Publication Date
| In 2025 | 0 |
| Since 2024 | 0 |
| Since 2021 (last 5 years) | 0 |
| Since 2016 (last 10 years) | 0 |
| Since 2006 (last 20 years) | 2 |
Descriptor
| Check Lists | 2 |
| Interviews | 2 |
| Screening Tests | 2 |
| Affective Measures | 1 |
| At Risk Persons | 1 |
| Behavior Problems | 1 |
| College Students | 1 |
| Comparative Analysis | 1 |
| Construct Validity | 1 |
| Diagnostic Tests | 1 |
| Evaluation Research | 1 |
| More ▼ | |
Source
| Assessment | 2 |
Author
| Douglas, Kevin S. | 1 |
| Edens, John F. | 1 |
| McCausland, Claudia | 1 |
| Meyers, Andrew W. | 1 |
| Skeem, Jennifer L. | 1 |
| Weinstock, Jeremiah | 1 |
| Whelan, James P. | 1 |
Publication Type
| Journal Articles | 2 |
| Reports - Evaluative | 1 |
| Reports - Research | 1 |
Education Level
| Higher Education | 1 |
Audience
Location
Laws, Policies, & Programs
Assessments and Surveys
What Works Clearinghouse Rating
Peer reviewed
Direct linkWeinstock, Jeremiah; Whelan, James P.; Meyers, Andrew W.; McCausland, Claudia – Assessment, 2007
The psychometric properties of two pathological gambling (PG) screening instruments, the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) and the Massachusetts Gambling Screen-DSM-IV subscale (MAGS), were explored in a sample of college students (N = 159). Participants completed the two screening instruments, a diagnostic interview for PG, the Gambling-Timeline…
Descriptors: College Students, Self Efficacy, Validity, Psychometrics
Edens, John F.; Skeem, Jennifer L.; Douglas, Kevin S. – Assessment, 2006
This study compares two instruments frequently used to assess risk for violence, the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) and the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV), in a large sample of civil psychiatric patients. Despite a strong bivariate relationship with community violence, the VRAG could not improve on the predictive validity…
Descriptors: Predictive Validity, Violence, At Risk Persons, Check Lists
