Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using the CPGI to Determine Problem Gambling Prevalence in Australia: Measurement Issues

  • Published:
International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Most states and territories in Australia have adopted the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) of the Canadian Problem Gambling Index as the standard measure of problem gambling in their prevalence studies and research programs. However, notwithstanding this attempted standardisation, differences in sampling and recruitment methodologies and in some cases the modification of the scoring methods used in the PGSI have lead to substantial difficulties in comparison of the prevalence rates obtained in different studies. This paper focuses on how these two actions may significantly underestimate the true prevalence percent of problem gambling in Australian studies of the prevalence of problem gambling. It is recommended that the original and validated version of the PGSI is used in future Australian prevalence studies and that prevalence in community studies is studied across the whole community not arbitrarily restricted sub-samples. The adoption of valid scoring methods and unbiased sampling procedures will lead to more accurate and comparable prevalence studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbott, M. W., & Volberg, R. A. (2006). The measurement of adult problem and pathological gambling. International Gambling Studies, 6(2), 175–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • AC Nielson. (2007). Prevalence of gambling and problem gambling in New South Wales. Sydney: NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, D., Tong, W. L., Chen, C. P., Ai, Y. H., 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, 441–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battersby, M. W., Thomas, L., Tolchard, B., & Esterman, A. (2002). The South Oaks Gambling Screen: a review with reference to Australian use. Journal of Gambling Studies, 18, 257–271.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D., Patton, D., Dhaliwal, J., Pankratz, C., & Broszeit, B. (2002). Gambling involvement and problem gambling in Manitoba. Winnipeg: Addictions Foundation of Manitoba.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, B. J., Yu, N., Afifi, T. O., & Ladouceur, R. (2005). A national survey of gambling problems in Canada. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 50, 213–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doiron, J. (2006). Gambling and problem gambling in Prince Edward Island. Submitted to Prince Edward Island Department of Health.

  • Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. J. (2001a). The Canadian Problem Gambling Index. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. J. (2001b). The Canadian Problem Gambling Index: Users manual. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gambino, B., & Lesieur, H. (2006). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): a rebuttal to critics. Journal of Gambling Issues, 17. Available: http://www.camh.net/egambling/issue17.

  • Gambling Policy Directorate and Office of the Government Statistician. (2002). Queensland gambling household survey, 2001. Brisbane: Queensland Treasury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gambling Policy Directorate and Office of the Government Statistician. (2006). Queensland gambling household survey, 2003–04. Brisbane: Queensland Treasury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gambling Policy Directorate and Office of the Government Statistician. (2008). Queensland gambling household survey, 2006–07. Brisbane: Queensland Treasury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Govini, R., Frisch, G. R., & Stinchfield, R. (2001). A critical review of screening and assessment instruments for problem gambling. Windsor: Problem Gambling Research Group, University of Windsor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtgraves, T. (2009). Evaluating the problem gambling severity index. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25, 105–120.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ipsos-Reid and Gemini Research. (2003). British Columbia problem gambling prevalence study. British Columbia: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ipsos-Reid Public Affairs and Gemini Research. (2008). British Columbia problem gambling prevalence study: Final report. British Columbia: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemaire, J., MacKay, T., & Patton, D. (2008). Manitoba gambling and problem gambling 2006. Winnipeg: Addictions Foundation of Manitoba.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 1184–1188.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Market Quest Research. (2009). 2009 Newfoundland and Labrador gambling prevalence study. Prepared for the Department of Health and Community Services. St. John’s: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

    Google Scholar 

  • Market Quest Research Group Inc. (2005). 2005 Newfoundland and Labrador gambling prevalence study. Prepared for the Department of Health and Community Services. St. John’s: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, K., & Wynne, H. (2003). Fighting the odds: Perspectives on labour and income. 4(12), Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 75-001-XIE.

  • McCready, J., & Adlaf, E. (2006). Performance and enhancement of the Canadian Problem Gambling Index (CPGI): Report and recommendations. Ottowa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and Healthy Horizons Consulting.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMillen, J., & Marshall, D. (2004). 2003 Victorian longitudinal community attitudes survey. Melbourne: Gambling Research Panel.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMillen, J., & Wenzel, M. (2006). Measuring problem gambling: assessment of three prevalence screens. International Gambling Studies, 6, 147–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMillen, J., Marshall, D., Wenzel, M., & Ahmed, A. (2004). Validation of the Victorian Gambling Screen. Melbourne: Gambling Research Panel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Health. (2009). A focus on problem gambling: Results of the 2006/07 New Zealand health survey. Wellington: Ministry of Health.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neal, P., Delfabbro, P., & O’Neil, M. (2005). Problem gambling and harm: Towards a national definition. Melbourne: Gambling Research Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Productivity Commission. (1999). Australia’s gambling industries: Report no. 10. Canberra: AusInfo.

    Google Scholar 

  • School for Social and Policy Research. (2006). Northern Territory gambling prevalence survey 2005. Darwin: Charles Darwin University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrans, T., & Schellinck, T. (2004). 2003 Nova Scotia gambling prevalence study. Halifax: Nova Scotia Office of Health Promotion.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrans, T., & Schellink, T. (2001). 2001 survey of gambling and problem gambling in New Brunswick. Fredericton: New Brunswick Department of Health and Wellness.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G. J., & Wynne, H. J. (2002). Measuring gambling and problem gambling in Alberta using the Canadian Problem Gambling Index (CPGI): Final report. Edmonton: Alberta Gaming Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • South Australian Centre for Economic Studies. (2008). Social and economic impact study into gambling in Tasmania. Adelaide: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • South Australian Department for Families and Communities. (2006). Gambling prevalence in South Australia: October to December 2005. Adelaide: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stinchfield, R. (2002). Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy of the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS). Addictive Behaviors, 27, 1–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Svetieva, E., & Walker, M. (2008). Inconsistency between concept and measurement: The Canadian Problem Gambling Index (CPGI). Journal of Gambling Issues, 22. Available: http://www.camh.net/egambling/issue22

  • Thomas, S. A., & Jackson, A. C. (2008). Risk and protective factors, depression and comorbidities in problem gambling: A report to beyondblue. Melbourne: Problem Gambling Research and Treatment Centre. Retrieved July 5th 2009 from http://www.beyondblue.org.au/index.aspx?link_id=6.717.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, S. A., Jackson, A. C., & Blaszczynski, A. (2003). Scoping study of the Victorian Gambling Screen. Melbourne: Gambling Research Panel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volberg, R. A., & Bernhard, B. (2006). The 2006 study of gambling and problem gambling in New Mexico: Report to the Responsible Gaming Association of New Mexico. Northampton: Gemini Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, M. B., & Dickerson, M. G. (1996). The prevalence of problem and pathological gambling: a critical analysis. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 233–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wardle, H., Sproston, K., Orford, J., Erens, B., Griffiths, M., Constantine, R., et al. (2007). British gambling prevalence survey 2007. London: National Centre for Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Wiebe, J., Mun, P., & Kauffman, N. (2006). Gambling and problem gambling in Ontario 2005: Final report submitted to Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre. Toronto: Responsible Gambling Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, H. J. (2002). Gambling and problem gambling in Saskatchewan. Ottowa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.

  • Young, M., & Stevens, M. (2008). SOGS and CPGI: parallel comparison on a diverse population. Journal of Gambling Studies, 24, 337–356.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Problem Gambling Research and Treatment Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

    Alun C. Jackson, Nicki A. Dowling & Jane E. Tomnay

  2. Wynne Resources, Alberta, Canada

    Harold Wynne

  3. Problem Gambling Research and Treatment Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

    Shane A. Thomas

Authors
  1. Alun C. Jackson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Harold Wynne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicki A. Dowling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jane E. Tomnay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shane A. Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alun C. Jackson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jackson, A.C., Wynne, H., Dowling, N.A. et al. Using the CPGI to Determine Problem Gambling Prevalence in Australia: Measurement Issues. Int J Ment Health Addiction 8, 570–582 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-009-9238-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-009-9238-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation