![Sample our Health and Social Care journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5938/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Health-Social-Care.jpg"})
Abstract
Monitoring the prevalence of problem gambling has become a major issue for regulators and policy-makers in several countries as legalised gambling has expanded. However, there has been considerable debate about the definition of problem gambling and the most appropriate ways of measuring it. This paper presents a comparative evaluation of three problem gambling screens: the Victorian Gambling Screen (VGS), the Canadian Problem Gambling Index (CPGI) and the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS, version 5+). Using methods of concurrent validation, the study is based on a population survey of 8479 adult residents in the state of Victoria, Australia. While finding limitations with all three screens, overall the study found that the CPGI demonstrated the best measurement properties of the three gambling instruments. As well as essential questions about screen validity, the paper discusses issues for future consideration in prevalence studies and the measurement of problem gambling in general populations.
Acknowledgements
This article is derived in part from research funded by the former Victorian Gambling Research Panel. Sincere thanks are extended to our colleagues who assisted with that study: David Marshall and Eliza Ahmed (ANU) and Steve Lillico (ACNielsen). We also thank the two referees for their constructive suggestions on our draft.
Notes
1. This paper builds on our two research reports to the former Victorian Gambling Research Panel: the 2003 Victorian Longitudinal Community Attitudes Survey and the subsequent Validation of the Victorian Gambling Screen. Both detailed reports are available on the following website: http://grp.vic.gov.au/. The variant of SOGS used in most Australian studies was examined, rather than the original ‘lifetime’ version.
2. This sampling approach has been used in most Australian prevalence studies, although the precise definition of a ‘regular gambler’ used in the sampling frame sometimes varies.
3. A comprehensive discussion of the sampling methodology is provided in Wenzel et al. (2004, Appendix B—Methodology and Technical Report).
