Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Most surveys also contained items assessing amount spent gambling. However, question wording for these items varied considerably over surveys and hence it was not possible to use them.
There was only one survey (British Columbia) that contained both PGSI and SOGS items. Consistent with prior research (Ferris and Wynne 2001), there was a moderately high correlation between the SOGS and the PGSI (r = .80, N = 2,126) in this sample.
A common misconception about alpha is that it can only vary between 0 and 1.0 (Streiner, 2003). However, if the correlations between some of the items are negative, than negative alphas can result, as in the present case.
I thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this possibility.
References
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.
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.
Blaszczynski, A., & Nower, L. (2002). A pathways model of problem and pathological gambling. Addiction, 97, 487–499.
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.
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.
Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian problem gambling index: Final report. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
Ferris, J., Wynne, H., & Single, E. (1999). Measuring problem gambling in Canada: Final report–Phase I. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
Griffiths, M. D. (1994). The role of cognitive bias and skill in fruit machine playing. The British Journal of Psychology, 85, 351–369.
Ipsos-Reid Gemini & Research. (2003). British Columbia problem gambling prevalence study. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
National Research Council. (1999). Pathological gambling: A critical review. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
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.
Patton, D., Brown, D., Dhaliwal, J., Pankratz, C., & Broszeit, B. (2002). Gambling involvement and problem gambling in Manitoba. Manitoba, Canada: Addictions Foundation of Manitoba.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wiebe, J., Mun, P., & Kauffman, N. (2006). Gambling and Problem Gambling in Ontario 2005. Responsible Gambling Council (Ontario): Toronto.
Wiebe, J., Single, E., & Falkowski-Ham, A. (2001). Measuring gambling and problem gambling in Ontario. Toronto: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and Responsible Gambling.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by a grant from the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Holtgraves, T. Evaluating the Problem Gambling Severity Index. J Gambl Stud 25, 105–120 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-008-9107-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-008-9107-7