Are General and Activity-Specific PGSI Scores Consistent?

Abstract

Gambling research has highlighted substantial activity-specific differences in gambling behaviours, but measures of problem gambling remain non-specific. This paper aims to examine the consistency of general versus activity-specific Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) scores among a sample of moderate-risk and problem gamblers in Québec, Canada. Correlations and t tests were conducted to examine associations and differences between general and activity-specific PGSI scores. Results were analyzed by number of activities reported and activity rank for lottery, video lottery terminals (VLTs), and slot machines and suggested that PGSI scores may not accurately reflect problem gambling severity for all specific activities. General and activity-specific PGSI scores were more highly correlated when lottery was the primary activity, whereas for VLTs, scores were highly correlated regardless of number or rank of activities. General PGSI scores were significantly higher than activity-specific scores for lottery, but general and activity-specific scores were not significantly different for VLTs, demonstrating that the PGSI is a better indicator of activity-specific scores for some forms of gambling over others. Researchers conducting population surveys should exercise caution in assigning general PGSI scores to specific activities.RésuméLa recherche sur le jeu a mis en évidence des différences majeures dans les comportements de jeu spécifiques à des activités, mais les mesures du jeu problématique demeurent non spécifiques. L’étude vise à examiner la cohérence entre les scores généraux de l’indice de gravité du jeu problématique (IGJP) et ceux propres à des activités parmi un échantillon de joueurs à risque modéré et de joueurs compulsifs en [province, pays]. Des corrélations et des tests de Student ont été effectués pour examiner les associations et les différences entre les scores IGJP généraux et ceux spécifiques à des activités. Analysés en fonction du nombre d’activités déclarées et du classement des activités de loterie, d’appareils de loterie vidéo (ALV) et de machines à sous, les résultats laissent entendre que les scores IGJP pourraient ne pas refléter avec précision la gravité du jeu pathologique en ce qui concerne des activités particulières. Dans le cas où la loterie était l’activité principale, les scores IGJP généraux et ceux propres à l’activité étaient très fortement corrélés; pour les appareils de loterie vidéo, les scores étaient fortement corrélés, quels que soient le nombre ou le classement des activités. En ce qui concerne la loterie, les scores IGJP généraux étaient largement plus élevés que les scores propres à l’activité, mais ils n’étaient pas très différents dans le cas des ALV, ce qui démontre que l’IGJP est un meilleur indicateur seulement pour certaines formes de jeu. Les chercheurs qui mènent des enquêtes auprès de la population doivent faire preuve de prudence lorsqu’ils attribuent des scores IGJP généraux à des activités spécifiques.

The Efficacy of Personalized Feedback Interventions Delivered via Smartphone among At-Risk College Student Gamblers

“…We chose two aspects of our study to descriptively examine: prevalence of gambling subtypes in our sample and rate of goal setting for future gambling behaviour across conditions. Similarly to other studies that have looked at the effect of type of gambling on gambling outcomes (Binde et al, 2017;Monson et al, 2019), we classified participants into various gambler subtypes. These included lottery only (engage only in lottery-type gambling; 9.4% of sample), majority casino gambling (majority of gambling at a casino on table games and slot machines; 22% of sample), majority sports gambling (majority of gambling occasions involves sports betting; 36.5% of sample), and other gamblers (majority of gambling that does not fit other categories, e.g., card games and betting on games of skill; 32.2%).…”

Socioeconomic correlates of the lottery rollover effect in Toronto, Canada

“…This finding is congruent with other literature. Although prize-draw lotteries present a range of issues, including their associations with social inequalities (Clotfelter, 1979;Clotfelter & Cook, 1987;Oster, 2004;Sulkunen et al, 2018), and effects on youth exposure (Newall et al, 2020) and normalization of gambling (Ariyabuddhiphongs, 2011;Pugh & Webley, 2000), they are generally considered to be less (directly) risky in terms of gambling problems (Binde, 2011;Costes et al, 2018;Monson et al, 2019).…”

Relationships between socio‐economic status and lottery gambling across lottery types: neighborhood‐level evidence from a large city

“…Lottery gambling has enjoyed world‐wide appeal, owing to the low cost of participation and compelling prize sizes [1]—for example, in Canada, lottery gambling is the most popular form of legal gambling [2–4]. Despite that fact that it is known that increased gambling participation is associated with an increased risk of gambling‐related problems [5], the existing gambling literature suggests that lottery is not a high‐risk activity for problem gambling [6–8]. However, studies rarely differentiate between lottery subtypes (e.g.…”