Evaluating the Problem Gambling Severity Index

  • Thomas HoltgravesEmail author
Original Paper


A large, integrated survey data set provided by the Ontario Problem Gambling Centre was used to investigate psychometric properties of the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI). This nine-item self-report instrument was designed to measure a single, problem gambling construct. Unlike its nearest competitor—the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS)—the PGSI was designed specifically for use with a general population rather than in a clinical context. The present analyses demonstrated that the PGSI does assess a single, underlying, factor, but that this is complicated by different, multiple factor structures for respondents with differing levels of problem gambling severity. The PGSI also demonstrated small to moderate correlations with measures of gambling frequency and faulty cognitions. Overall, the PGSI presents a viable alternative to the SOGS for assessing degrees of problem gambling severity in a non-clinical context.


Problem gambling Problem Gambling Severity Index South Oaks Gambling Screen Assessment of problem gambling 



This research was supported by a grant from the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre.


  1. Abbott, M. W., & Volberg, R. A. (1996). The New Zealand National Survey of problem and pathological gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 143–160. doi: 10.1007/BF01539171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbott, M. W., & Volberg, R. A. (2006). The measurement of adult problem and pathological gambling. International Gambling Studies, 6, 175–200. doi: 10.1080/14459790600928678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blaszczynski, A., & Nower, L. (2002). A pathways model of problem and pathological gambling. Addiction, 97, 487–499.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Culleton, R. P. (1989). The prevalence rates of pathological gambling: A look at methods. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 5, 22–41. doi: 10.1007/BF01022135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Duvarci, I., & Varan, A. (2001). Reliability and validity study of the Turkish form of the South Oaks Gambling Screen. Turk Psikiyatri Dergisi, 12, 34–45.Google Scholar
  6. Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian problem gambling index: Final report. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.Google Scholar
  7. Ferris, J., Wynne, H., & Single, E. (1999). Measuring problem gambling in Canada: Final report–Phase I. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.Google Scholar
  8. Griffiths, M. D. (1994). The role of cognitive bias and skill in fruit machine playing. The British Journal of Psychology, 85, 351–369.Google Scholar
  9. Ipsos-Reid Gemini & Research. (2003). British Columbia problem gambling prevalence study. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.Google Scholar
  10. Kuley, N. B., & Jacobs, D. F. (1988). The relationship between dissociative-like experiences and sensation seeking among social and problem gamblers. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 4, 197–207. doi: 10.1007/BF01018332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lesieur, H. R., & Blume, S. B. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (The SOGS): A new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1184–1188.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Lesieur, H. R., & Blume, S. B. (1993). Revising the South Oaks Gambling Screen in different settings. Journal of Gambling Studies, 9, 213–223. doi: 10.1007/BF01015919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Market Quest Research Group Inc. (2005). Newfoundland and Labrador gambling prevalence study. Prepared for the Department of Health and Community Services. St. John's: Government of Newfoudnland and Labrador.Google Scholar
  14. Moore, S. M., & Ohtsuka, K. (1999). Beliefs about control over gambling among young people, and their relation to problem gambling. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 13, 339–347. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.13.4.339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. National Research Council. (1999). Pathological gambling: A critical review. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  16. Oliveria, M. P. M. T., Silva, M. T. A., & da Silveira, D. X. (2002). Validity study of the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) among distinct groups of Brazilian gamblers. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 24, 170–176. Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria.Google Scholar
  17. Patton, D., Brown, D., Dhaliwal, J., Pankratz, C., & Broszeit, B. (2002). Gambling involvement and problem gambling in Manitoba. Manitoba, Canada: Addictions Foundation of Manitoba.Google Scholar
  18. Shaffer, H. J., Hall, M. N., & Vander Bilt, J. (1999). Estimating the prevalence of disordered gambling behavior in the United States and Canada: A research synthesis. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 1369–1376.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Smith, G. J., & Wynne, J. H. (2002). Measuring gambling and problem gambling in Alberta using the Canadian Problem Gambling Index (CPGI): Final report. Edmonton: Alberta Gaming Research Institute.Google Scholar
  20. Stinchfield, R. (2002). Reliability, validity and classification accuracy of the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS). Addictive Behaviors, 27, 1–19. doi: 10.1016/S0306-4603(00)00158-1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Stinchfield, R., Govoni, R., & Frisch, G. R. (2007). A review of screening and assessment instruments for problem and pathological gambling. In G. Smith, D. C. Hodgins, & R. Williams (Eds.), Research and measurement issues in gambling studies (pp. 179–213). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 99–103. doi: 10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Strong, D. R., Breen, R. B., Lesieur, H. R., & Lejuez, C. W. (2003). Using the Rasch model to evaluate the South Oaks Gambling Screen for use with nonpathological gamblers. Addictive Behaviors, 28, 1465–1472. doi: 10.1016/S0306-4603(02)00262-9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Toce-Gerstein, M., Gerstein, D. R., & Volberg, R. A. (2003). A hierarchy of gambling disorders in the community. Addiction (Abingdon, England), 98, 1661–1672. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2003.00545.x.Google Scholar
  25. Walker, M. B., & Dickerson, M. G. (1996). The prevalence of problem and pathological gambling: A critical analysis. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 233–249. doi: 10.1007/BF01539176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Walters, G. D. (1997). Problem gambling in a federal prison population: Results from the South Oaks Gambling screen. Journal of Gambling Studies, 13, 7–24. doi: 10.1023/A:1024935115105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wiebe, J., Mun, P., & Kauffman, N. (2006). Gambling and Problem Gambling in Ontario 2005. Responsible Gambling Council (Ontario): Toronto.Google Scholar
  28. Wiebe, J., Single, E., & Falkowski-Ham, A. (2001). Measuring gambling and problem gambling in Ontario. Toronto: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and Responsible Gambling.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychological ScienceBall State UniversityMuncieUSA

Personalised recommendations