Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Theorists and practitioners are separated by a gap that reflects an unnatural concern with their respective tasks. As a consequence, practitioners lack theories that are grounded in the best of practice, nor do they engage in practice that is guided by the kind of prescriptive theory from which it can benefit from systematic feedback. The reasons for this predicament can be traced to the structural and personal characteristics of the current knowledge generation, knowledge transfer, and knowledge utilization system. It is recommended that practitioners in the addictions rely more on their own resources in order to explicate the systems under which they practice in order to develop theories of practice. This includes the use of systematic observation, hypothesis testing, and evaluating research as major tools in the construction of prescriptive theories of practice in the addictions. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]