Validity of the Problem Gambling Severity Index Interpretive Categories

2012 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 311-327 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shawn R. Currie ◽  
David C. Hodgins ◽  
David M. Casey
Keyword(s):  
Problem Gambling ◽  
Severity Index ◽  
Problem Gambling Severity Index ◽  
Gambling Severity

scholarly journals Gamblers’ (mis-)interpretations of Problem Gambling Severity Index items: Ambiguities in qualitative accounts from the Swedish Longitudinal Gambling Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 140-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva Samuelsson ◽  
Peter Wennberg ◽  
Kristina Sundqvist
Keyword(s):  
Problem Gambling ◽  
Severity Index ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
Clinical Settings ◽  
Gambling Behaviour ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Telephone Interviews ◽  
Problem Gambling Severity Index ◽  
Gambling Severity ◽  
Immoral Activity

The Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) is a screening instrument frequently used to identify risk and problem gambling. Even though the PGSI has good psychometric properties, it still produces a large proportion of misclassifications. Aims: To explore possible reasons for misclassifications in problem gambling level by analysing previously classified moderate-risk gamblers’ answers to the PGSI items, in relation to their own current and past gambling behaviours. Methods: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 19 participants reporting no negative consequences from gambling. They were asked the PGSI questions within an eight-year time frame (2008 to 2016). Ambiguous answers to PGSI items were subject to content analysis. Results: Several answers to the PGSI items contained ambiguities and misinterpretations, making it difficult to assess to what extent their answers actually indicated any problematic gambling over time. The item about feelings of guilt generated accounts rather reflecting self-recrimination over wasting money or regretting gambling as a meaningless or immoral activity. The item concerning critique involved mild interpretations such as being ridiculed for buying lottery tickets or getting comments for being boring. Similar accounts were given by the participants irrespective of initial endorsement of the items. Other possible reasons for misclassifications were related to recall bias, language difficulties, selective memory, and a tendency to answer one part of the question without taking the whole question into account. Conclusions: Answers to the PGSI can contain a variety of meanings based on the respondents’ subjective interpretations. Reports of lower levels of harm in the population should thus be interpreted with caution. In clinical settings it is important to combine use of screening instruments with interviews, to be able to better understand gamblers’ perceptions of the gambling behaviour and its negative consequences.

scholarly journals Responsible Gambling Strategies: Are They Effective Against Problem Gambling Risk in Older Ontarians?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Éric R Thériault ◽  
Joan E Norris ◽  
Joseph A Tindale
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Problem Gambling ◽  
Responsible Gambling ◽  
Severity Index ◽  
Personnes Âgées ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Problem Gambling Severity Index ◽  
Gambling Severity ◽  
Not At Risk ◽  
Risk Categories

Despite the limited amount of research on gambling in older adults (55+ years), they are often encouraged to use responsible gambling strategies to ensure that it remains a “low-risk” activity. However, the effectiveness of these strategies has not been examined in this population. The purpose of this study was threefold: to document the types of responsible gambling strategies used by older Ontario residents, to examine how these strategies relate to problem gambling risk, and to assess whether there are differences in the use of responsible gambling strategies between those who are and are not at risk of problem gambling. We examined the data of 673 older adults (M = 68.7, SD = 7.6)  from three different studies that used the same measurement instruments to assess demographics, problem gambling risk, and responsible gambling strategies (Norris & Tindale, 2006; Thériault, 2015; Tindale & Norris, 2015). We failed to find any evidence that the use of responsible gambling strategies was related to the risk of problem gambling in older adults (as measured by the Problem Gambling Severity Index of the Canadian Problem Gambling Index and the Windsor Screen). The respondents who used these strategies did not have a lower problem gambling risk than did the respondents who did not use the strategies. Further, the number of strategies used did not vary between problem gambling risk categories. These results raise questions about the utility of strategies used for responsible gambling.RésuméMalgré le nombre restreint de recherches effectuées sur le jeu chez les personnes âgées de 55 ans et plus, on constate que ces personnes sont souvent invitées à recourir à des stratégies de jeu responsable pour s’assurer que cette activité demeure « à faible risque ». L’efficacité de ces stratégies n’a cependant pas été examinée dans cette population. La raison d’être de cette étude est triple : répertorier les types de stratégies de jeu responsable utilisées par les personnes âgées en Ontario, examiner comment ces stratégies sont liées au risque de jeu compulsif, et évaluer s’il existe des différences entre les personnes à risque de jouer de manière compulsive et celles qui ne le sont pas dans l’utilisation de stratégies de jeu responsable. Au total, 673 personnes âgées (moyenne = 68,7, ÉT = 7,6) ont été recrutées dans trois études différentes recourant aux mêmes instruments de mesure; les mesures évaluaient les données démographiques, le risque de jeu problématique et les stratégies de jeu responsable (Norris et Tindale, 2006; Tindale et Norris, 2015; Thériault, 2015). L’étude n’a pas permis de prouver que l’utilisation de stratégies de jeu responsable était liée au risque de jeu excessif chez les personnes âgées (tel que mesuré par l’Indice canadien du jeu problématique, l’Indice de gravité du jeu problématique et le dépistage de Windsor). Les répondants qui ont utilisé ces stratégies n’affichaient pas un risque de jeu problématique inférieur à ceux qui ne les utilisaient pas. Enfin, le nombre de stratégies utilisées n’a pas varié entre les catégories de risque de jeu problématique. Ces résultats soulèvent des questions quant à l’utilité des stratégies employées pour assurer le jeu responsable.

Criterion-related and construct validity of the Problem Gambling Severity Index in a sample of South African gamblers

2014 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-257 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Dellis ◽  
Carla Sharp ◽  
Andre Hofmeyr ◽  
Peter M Schwardmann ◽  
David Spurrett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Construct Validity ◽  
Problem Gambling ◽  
South African ◽  
Severity Index ◽  
Problem Gambling Severity Index ◽  
Gambling Severity

Problem Gambling Severity Index--Japanese Version

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryuhei So ◽  
Sachio Matsushita ◽  
Sanae Kishimoto ◽  
Toshi A. Furukawa
Keyword(s):  
Problem Gambling ◽  
Japanese Version ◽  
Severity Index ◽  
Problem Gambling Severity Index ◽  
Gambling Severity
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document