Advertisement

Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 35, Issue 4, pp 1079–1108 | Cite as

The Multidimensional Structure of Problem Gambling: An Evaluation of Four Gambling Categorization Instruments from an International Online Survey of Gamblers

  • Darren R. ChristensenEmail author
  • Robert J. Williams
  • Samuel M. Ofori-Dei
Original Paper

Abstract

To examine the underlying dimensionality and structure of problem gambling using a comprehensive range of problem gambling assessments from an international online survey of gamblers. A total of 12,521 gamblers from 105 countries were recruited through banner advertising placed on a popular online gambling portal to take an online survey. Although participants were recruited online, the majority of the sample (71.6%) gambled only at land-based venues in the past 12 months. A total of 5081 individuals completed all items from the four problem gambling assessments. Participants were allocated to answer one of the four problem gambling assessments and the remaining unique items from the three other problem gambling assessments. The order of assessments were counterbalanced. Two optimal scaling procedures were independently employed to estimate the number of dimensions within the data: exploratory categorical principal component bootstrap analysis and multidimensional scaling. Nonlinear canonical correlation was then used to establish how well each of the four assessment instruments captured the identified dimensions. A final confirmatory principal component analysis was run to understand and characterise the nature of the dimensions that were identified. Both the categorical principal component bootstrap analysis and multidimensional scaling indicated the data was multidimensional, with four dimensions (including a single dominant dimension) providing the best characterisation of the data. The nonlinear canonical correlation analysis found that the Problem and Pathological Gambling Measure and the National Opinion Research Center DSM-IV Screen for Gambling Problems operationalization of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Four (DSM-IV) criteria best captured these multiple dimensions. Confirmatory principal component analysis suggest a core experience of generic problem gambling symptomology and three other components: “financial problems”, “health and relationship issues”, and “difficulty controlling gambling”. Problem gambling symptomology appears to be multi-dimensional. Certain assessments capture this heterogeneity better than others and thereby provide a more complete and accurate assessment of this construct.

Keywords

Problem gambling Assessments Principal component analysis Symptomatology Multi-dimensional scaling Dimensions 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Darren R. Christensen: Dr. Christensen reports no conflicts of interest. In the last 3 years Dr. Christensen has received funding from the Alberta Gambling Research Institute, the CRISM Prairie Node, and the Cancer Council of Victoria. Robert J. Williams: Dr. Williams has no financial or other conflict of interest associated with the present research. Virtually all of his research funding in the past several years has come from independent research agencies and government entities. However, he has received a small amount of research funding from Unibet Ltd, an online gambling provider with headquarters in Malta. Samuel M. Ofori-Dei: Mr. Ofori Dei has no financial or other conflicts of interest related to the research. However, he has received funding from Alberta Gambling Research Institute. This funding has nothing to do with the present research.

References

  1. Abbott, M. W., & Volberg, R. A. (2006). The measurement of adult problem and pathological gambling. International Gambling Studies, 6(2), 175–200.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  3. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  4. Back, K. J., Williams, R. J., & Lee, C. K. (2014). Reliability and validity of three instruments (DSM-IV, CPGI, and PPGM) in the assessment of problem gambling in South Korea. Journal of Gambling Studies, 31(3), 775–786.Google Scholar
  5. Beaver, K. M., Hoffman, T., Shields, R. T., Vaughn, M. G., Delisi, M., & Wright, J. P. (2010). Gender differences in genetic and environmental influences on gambling: Results from a sample of twins from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Addiction, 105(3), 536–542.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Blaszczynski, A., & Nower, L. (2002). A pathways model of problem and pathological gambling. Addiction, 97(5), 487–499.Google Scholar
  7. Boldero, J. M., & Bell, R. C. (2012). An evaluation of the factor structure of the Problem Gambling Severity Index. International Gambling Studies, 12(1), 89–110.Google Scholar
  8. Brooker, I. S., Clara, I. P., & Cox, B. J. (2009). The Canadian problem gambling index: Factor structure and associations with psychopathology in a nationally representative sample. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 41(2), 109–114.Google Scholar
  9. Chamberlain, S. R., Stochl, J., Redden, S. A., Odlaug, B. L., & Grant, J. E. (2017). Latent class analysis of gambling subtypes and impulsive/compulsive associations: Time to rethink diagnostic boundaries for gambling disorder? Addictive Behaviors, 72, 79–85.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Christensen, D. R., Dowling, N. A., Jackson, A. C., & Thomas, S. A. (2015a). Gambling participation and problem gambling severity in a stratified random survey: Findings from the second social and economic impact study of gambling in Tasmania. Journal of Gambling Studies, 31(4), 1317–1335.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Christensen, D. R., Jackson, A. C., Dowling, N. A., Volberg, R. A., & Thomas, S. A. (2015b). An examination of a proposed DSM-IV pathological gambling hierarchy in a treatment seeking population: Similarities with substance dependence and evidence for three classification systems. Journal of Gambling Studies, 31(3), 787–806.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Colasante, E., Gori, M., Bastiani, L., Siciliano, V., Giordani, P., Grassi, M., et al. (2013). An assessment of the psychometric properties of Italian version of CPGI. Journal of Gambling Studies, 29(4), 765–774.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Currie, S. R., Hodgins, D. C., & Casey, D. M. (2013). Validity of the Problem Gambling Severity Index interpretive categories. Journal of Gambling Studies, 29(2), 311–327.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Delfabbro, P. (2013). Problem and pathological gambling: a conceptual review. The Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, 7(3), 35–53.Google Scholar
  15. Dowling, N. A., Cowlishaw, S., Jackson, A. C., Merkouris, S. S., Francis, K. L., & Christensen, D. R. (2015a). Prevalence of psychiatric co-morbidity in treatment-seeking problem gamblers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 49(6), 519–539.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Dowling, N. A., Cowlishaw, S., Jackson, A. C., Merkouris, S. S., Francis, K. L., & Christensen, D. R. (2015b). The prevalence of comorbid personality disorders in treatment-seeking problem gamblers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality Disorders, 29(6), 735–754.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian Problem Gambling Index: Final report. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.Google Scholar
  18. Francis, K. L., Dowling, N. A., Jackson, A. C., Christensen, D. R., & Wardle, H. (2015). Gambling motives: Application of the reasons for gambling questionnaire in an Australian population survey. Journal of Gambling Studies, 1(3), 807–823.Google Scholar
  19. Gerstein, D., Hoffmann, J., Larison, C., Engelman, L., Murphy, S., Palmer, A., et al. (1999). Gambling impact and behavior study: Report to the national gambling impact study commission. Pergamon: Chicago National Opinion Research Center.Google Scholar
  20. Goodie, A. S., MacKillop, J., Miller, J. D., Fortune, E. E., Maples, J., Lance, C. E., et al. (2013). Evaluating the South Oaks Gambling Screen with DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria: Results from a diverse community sample of gamblers. Assessment, 20(5), 523–531.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Grant, J. E., Odlaug, B. L., & Chamberlain, S. R. (2017). Gambling disorder, DSM-5 criteria and symptom severity. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 75, 1–5.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Gupta, R., Nower, L., Derevensky, J. L., Blaszczynski, A., Faregh, N., & Temcheff, C. (2013). Problem gambling in adolescents: An examination of the pathways model. Journal of Gambling Studies, 29(3), 575–588.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Holtgraves, T. (2009). Evaluating the Problem Gambling Severity Index. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25(1), 105–120.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. James, R. J. E., O’Malley, C., & Tunney, R. J. (2014). On the latent structure of problem gambling: A taxometric analysis. Addiction, 109(10), 1707–1717.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kruskal, J. B. (1964). Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
  26. Lam, D. (2007). An exploratory study of gambling motivations and their impact on the purchase frequencies of various gambling products. Psychology and Marketing, 24(9), 815–827.Google Scholar
  27. Ledgerwood, D. M., & Petry, N. M. (2006). Psychological experience of gambling and subtypes of pathological gamblers. Psychiatry Research, 144(1), 17–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Ledgerwood, D. M., Wiedemann, A. A., Moore, J., & Arfken, C. L. (2012). Clinical characteristics and treatment readiness of male and female problem gamblers calling a state gambling helpline. Addiction Research & Theory, 20(2), 162–171.Google Scholar
  29. Lesieur, H. R., & Blume, S. B. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144(9), 1–5.Google Scholar
  30. Linting, M., & van der Kooij, A. (2012). Nonlinear principal components analysis with CATPCA: A tutorial. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94(1), 12–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Loo, J. M. Y., Oei, T. P. S., & Raylu, N. (2011). Psychometric evaluation of the Problem Gambling Severity Index-Chinese Version (PGSI-C). Journal of Gambling Studies, 27(3), 453–466.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Lorains, F. K., Cowlishaw, S., & Thomas, S. A. (2011). Prevalence of comorbid disorders in problem and pathological gambling: Systematic review and meta-analysis of population surveys. Addiction, 106(3), 490–498.Google Scholar
  33. McMillen, J., & Wenzel, M. (2006). Measuring problem gambling: Assessment of three prevalence screens. International Gambling Studies, 6(2), 147–174.Google Scholar
  34. Miller, N. V., Currie, S. R., Hodgins, D. C., & Casey, D. (2013). Validation of the problem gambling severity index using confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch modelling. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 22(3), 245–255.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Milosevic, A., & Ledgerwood, D. M. (2010). The subtyping of pathological gambling: A comprehensive review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(8), 988–998.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Molde, H., Hystad, S. W., Pallesen, S., Myrseth, H., & Lund, I. (2010). Evaluating lifetime NODS using Rasch modelling. International Gambling Studies, 10(2), 189–202.Google Scholar
  37. Moran, E. (1970). Varieties of pathological gambling. British Journal of Psychiatry, 116(535), 593–597.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Neal, P., Delfabbro, P., & O’Neil, M. (2005). Problem gambling and harm: Towards a national definition. In: Report commissioned for the Australian Ministerial Council on Gambling. Prepared by the South Australia Centre for Economic Studies and the Department of Psychology, University of Adelaide. November 2005.Google Scholar
  39. Nower, L., & Blaszczynski, A. (2010). Gambling motivations, money-limiting strategies, and precommitment preferences of problem versus non-problem gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26(3), 361–372.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Nower, L., Martins, S. S., Lin, K. H., & Blanco, C. (2013). Subtypes of disordered gamblers: Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on alcohol and related conditions. Addiction, 108(4), 789–798.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Oliveira, 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. Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, 24(4), 170–176.Google Scholar
  42. Orford, J., Sproston, K., & Erens, B. (2003). SOGS and DSM-IV in the British gambling prevalence survey: Reliability and factor structure. International Gambling Studies, 3(1), 53–65.Google Scholar
  43. Orford, J., Wardle, H., Griffiths, M., Sproston, K., & Erens, B. (2010). PGSI and DSM-IV in the 2007 British Gambling Prevalence Survey: Reliability, item response, factor structure and inter-scale agreement. International Gambling Studies, 10(1), 31–44.Google Scholar
  44. Petry, N. M., Blanco, C., Auriacombe, M., Borges, G., Bucholz, K., Crowley, T. J., et al. (2014). An overview of and rationale for changes proposed for pathological gambling in DSM-5. Journal of Gambling Studies, 30(2), 493–502.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Petry, N. M., Blanco, C., Stinchfield, R., & Volberg, R. (2013). An empirical evaluation of proposed changes for gambling diagnosis in the DSM-5. Addiction, 108(3), 575–581.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Raylu, N., & Oei, T. P. (2004). Role of culture in gambling and problem gambling. Clinical Psychology Review, 23(8), 1087–1114.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Rosenthal, R. J., & Lesieur, H. R. (1992). Self-reported withdrawal symptoms and pathological gambling. American Journal of Addiction, 1(2), 150–154.Google Scholar
  48. Salonen, A. H., Rosenström, T., Edgren, R., Volberg, R., Alho, H., & Castrén, S. (2017). Dimensions of the South Oaks Gambling Screen in Finland: A cross-sectional population study. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 58(3), 228–237.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Steel, Z., & Blaszczynski, A. (1996). The factorial structure of pathological gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12(1), 3–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Stinchfield, R. (2002). Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy of the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS). Addictive Behaviors, 27(1), 1–19.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Stinchfield, R. (2014). A review of problem gambling assessment instruments and brief screens. In Wiley-Blackwell handbook of disordered gambling (pp. 165–203). Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  52. Stinchfield, R., Govoni, R., & Frisch, G. R. (2005). DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for pathological gambling: Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy. American Journal on Addictions, 14(1), 73–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Stinchfield, R., Govoni, R., & Frisch, G. R. (2007). A review of screening and assessment instruments for problem and pathological gambling (pp. 179–213). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  54. Strong, D. R., & Kahler, C. W. (2007). Evaluation of the continuum of gambling problems using the DSM-IV. Addiction, 102(5), 713–721.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Suomi, A., Dowling, N. A., & Jackson, A. C. (2014). Problem gambling subtypes based on psychological distress, alcohol abuse and impulsivity. Addictive Behaviors, 39(12), 1741–1745.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Toce-Gerstein, M., Gerstein, D. R., & Volberg, R. A. (2003). A hierarchy of gambling disorders in the community. Addiction, 98(12), 1661–1672.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Turner, N. E., Jain, U., Spence, W., & Zangeneh, M. (2008). Pathways to pathological gambling: Component analysis of variables related to pathological gambling. International Gambling Studies, 8(3), 281–298.Google Scholar
  58. Walker, M., Toneatto, T., Potenza, M. N., Petry, N., Ladouceur, R., Hodgins, D. C., et al. (2006). A framework for reporting outcomes in problem gambling treatment research: The Banff. Alberta Consensus. Addiction, 101(4), 504–511.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Wickwire, E. M., Burke, R. S., Brown, S. A., Parker, J. D., & May, R. K. (2008). Psychometric evaluation of the national opinion research center DSM-IV screen for gambling problems (NODS). American Journal of Addiction, 17(5), 392–395.Google Scholar
  60. Williams, R. J., Hann, R. G., Schopflocher, D. P., West, B. L., McLaughlin, P., White, N., et al. (2015). Quinte longitudinal study of gambling and problem gambling. Guelph: Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre.Google Scholar
  61. Williams, R. J., Rehm, J., & Stevens, R. (2011). The social and economic impacts of gambling. In: Final report for the Canadian consortium for gambling research. http://hdl.handle.net/10133/1286. Accessed 11 March 2011.
  62. Williams, R. J., & Volberg, R. A. (2010). Best practices in the population assessment of problem gambling. In: Report prepared for the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre.Google Scholar
  63. Williams, R. J., & Volberg, R. A. (2014). The classification accuracy of four problem gambling assessment instruments in population research. International Gambling Studies, 14(1), 15–28.Google Scholar
  64. Williams, R. J., Volberg, R. A., & Stevens, R. (2012). The population prevalence of problem gambling: Methodological influences, standardized rates, jurisdictional differences, and worldwide trends. Guelph: Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre.Google Scholar
  65. Wood, R., & Williams, R. J. (2012). The Casino City study: A large scale international study of online gamblers. In: Routledge international handbook of Internet gambling (pp. 123–145). Routledge.Google Scholar
  66. Wood, R. T., & Williams, R. J. (2009). Internet gambling: Prevalence, patterns, problems, and policy options. In: Final report prepared for the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre, Guelph, Ontario. Google Scholar
  67. Zimmerman, M. A., Meeland, T., & Krug, S. E. (1985). Measurement and structure of pathological gambling behavior. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 76–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Health SciencesUniversity of LethbridgeLethbridgeCanada

Personalised recommendations