Implications of gambling problems for family and interpersonal adjustment: results from the Quinte Longitudinal Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate (1) whether gambling problems predict overall trajectories of change in family or interpersonal adjustment and (2) whether annual measures of gambling problems predict time-specific decreases in family or interpersonal adjustment, concurrently and prospectively. DESIGN: The Quinte Longitudinal Study (QLS) involved random-digit dialling of telephone numbers around the city of Belleville, Canada to recruit 'general population' and 'at-risk' groups (the latter oversampling people likely to develop problems). Five waves of assessment were conducted (2006-10). Latent Trajectory Modelling (LTM) estimated overall trajectories of family and interpersonal adjustment, which were predicted by gambling problems, and also estimated how time-specific problems predicted deviations from these trajectories. SETTING: Southeast Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Community sample of Canadian adults (n = 4121). MEASUREMENTS: The Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) defined at-risk gambling (ARG: PGSI 1-2) and moderate-risk/problem gambling (MR/PG: PGSI 3+). Outcomes included: (1) family functioning, assessed using a seven-point rating of overall functioning; (2) social support, assessed using items from the Non-support subscale of the Personality Assessment Inventory; and (3) relationship satisfaction, measured by the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. FINDINGS: Baseline measures of ARG and MR/PG did not predict rates of change in trajectories of family or interpersonal adjustment. Rather, the annual measures of MR/PG predicted time-specific decreases in family functioning (estimate: -0.11, P < 0.01), social support (estimate: -0.28, P < 0.01) and relationship satisfaction (estimate: -0.53, P < 0.01). ARG predicted concurrent levels of family functioning (estimate: -0.07, P < 0.01). There were time-lagged effects of MR/PG on subsequent levels of family functioning (estimate: -0.12, P < 0.01) and social support (estimate: -0.24, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In a longitudinal study of Canadian adults, moderate-risk/problem gambling did not predict overall trajectories of family or interpersonal adjustment. Rather, the annual measures of moderate-risk/problem gambling predicted time-specific and concurrent decreases in all outcomes, and lower family functioning and social support across adjacent waves.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".