Criterion-related and construct validity of the Problem Gambling Severity Index in a sample of South African gamblers

Abstract

The Problem Gambling Severity Index, the scored module of the Canadian Problem Gambling Index, is a population-based survey instrument that is becoming the preferred epidemiological tool for estimating the prevalence of disordered gambling. While some validation evidence for the Problem Gambling Severity Index is available, very little is known about its psychometric characteristics in developing countries or in countries the populations of which are not highly Westernised. The aim of this study was to investigate the validity of the Problem Gambling Severity Index with a specific focus on its criterion-related and construct (concurrent) validity in a community sample of gamblers in South Africa (n = 127). To this end, the Problem Gambling Severity Index was administered alongside the Diagnostic Interview for Gambling Severity and measures known to associate with gambling severity (impulsivity, current debt, social problems, financial loss, race, sex). Results showed that the Problem Gambling Severity Index was predictive of Diagnostic Interview for Gambling Severity diagnosis from both a categorical and dimensional point of view and demonstrated high discrimination accuracy for subjects with problem gambling. Analysis of sensitivity and specificity at different cut-points suggests that a slightly lower Problem Gambling Severity Index score may be used as a screening cut-off for problem gambling among

Investigating Possible Reciprocal Relations Between Depressive and Problem Gambling Symptoms in Emerging Adults

“…The PGSI 23 was scored continuously: the scores from all 9 items were summed to form a 0 to 27 total. As with depression, continuous scores were deemed to be more appropriate for our community sample 27,28 (compared with categorical nongambler, nonproblem gambler, low risk, moderate risk, and problem gambler scores 29 ).…”

Screening for problem gambling within mental health services: a comparison of the classification accuracy of brief instruments

“…There is evidence that the PGSI is psychometrically stronger than similar screening tools, including the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS), the Victorian Gambling Screen and diagnostic criteria‐based scales . The PGSI displays good internal consistency, test–retest reliability, unidimensionality and item‐response characteristics . There is also consistent evidence that the PGSI displays good concurrent validity with other problem gambling measures and diagnostic interviews or questionnaires and criterion validity with measures of gambling involvement .…”

“…In contrast, the PGSI is a standardized instrument that is the gold standard epidemiological tool for estimating the prevalence of problem gambling internationally , and has been adopted as the preferred measurement tool for evaluating problem gambling severity in Australian population‐level research , with all Australian surveys conducted since 2001 employing the PGSI to estimate the prevalence of problem gambling . It is also increasingly being employed to measure the severity of gambling problems in Australian clinical settings .…”

“…Ferris & Wynne , therefore, expected that the most severe end of the problem gambling continuum of the PGSI would be congruent with clinically derived measures such as the SOGS and diagnostic measures, but that there would be less convergence in the middle range. Subsequent evidence suggests that while the PGSI displays modest to strong classification accuracy compared to diagnostic interviews across multiple cut‐off scores, 5 appears to be the optimal cut‐off score . Moreover, Currie et al .…”

“…The selection of a screening instrument is generally determined by instrument classification accuracy within the relevant setting. Because clinical settings are associated generally with high base rates of problem gambling and provide opportunities for further assessment, the aim of most clinical settings is to capture as many problem gamblers as possible (high sensitivity), even at the expense of including relatively large numbers of non‐problem gamblers (low positive predictive values) . However, instrument efficiency in the face of the current climate of fiscal restraint present in many community mental health centres, as well as the number of items or duration of administration, may also be important .…”