Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 467–485 | Cite as

The Canadian Problem Gambling Index: An Evaluation of the Scale and Its Accompanying Profiler Software in a Clinical Setting

  • Matthew M. Young
  • Michael J. A. Wohl
Original Paper


Across two studies we assessed the clinical utility of the Canadian Problem Gambling Index (CPGI). In Study 1, the scored items on the CPGI significantly correlated with those of the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS), yet their shared variance was low. Importantly, clinician evaluation of the client’s level of pathology was more strongly associated with that revealed by the CPGI than the SOGS. In terms of utility, clinicians found the non-scored items on the CPGI more useful in treatment than those included with the SOGS. In Study 2, the effectiveness of the CPGI profiler (CPGI-P) software, which graphically depicts problematic gambling-relevant attitudes and behaviours, was assessed. Although clients had difficulties using the CPGI-P interface, they overwhelmingly indicated that the output prompted action to address their gambling. The clinicians were less enthusiastic as they felt the output did not help clients truly understand their gambling problems. Such sentiments were reiterated by the clinicians at a 6 months follow-up. The use of the SOGS and possible adoption of the CPGI (as well as the CPGI-P) in a clinical setting are discussed.


SOGS CPGI CPGI profiler Problem gambling classification Clinical setting 



This research was funded by a research grant from the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre to both authors.


  1. Abbott, M. W., & Volberg, R. A. (2006). The measurement of adult problem and pathological gambling. International Gambling Studies, 6(2), 175–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aegisdottir, S., White, M. J., Spengler, P. M., Maugheman, A. S., Anderson, L. A., Cook, R. S., et al. (2006). The meta-analysis of clinical judgment project: Fifty-six years of accumulated research on clinical versus statistical prediction. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(3), 341–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arthur, D., Tong, W. L., Chen, C. P., Hing, A. Y., Sagara-Rosemeyer, M., Kua, E. H., et al. (2008). The validity and reliability of four measures of gambling behaviour in a sample of Singapore University Students. Journal of Gambling Studies, 24, 451–462.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Battersby, M., Thomas, L. J., Tolchard, B., & Esterman, A. (2002). The South Oaks Gambling Screen: A review with reference to Australian use. Journal of Gambling Studies, 18(3), 257–271.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cox, B. J., Yu, N., Afifi, T. O., & Ladouceur, R. (2005). A national survey of gambling problems in Canada. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 50(4), 213–217.Google Scholar
  6. Dawes, D. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 243(4899), 1668–1674.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duvarci, I., Varan, A., Coskunol, H., & Ersoy, M. A. (1997). DSM-IV and the South Oaks Gambling Screen: Diagnosing and assessing pathological Gambling in Turkey. Journal of Gambling Studies, 13(3), 193–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Epstein, J., & McGaha, A. C. (1999). ATOD-TV: Evaluation of a multimedia program designed to educate the public about substance abuse. Computers in Human Behaviour, 15, 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian problem gambling index: Final report. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.Google Scholar
  10. Focal Research Consultants. (2001). Survey of gambling and problem gambling in New Brunswick. New Brunswick Department of Health and Wellness.Google Scholar
  11. Franklin, J., & Thomas, D. R. (1989). Clinical observations of family members of compulsive gamblers. In H. J. Shaffer, S. A. Stein, B. Gambino, & T. N. Cummings (Eds.), Compulsive gambling: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 135–146). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  12. Gambino, B., & Lesieur, H. (2006). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A rebuttal to critics. Journal of Gambling Issues, 17, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kavli, H., & Berntsen, W. (2005). Gambling habits and gambling problems in the population. Oslo: MMI Research.Google Scholar
  14. Ladouceur, R., Gosselin, P., Laberge, M., & Blaszczynski, A. (2001). Dropouts in clinical research: Do results reported in the field of addiction reflect clinical reality? The Behavior Therapist, 24, 44–46.Google Scholar
  15. Ladouceur, R., Jacques, C., Chevalier, S., Sévigny, S., & Hamel, D. (2005). Prevalence of pathological gambling in Quebec in 2002. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 50(8), 451–456.Google Scholar
  16. Leblond, J., Ladouceur, R., & Blaszczynski, A. (2003). Which pathological gamblers will complete treatment? British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42, 205–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lesieur, H., & Blume, S. B. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1184–1188.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Lowe, R. K. (1999). Extracting information from an animation during complex visual learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mayer, R., & Moreno, R. (2002). Animation as an aid to multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McMillen, J., & Wenzel, M. (2006). Measuring problem gambling: Assessment of three prevalence screens. International Gambling Studies, 6, 147–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Olason, D. T., Barudottir, S. K., & Gretarsson, S. K. (2005). Prevalence of gambling participation and pathological gambling among adults in Iceland: Results from a national survey. Reykjavik: Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Science, University of Iceland.Google Scholar
  22. Petry, N. M. (2005). Pathological gambling: Etiology, comorbidity and treatment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Queensland Treasury. (2001). Queensland household gambling survey 2001. Brisbane: Queensland Government.Google Scholar
  24. Queensland Treasury. (2005). Queensland household gambling survey 2003–04. Brisbane: Queensland Government.Google Scholar
  25. Stinchfield, R. (2002). Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy of the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS). Addictive Behaviors, 27, 1–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Volberg, R. A., & Young, M. M. (2008). Using the South Oaks Gambling Screen vs. the Canadian Problem Gambling Index in problem gambling screening and assessment: The Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre.Google Scholar
  27. Wynne, H. (2002). Problem Gambling Profiler: Wynne Resources Ltd.Google Scholar
  28. Young, M. M., & Wohl, M. J. A. (2009). The gambling craving scale: Psychometric validation and behavioral outcomes. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 23, 512–522.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Young, M. M., Wohl, M. J. A., Matheson, K., Baumann, S., & Anisman, H. (2008). The desire to gamble: The influence of outcomes on the priming effects of a gambling episode. Journal of Gambling Studies, 24, 275–293.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Maclaren Young Research and ConsultingOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations