Gambling and Self-Monitoring Test

Abstract

The Gambling and Self-Monitoring Test (SeMo) is a brief, 14-item instrument developed as a component of a comprehensive curriculum designed for the prevention of problem gambling. Reported by Macdonald, Turner, and Somerset (2008), the scale is intended to assess an individual’s existing cognitive framework regarding gambling behavior. Specifically, it evaluates the presence of common gambling misconceptions, unrealistic beliefs about control and outcome, and the perceived capacity for self-monitoring and self-awareness concerning potential problematic engagement. The SeMo scale is utilized primarily in educational or preventative settings to gauge baseline knowledge and attitudes before intervention programs are implemented.

The scale utilizes a 4-point Likert response format, ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 4 (“Strongly Agree”). Higher scores generally indicate a greater endorsement of beliefs associated with irrational gambling behavior and poor self-monitoring skills, which are known risk factors for developing gambling disorder.

Keywords

Gambling and Self-Monitoring Test, SeMo, Problem Gambling, Cognitive Distortions, Self-Monitoring, Gambling Misconceptions, Prevention Curriculum, Addictions

Authors

John Macdonald, Nigel Turner, Matthew Somerset

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Gambling and Self-Monitoring Test is to serve as an assessment tool within the *Life Skills, Mathematical Reasoning and Critical Thinking: Curriculum for the Prevention of Problem Gambling*. The scale is fundamentally educational, designed to identify specific knowledge deficits and cognitive biases that increase vulnerability to problematic gambling behaviors. By measuring these specific beliefs, educators and clinicians can tailor preventative strategies to challenge irrational thoughts about luck, skill, and loss recoupment, while simultaneously emphasizing the importance of objective self-assessment.

The instrument aims to quantify two critical domains: the endorsement of common gambling fallacies (e.g., the Gambler’s Fallacy) and the perceived difficulty or relevance of monitoring one’s own emotional and financial engagement with gambling activities. Its use helps evaluate the effectiveness of educational interventions focused on promoting critical thinking and responsible decision-making related to gambling.

Construct

The SeMo scale measures two interconnected psychological constructs central to the development and maintenance of gambling addiction:

• Gambling Misconceptions and Cognitive Distortions: This domain assesses belief in irrational concepts such as the illusion of control, the idea that losses predict future wins (near misses/hot streaks), and the minimization of non-monetary consequences (emotional or social damage). Items targeting this construct often reflect flawed mathematical reasoning or magical thinking concerning random chance.
• Self-Monitoring and Insight: This domain evaluates the individual’s perceived ability and motivation to engage in self-monitoring—the capacity to observe and reflect accurately on one’s internal state, behavior patterns, and the negative consequences of gambling. Poor self-monitoring is often a precursor to denial and continued problematic engagement.

The scale thus operates on the theoretical principle that faulty cognitions combined with a lack of critical self-awareness are key psychological mechanisms requiring intervention in prevention programs.

Validity

Specific, detailed psychometric validity data (e.g., convergent, discriminant, or predictive validity coefficients) for the SeMo scale are not explicitly detailed in the provided source material, which is a final report documenting a curriculum. However, the instrument’s items demonstrate high face validity and content validity, as they directly address well-established cognitive distortions (e.g., items 3, 9) and denial mechanisms (e.g., items 6, 7) recognized in the clinical literature on problem gambling. The scale’s inclusion in a major prevention curriculum suggests that the items were derived from extensive research into the cognitive profiles of individuals at risk for gambling problems.

Reliability

As with specific validity measures, detailed reliability statistics, such as Cronbach’s Alpha or test-retest reliability scores, are not presented within the scope of the available source content. Given its context as a classroom assessment tool, it is presumed that the scale underwent preliminary testing for internal consistency during the curriculum development phase (2008) to ensure that the 14 items consistently measure the intended underlying constructs of misconceptions and poor self-monitoring. Further independent psychometric evaluation of the SeMo scale would be necessary to establish its reliability for clinical or research purposes outside of the primary curriculum setting.

Factor Analysis

Information regarding a formal factor analysis of the 14 items of the Gambling and Self-Monitoring Test is not available in the public domain or the provided source context. It is possible that the instrument is treated as a unidimensional measure of “vulnerability to problem gambling beliefs” or that an exploratory factor analysis, if conducted, revealed two primary factors corresponding to the hypothesized constructs of “Cognitive Distortions” and “Self-Monitoring Capacity.” Without published factor loadings, the intended scoring structure remains additive across all items to produce a global risk score.

Instrument

Test Type: Screening Instrument; Educational Assessment

Format: 14-item self-report questionnaire using a 4-point Likert scale.

Language Available: English (as reported in the source material).

Population Group: Individuals participating in problem gambling prevention programs, typically students or members of the general public.

Age Group: Adolescents and Young Adults (consistent with typical “Life Skills” curriculum targets).

Population Details: Used within the context of the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre’s preventative initiatives.

Test Methodology: Respondents rate their agreement with each statement on a scale of 1=“Strongly Disagree” to 4= “Strongly Agree.” Responses indicative of high risk (e.g., endorsing cognitive distortions or denying the need for monitoring) are summed to provide an overall score reflecting vulnerability to pathological gambling behavior.

Keywords

Gambling, Self-Monitoring, Cognitive Bias, Prevention, Macdonald, Turner, Somerset, Life Skills, Assessment Scale

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Information not provided in source)

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A (Information not provided in source)

Correspondence Address: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), Ontario, Canada (Affiliation of authors at time of report).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 2008 (Year of publication of the curriculum report).

Permissions and Fees: The instrument is published within a publicly available curriculum report, suggesting it is intended for non-commercial educational and research use within the context of problem gambling prevention. It is highly likely available without specific licensing fees for academic purposes.

Reference’s

• Macdonald, J., Turner, N., & Somerset, M. (2008). Life Skills, Mathematical Reasoning and Critical Thinking: Curriculum for the Prevention of Problem Gambling. Final Report to the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. The instrument is located on page 48 of this report. The original publication reference is available online here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18095146

• Turner, N., Littman-Sharp, N., Zengeneh, M. & Spence, W. (2002). Winners: Why do some develop gambling problems while others do not? Available at www.gamblingresearch.org

Items of the Gambling and Self-Monitoring Test

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

1. Gambling does not affect problems gamblers’ emotions
2. It is impossible for the average person to keep track of how much they spend while gambling
3. You can increase your chances of winning by following your gut feeling
4. Self-monitoring means asking a friend if s/he thinks you are headed for a problem
5. A problem gambler would stop ha‎ving a problem if s/he won all his/her money back
6. A problem gambler hides his/her problem so well that it bothers no one.
7. Problem gambling is only a matter of how much money you lose
8. My mind is too complex for me to see what is going on inside of it
9. A problem gambler believes that after several losses‚ they are due for a win
10. A problem gambler often doesn’t participate in many of the of the activities s/he used to enjoy
11. Excitement can make you bet more frequently and bet more money
12. Making excuses for problematic beahaviour is an example of an effective coping skill
13. A person will a gambling problem will keep playing; making larger bets to try and get his/her money back
14. Thinking a lot about gambling may indicate that you have a gambling problem