{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025043177892918825, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009499136442141624, 'mean_word_length': 5.777777777777778, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Testing the Construct Validity of Dixon and Johnson's (2007) Gambling Functional Assessment

The Gambling Functional Assessment (GFA; Dixon & Johnson, 2007) is a 20-item self-report inventory identifying four potential consequences maintaining gambling behavior. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses are performed for two large, nonclinical samples of university undergraduates. For the exploratory analysis, the optimal model yields two factors: Positive Reinforcement (correlated with GFA Sensory, Attention, and Tangible scores) and Negative Reinforcement (correlated with GFA Escape scores). One GFA item fails to load on either factor adequately. Factor loadings are confirmed using structural equation modeling for the second sample. The resulting model yields a mix of adequate and suboptimal fit indicators. Although the 2-factor model of the GFA has great theoretical utility and shows significant promise, confirmation within clinical samples of gamblers will be necessary to further validate the model. GFA Escape scores are uniquely distributed in the two samples and may represent functions most likely to maintain pathological gambling.