Effects of Different Screening and Scoring Thresholds on PGSI Gambling Risk Segments

  • Christine A. Stone
  • Ulla Romild
  • Max Abbott
  • Kristal Yeung
  • Rosa Billi
  • Rachel Volberg


High quality gambling participation and prevalence studies are important to monitor and manage risks associated with an ever changing gambling environment. Such studies are expensive and choices must be made to balance precision and cost constraints. Common approaches include not screening infrequent gamblers and/or gamblers with low gambling expenditure, on the assumption that these gamblers are unlikely to be problem gamblers. Some studies combine moderate risk and problem gamblers to obtain robust groups for analysis. The resultant methodological variations compromise comparability and interpretation of changes over time and across jurisdictions. The Victorian Gambling Study 2008–2012 (VGS) and the Swedish Longitudinal Gambling Study 2008–2014 (Swelogs) are large jurisdiction-wide surveys with sample sizes of 15,000 and 8,165 respectively. Both studies screened all past-year gamblers. This paper reports on the modelling of some common methodological variants. Understanding the impact of these different variations enables better design of future studies and facilitates comparisons between existing prevalence studies within and across jurisdictions.


Problem gambling prevalence Gambling prevalence screening thresholds Gambling activities frequency and expenditure Problem gambling severity index 



The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of all members of the research teams and expert panels. Large studies such as the VGS and Swelogs cannot be done without the dedication and commitment of a large number of people at all stages of the project including set up, design, conduct, analysis and interpretation.


  1. Abbott, M. W. (2000). Why are Australians Different? A critical perspective on Australian Gambling Studies. Paper presented at the National Association for Gambling Studies: Lessons from the past., Mildura. Retrieved May 8, 2014 from
  2. Abbott, M. W., & Volberg, R. A. (1999). A reply to gambino’s “an epidemiologic note on verification bias: implications for estimation of rates”. Journal of Gambling Studies, 15(3), 233–242.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abbott, M. W., Volberg, R., Bellringer, M., & Reith, G. (2004). A review of research on aspects of problem gambling: Final report. Responsibility in Gambling Trust. London. Retrieved from on 25 July 2014
  4. Abbott, M. W., Romild, U., & Volberg, R. A. (2013). Gambling and problem gambling in Sweden: Changes between 1998 and 2009. Journal of Gambling Studies. doi:  10.1007/s10899-013-9396-3
  5. Afifi, T. O., Cox, B. J., Martens, P. J., Sareen, J., & Enns, M. W. (2010). The relation between types and frequency of gambling activities and problem gambling among women in Canada. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55(1), 21–28.Google Scholar
  6. Australian Communications and Media Authority. (2008). Fixed-Mobile Convergence and Fixed-Mobile Substitution in Australia. Melbourne. Retrieved from on 23 July 2014
  7. Billi, R., Stone, C.A., Marden, P., Yeung, K. (2014). The Victorian Gambling Study: A longitudinal study of gambling and health in Victoria, 2008–2012. Victoria, Australia: Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation.Google Scholar
  8. Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., Goulet, A., & Savard, C. (2006). ‘How much do you spend gambling?’: Ambiguities in questionnaire items assessing expenditure. International Gambling Studies, 6(2), 123–128. doi: 10.1080/14459790600927738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boldero, J. M. (2012). An evaluation of the factor structure of the problem gambling severity index. International Gambling Studies, 12(1), 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crockford, D., Quickfall, J., Currie, S., Furtado, S., Suchowersky, O., & El-Guebaly, N. (2008). Prevalence of problem and pathological gambling in Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Gambling Studies, 24(4), 411–422. doi: 10.1007/s10899-008-9099-3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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. doi: 10.1007/s10899-012-9300-6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Devlin, M., & Walton, D. (2012). The prevalence of problem gambling in New Zealand as measured by the PGSI: adjusting prevalence estimates using meta-analysis. International Gambling Studies, 12(2), 177–197. doi: 10.1080/14459795.2011.653384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian Problem Gambling Index: Final Report. Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. Ottawa. Retrieved from the Canadian Consortium for Gambling Research, 8 May, 2014
  14. Hare, S. (2009). A Study of Gambling in Victoria: Problem gambling from a public health perspective Department of Justice. Melbourne: State of Victoria. Retrieved from The Responsible Gambling Foundation website 8 May, 2014
  15. Hodgins, D. C., Stea, J. N., & Grant, J. E. (2011). Gambling disorders. Lancet, 378(9806), 1874–1884. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62185-X.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holtgraves, T. (2009). Gambling, gambling activities, and problem gambling. Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors, 23(2), 295–302. doi: 10.1037/a0014181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jackson, A., Wynne, H., Dowling, N. A., Tomnay, J. E., & Thomas, A. (2010). Using the CPGI to Determine Problem Gambling Prevalence in Australia: Measurement Issues. International Journal Mental Health Addiction, 8 (4), 570–582. doi:
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. Neal, P., Delfabbro, P., & O’Neil, M. (2005). Problem gambling and harm: towards a national definition. South Australian Centre for Economic Studies. Adelaide. Retrieved from on 23 July 2014
  20. Pennay, D. W., & Bishop, N. (2010). ‘Mobile Phone Only’ Population: A study of Australians with a mobile phone and no landline telephone Paper presented at the ACSPRI Social Science Methodology Conference, Sydney. Restrieved from the Social Research Centre website, 8 May, 2014
  21. Productivity Commission: Australia. (1999). Australia’s Gambling Industries: Inquiry Report No. 10. Retrieved on 6 June 2014 from the Productivity Commission website Canberra.
  22. Productivity Commission: Australia. (2010). Gambling Inquiry Report No. 50. Retrieved on 6 June 2014 from the Productivity Commission website Canberra.
  23. Queensl and Treasury. (2001). Queensland household gambling survey. Queensland: Queensland Government.Google Scholar
  24. Queensland Government. (2008). Comparing two scoring methods for the Problem Gambling Severity Index: A brief analysis of the Victorian Market Segmentation Study 2008 (unpublished). Queensland.Google Scholar
  25. Queensland Office of Regulatory Policy; Department of Justice and Attorney General. (2011). Gambling prevalence study standards (unpublished). Victoria: Gambling Research Australia.Google Scholar
  26. Romild, U., Volberg, R., & Abbott, M. (2014). The Swedish Longitudinal Gambling Study (Swelogs): design and methods of the epidemiological (EP-) track. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res, n/a-n/a. doi:  10.1002/mpr.1449
  27. Sassen, M., Kraus, L., & Buhringer, G. (2011). Differences in pathological gambling prevalence estimates: facts or artefacts? International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 20(4), 83–99. doi: 10.1002/mpr.354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shaffer, H. J., Hall, M. N., & Vander Bilt, J. (1997). Estimating the prevalence of disordered gambling behaviour in the United States and Canada: A meta-analysis from Retrieved 8 May, 2014 from
  29. Social Research Centre. (2013). Gambling Prevalence In South Australia (2012). North Melbourne. Retrieved from The Problem Gambling website, 8 May, 2014
  30. Statens Folkhälsoinstitut. (2010). Spel om pengar och spelproblem i Sverige 2008/2009. Huvudresultat från SWELOGS befolkningsstudie. Östersund: Statens folkhälsoinstitut Retrieved May 9, 2014
  31. Swiss Institute of Comparative Law. (2006). Study Of Gambling Services In The Internal Market Of The European Union; Final Report. Gambling. European Commission Single Market Retrieved from on 6 June 2014
  32. The Centre for Gambling Research: Australian National University. (2004). 2003 Victorian Longitudinal Community Attitudes Survey. Gambling Research Panel Report No. 6. Gambling Research Panel. Melbourne. Retrieved from on 6 June 2014
  33. WHO Working Group. (2000). Evaluation and use of epidemiological evidence for environmental health risk assessment: WHO guideline document Environmental Health Perspectives. Retrieved May 8, 2014, from
  34. Williams, R. J., & Volberg, R. A. (2009). Impact of survey description, administration method, and exclusionary criteria on population prevalence rates of problem gambling. International Gambling Studies, 9(2), 101–117. doi: 10.1080/14459790902911653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Williams, R. J., & Volberg, R. A. (2010). Best Practices in the Population Assessment of Problem Gambling. Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre. Ontario. Retrieved from on 8 May 2014
  36. 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. doi: 10.1080/14459795.2013.839731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Williams, R. J., Volberg, R. A., & Stevens, R. M. G. (2012). The Population Prevalence of Problem Gambling: Methodological Influences, Standardized Rates, Jurisdictional Differences, and Worldwide Trends. Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. Retrieved May 8, 2014, from
  38. Wood, R., & Williams, R. (2007). ‘How much money do you spend on gambling?’ The comparative validity of question wordings used to assess gambling expenditure. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 10(1), 63–77. doi: 10.1080/13645570701211209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine A. Stone
    • 1
  • Ulla Romild
    • 2
  • Max Abbott
    • 3
  • Kristal Yeung
    • 4
  • Rosa Billi
    • 4
  • Rachel Volberg
    • 5
  1. 1.Christine Stone ConsultingMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Public Health Agency of SwedenÖstersundSweden
  3. 3.Auckland University of TechnologyAucklandNew Zealand
  4. 4.Research Unit, Victorian Responsible Gambling FoundationMelbourneAustralia
  5. 5.School of Public Health & Health SciencesUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations