The Ordering of Gambling Severity and Harm Scales: A Cautionary Tale

Question-order effects are known to occur in surveys, particularly those that measure subjective experiences. The presence of context effects will impact the comparability of results if questions have not been presented in a consistent manner. In this study, we examined the influence of question order on how people responded to two gambling scales in the Australian Capital Territory Gambling Prevalence Survey: The Problem Gambling Severity Index and the Short Gambling Harm Screen. The application of these scales in gambling surveys is continuing to grow, the results being compared across time and between jurisdictions, countries, and populations. Here we outline a survey experiment that randomized the question ordering of these two scales. The results show that question-order effects are present for these scales, demonstrating that results from them may not be comparable across jurisdictions if the scales have not been presented consistently across surveys. These findings highlight the importance of testing for the presence of question-order effects, particularly for those scales that measure subjective experiences, and correcting for such effects where they exist by randomizing scale order.

Temporal Measurement Invariance of the Financially Focused Self-Concept Construct

Persons maintaining a financially focused self-concept view financial success as a core aspect of their respective self-concepts. We examined whether measurement properties of the financially focused self-concept scale (FFS) are invariant over time. A sample of predominantly older community members who gamble (N = 147) completed the 4-item FFS and Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) twice, approximately four weeks apart. FFS had strong temporal measurement invariance and moderate-to-high temporal stability. FFS and PGSI were also positively associated within and across waves. These findings indicate that people who score higher in financial focus report more gambling problems concurrently and over time.

Associations between recalled use of legal UK youth gambling products and adult disordered gambling

Background and aims: The UK allows a number of gambling products to be legally used by people under the age of 18. The aim of this study was to explore associations between recalled legal usage of five youth gambling products and adult disordered gambling. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study of 1,057 adult UK gamblers, aged 18–40. Recalled legal use of five youth gambling products (category D fruit machines, coin push machines, crane grab machines, the National Lottery, and National Lottery scratchcards) was correlated with adult disordered gambling symptoms as measured by the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI). Results: Recalled rates of legal engagement with each product ranged from 50.9% for Category D fruit machines to 96.6% for coin push machines. For category D fruit machines, the National Lottery, and National Lottery scratchcards, merely having legally engaged with these products as a child was associated with adult disordered gambling. Furthermore, higher levels of recalled legal youth usage with each of the five products was also associated with adult disordered gambling. Discussion and conclusions: These results relate to recent government proposals to increase the National Lottery scratchcard legal age to 18, and add to a wider literature on youth gambling and subsequent gambling-related harm.

Are General and Activity-Specific PGSI Scores Consistent?

Gambling research has highlighted substantial activity-specific differences in gambling behaviours, but measures of problem gambling remain non-specific. This paper aims to examine the consistency of general versus activity-specific Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) scores among a sample of moderate-risk and problem gamblers in Québec, Canada. Correlations and t tests were conducted to examine associations and differences between general and activity-specific PGSI scores. Results were analyzed by number of activities reported and activity rank for lottery, video lottery terminals (VLTs), and slot machines and suggested that PGSI scores may not accurately reflect problem gambling severity for all specific activities. General and activity-specific PGSI scores were more highly correlated when lottery was the primary activity, whereas for VLTs, scores were highly correlated regardless of number or rank of activities. General PGSI scores were significantly higher than activity-specific scores for lottery, but general and activity-specific scores were not significantly different for VLTs, demonstrating that the PGSI is a better indicator of activity-specific scores for some forms of gambling over others. Researchers conducting population surveys should exercise caution in assigning general PGSI scores to specific activities.RésuméLa recherche sur le jeu a mis en évidence des différences majeures dans les comportements de jeu spécifiques à des activités, mais les mesures du jeu problématique demeurent non spécifiques. L’étude vise à examiner la cohérence entre les scores généraux de l’indice de gravité du jeu problématique (IGJP) et ceux propres à des activités parmi un échantillon de joueurs à risque modéré et de joueurs compulsifs en [province, pays]. Des corrélations et des tests de Student ont été effectués pour examiner les associations et les différences entre les scores IGJP généraux et ceux spécifiques à des activités. Analysés en fonction du nombre d’activités déclarées et du classement des activités de loterie, d’appareils de loterie vidéo (ALV) et de machines à sous, les résultats laissent entendre que les scores IGJP pourraient ne pas refléter avec précision la gravité du jeu pathologique en ce qui concerne des activités particulières. Dans le cas où la loterie était l’activité principale, les scores IGJP généraux et ceux propres à l’activité étaient très fortement corrélés; pour les appareils de loterie vidéo, les scores étaient fortement corrélés, quels que soient le nombre ou le classement des activités. En ce qui concerne la loterie, les scores IGJP généraux étaient largement plus élevés que les scores propres à l’activité, mais ils n’étaient pas très différents dans le cas des ALV, ce qui démontre que l’IGJP est un meilleur indicateur seulement pour certaines formes de jeu. Les chercheurs qui mènent des enquêtes auprès de la population doivent faire preuve de prudence lorsqu’ils attribuent des scores IGJP généraux à des activités spécifiques.

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

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.