Gamblers’ (mis-)interpretations of Problem Gambling Severity Index items: Ambiguities in qualitative accounts from the Swedish longitudinal gambling study [open-access article]

Abstract: The Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) is a screening instrument frequently used to identify risk and problem gambling. Even though the PGSI has good psychometric properties, it still produces a large proportion of misclassifications. Aims: To explore possible reasons for misclassifications in problem gambling level by analysing previously classified moderate-risk gamblers’ answers to the PGSI items, in relation to their own current and past gambling behaviours.
Methods: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 19 participants reporting no negative consequences from gambling. They were asked the PGSI questions within an eight-year time frame (2008 to 2016). Ambiguous answers to PGSI items were subject to content analysis.
Results: Several answers to the PGSI items contained ambiguities and misinterpretations, making it difficult to assess to what extent their answers actually indicated any problematic gambling over time. The item about feelings of guilt generated accounts rather reflecting self-recrimination over wasting money or regretting gambling as a meaningless or immoral activity. The item concerning critique involved mild interpretations such as being ridiculed for buying lottery tickets or getting comments for being boring. Similar accounts were given by the participants irrespective of initial
endorsement of the items. Other possible reasons for misclassifications were related to recall bias, language difficulties, selective memory, and a tendency to answer one part of the question without taking the whole question into account.
Conclusions: Answers to the PGSI can contain a variety of meanings based on the respondents’ subjective interpretations. Reports of lower levels of harm in the population should thus be interpreted with caution. In clinical settings it is important to combine use of screening instruments with interviews, to be able to better understand gamblers’ perceptions of the gambling behaviour and its negative consequences.
Article available online

Reference: Samuelsson, E., Wennberg, P., & Sundqvist, K. (2019). Gamblers’ (mis-)interpretations of Problem Gambling Severity Index items: Ambiguities in qualitative accounts from the Swedish longitudinal gambling study. Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 36(2), 140–160. DOI: 10.1177/1455072519829407

Electronic gambling machine gamblers’ characteristics vary according to the type of gambling venue: a Canadian study

The goal of this study was to improve the common knowledge on the connections between problem gambling and environmental settings. A cross-sectional design was used to compare two types of electronic gambling machine (EGM) users in terms of gamblers’ self-reported behaviours, perceptions, motivations and preferences according to the type of venue they gambled in. Sixty-six volunteers who gambled in a gambling hall containing 335 EGMs were compared to volunteers (n = 143) who gambled in small venues containing either 5 or 10 EGMs. All venues were located in areas with similar socio-economic status. Face-to-face survey-like interviews were conducted on site by trained assistants. Interviews comprised 83 items (fixed response and short open-ended questions). Gamblers’ varied according to the type of venue on (a) socio-demographic variables; (b) correlates of gambling problems; (c) self-reported gambling behaviours, perceptions and motivations; and (d) venue characteristics influencing their choice of venue. Small venue gamblers reported more characteristics associated with problem gambling and are about four times more likely to be associated with problem gambling than gambling hall patrons. Decision-makers should consider the venue specific players’ profiles outlined in this manuscript, and appreciate their possible use in appropriate responsible gambling measures and prevention/treatment programmes.