Problem Gambling in the General Population

 

APPENDIX B: Questionnaire for the Oregon Replication Survey

 

 


LIST OF TABLES

 

 

Table 1: Diagnostic Criteria for Pathological Gambling................................................................ 3

 

Table 2: Comparing the 2000 Sample and the General Populat