Validation of the Problem Gambling Severity Index Using Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Rasch Modelling

Overview

Journal Int J Methods Psychiatr Res

Specialty Psychiatry

Date 2013 Sep 10

PMID 24014164

Citations 29

Authors

Natalie V Miller

Shawn R Currie

David C Hodgins

David Casey

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI), a screening tool used to measure the severity of gambling problems in general population research, was subjected to confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch modelling to (a) confirm the one-factor structure; (b) assess how well the items measure the continuum of problem gambling severity; (c) identify sources of differential item functioning among relevant subpopulations of gamblers. Analyses were conducted on a nationally representative sample of over 25,000 gamblers compiled by merging data from the Canadian Community Health Survey and Canadian Problem Gambling Index (CPGI) integrated datasets. Results provided support for a one-factor model that was invariant across gender, age, income level, and gambler type. Rasch modelling revealed a well-fitting, unidimensional model with no miss-fitting items. The average severity assessed by the PGSI is consistent with moderately severe problem gambling. The PGSI is therefore weak in assessing low to moderate problem severity, a notable limitation of most brief gambling screens. Evidence of clinically significant differential item functioning was found with only one item, borrowing money to gamble, which behaved differently in gamblers who play electronic gaming machines or casino games compared to gamblers who avoid these games.

Citing Articles

Dimensionality and validity of the Gambling Motives Questionnaire - Financial among lottery loyalty program participants.

Jeong J, Sacco P Addict Behav Rep. 2024; 20:100570.

PMID: 39717434 PMC: 11665382. DOI: 10.1016/j.abrep.2024.100570.

Betting high, feeling low: a cross-sectional examination of gambling severity and psychological distress among Ghanaian youth.

Manu E, Acquah F, Douglas M, Akitty E, Zanu E, Ampomah M BMC Public Health. 2024; 24(1):2032.

PMID: 39075355 PMC: 11287856. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-024-19550-2.

Assessing the Link Between General Causality Orientations and Problem Gambling, and the Mediational Role of Nonattachment, Greed, and Anhedonia.

Lee U, Mills D J Gambl Stud. 2024; 40(3):1349-1365.

PMID: 38493429 DOI: 10.1007/s10899-024-10290-x.

Assessing gambling disorder using frequency- and time-based response options: A Rasch analysis of the gambling disorder identification test.

Molander O, Wennberg P, Dowling N, Berman A Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2024; 33(1):e2018.

PMID: 38475935 PMC: 10933385. DOI: 10.1002/mpr.2018.

Anticipated Motives for Gambling Treatment in Adults from the U.S.

Grant Weinandy J, Connolly A, Floyd C, Kraus S, Grubbs J J Gambl Stud. 2024; 40(3):1585-1605.

PMID: 38400890 PMC: 11390817. DOI: 10.1007/s10899-024-10287-6.

References

Garratt A . Rasch analysis of the Roland disability questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003; 28(1):79-84. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200301010-00019. View

Holtgraves T . Evaluating the problem gambling severity index. J Gambl Stud. 2008; 25(1):105-20. DOI: 10.1007/s10899-008-9107-7. View

Young M, Stevens M . SOGS and CGPI: parallel comparison on a diverse population. J Gambl Stud. 2008; 24(3):337-56. DOI: 10.1007/s10899-007-9087-z. View

Hoyle R, Smith G . Formulating clinical research hypotheses as structural equation models: a conceptual overview. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1994; 62(3):429-40. DOI: 10.1037//0022-006x.62.3.429. View

Strong D, Lesieur H, Breen R, Stinchfield R, Lejuez C . Using a Rasch model to examine the utility of the South Oaks Gambling Screen across clinical and community samples. Addict Behav. 2004; 29(3):465-81. DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2003.08.017. View

Currie S, Hodgins D, Casey D, El-Guebaly N, Smith G, Williams R . Examining the predictive validity of low-risk gambling limits with longitudinal data. Addiction. 2011; 107(2):400-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03622.x. View

Strong D, Kahler C . Evaluation of the continuum of gambling problems using the DSM-IV. Addiction. 2007; 102(5):713-21. DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01789.x. View

Breen R, Zimmerman M . Rapid onset of pathological gambling in machine gamblers. J Gambl Stud. 2002; 18(1):31-43. DOI: 10.1023/a:1014580112648. View

Currie S, Hodgins D, Wang J, El-Guebaly N, Wynne H, Chen S . Risk of harm among gamblers in the general population as a function of level of participation in gambling activities. Addiction. 2006; 101(4):570-80. DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01392.x. View

10.

Langenbucher J, Labouvie E, Martin C, Sanjuan P, Bavly L, Kirisci L . An application of item response theory analysis to alcohol, cannabis, and cocaine criteria in DSM-IV. J Abnorm Psychol. 2004; 113(1):72-80. DOI: 10.1037/0021-843X.113.1.72. View

11.

Steinberg L, Thissen D . Using effect sizes for research reporting: examples using item response theory to analyze differential item functioning. Psychol Methods. 2006; 11(4):402-15. DOI: 10.1037/1082-989X.11.4.402. View

12.

Currie S, Hodgins D, Wang J, El-Guebaly N, Wynne H, Miller N . Replication of low-risk gambling limits using canadian provincial gambling prevalence data. J Gambl Stud. 2008; 24(3):321-35. DOI: 10.1007/s10899-008-9091-y. View

13.

Miller N, Currie S . A Canadian population level analysis of the roles of irrational gambling cognitions and risky gambling practices as correlates of gambling intensity and pathological gambling. J Gambl Stud. 2008; 24(3):257-74. DOI: 10.1007/s10899-008-9089-5. View

14.

Currie S, El-Guebaly N, Coulson R, Hodgins D, Mansley C . Factor validation of the addiction severity index scale structure in persons with concurrent disorders. Psychol Assess. 2004; 16(3):326-9. DOI: 10.1037/1040-3590.16.3.326. View

15.

Strong D, Breen R, Lesieur H, Lejuez C . Using the Rasch model to evaluate the South Oaks Gambling Screen for use with nonpathological gamblers. Addict Behav. 2003; 28(8):1465-72. DOI: 10.1016/s0306-4603(02)00262-9. View

16.

Stinchfield R . Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy of the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS). Addict Behav. 2002; 27(1):1-19. DOI: 10.1016/s0306-4603(00)00158-1. View

17.

Currie S, Hodgins D, Casey D . Validity of the Problem Gambling Severity Index interpretive categories. J Gambl Stud. 2012; 29(2):311-27. DOI: 10.1007/s10899-012-9300-6. View

18.

Gravel R, Beland Y . The Canadian Community Health Survey: mental health and well-being. Can J Psychiatry. 2005; 50(10):573-9. DOI: 10.1177/070674370505001002. View

19.

Cox B, Yu N, Afifi T, Ladouceur R . A national survey of gambling problems in Canada. Can J Psychiatry. 2005; 50(4):213-7. DOI: 10.1177/070674370505000404. View

20.

Lesieur H, Blume S . The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): a new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. Am J Psychiatry. 1987; 144(9):1184-8. DOI: 10.1176/ajp.144.9.1184. View