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 South African gamblers. The Problem Gambling Severity Index also showed significant correlations with the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, a widely known measure of impulsivity, and with some of the predicted behavioural variables of interest (gambling activities, money lost to gambling, current debt, interpersonal conflict). This article therefore demonstrates initial criterion and concurrent validity for the Problem Gambling Severity Index for use in South African samples.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author.
2.
ArnettJ. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63, 602–614.
3.
ArthurD.TongW. L.ChenC. P.HingA. Y.Sagara-RosemeyerM.KuaE.. . .IgnacioJ. (2008). The validity and reliability of four measures of gambling behaviour in a sample of Singapore University students. Journal of Gambling Studies, 24, 451–462.
4.
BattersbyM. W.ThomasL. J.TolchardB.EstermanA. (2002). The South Oaks Gambling Screen: A review with reference to Australian use. Journal of Gambling Studies, 18, 257–271.
CronbachL. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.
9.
CurrieS. R.HodginsD. C.CaseyD. M. (2013). Validity of the Problem Gambling Severity Index interpretive categories. Journal of Gambling Studies, 29, 311–327.
10.
DellisA.SpurrettD.HofmeyrA.SharpC.RossD. (2013). Gambling participation and problem gambling severity among rural and peri-urban poor South African adults in KwaZulu-Natal. Journal of Gambling Studies, 29, 417–433.
11.
DickersonM.O’ConnorJ. (2006). Gambling as an addictive behaviour: Impaired control, harm minimisation, treatment and prevention. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12.
DrennanG.LevettA.SwartzL. (1991). Hidden dimension of power and resistance in the translation process: A South African study. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 15, 361–381.
13.
DuvarciI.VaranA.CoskunolH.ErsoyM. A. (1997). DSM-IV and the South Oaks Gambling Screen: Diagnosing and assessing pathological gambling in Turkey. Journal of Gambling Studies, 13, 193–206.
14.
EllisC. G. (2003). Cross-cultural aspects of depression in general practice. South African Medical Journal, 93, 342–345.
15.
FerrisJ.WynneH. J. (2001a). The Canadian Problem Gambling Index: Final report. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
16.
FerrisJ.WynneH. J. (2001b). The Canadian Problem Gambling Index: User manual. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
17.
Gamblers Anonymous (1984). Sharing recovery through Gamblers Anonymous. Los Angeles, CA: Author.
18.
HenrichJ.HeineS. J.NorenzayanA. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83.
19.
HermanA. A.SteinD. J.SeedatS.HeeringaS. G.MoomalH.WilliamsD. R. (2009). The South African Stress and Health (SASH) study: 12-month and lifetime prevalence of common mental disorders. South African Medical Journal, 99, 339–344.
20.
JacobsonN. S.RobertsL. J.BernsS. B.McGlincheyJ. B. (1999). Methods for defining and determining the clinical significance of treatment effects: Description, application, and alternatives. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 300–307.
21.
KincaidH.DanielsR.DellisA.HofmeyrA.RousseauJ.SharpC.RossD. (2013). A taxometric analysis of problem gambling data from a South African national urban sample. Journal of Gambling Studies, 29, 377–392.
22.
KunB.BalázsH.ArnoldP.BorbálaP. (2012). Gambling in Western and Eastern Europe: The example of Hungary. Journal of Gambling Studies, 28, 27–46.
23.
LesieurH. R.BlumeS. B. (1987). The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1184–1188.
24.
LooJ. M.OeiT. P.RayluN. (2011). Psychometric evaluation of the Problem Gambling Severity Index-Chinese version (PGSI-C). Journal of Gambling Studies, 27, 453–466.
25.
McMillenJ.WenzelM. (2006). Measuring problem gambling: Assessment of three prevalence screens. International Gambling Studies, 6, 147–174.
26.
MyerL.SmitJ.RouxL. L.ParkerS.SteinD. J.SeedatS. (2008). Common mental disorders among HIV-infected individuals in South Africa: Prevalence, predictors, and validation of brief psychiatric rating scales. AIDS Patient Care and STDs, 22, 147–158.
OrfordJ.WardleH.GriffithsM.SprostonK.ErensB. (2010). PGSI and DSM-IV in the 2007 British Gambling Prevalence Survey: Reliability, item response, factor structure and inter-scale agreement. International Gambling Studies, 10, 31–44.
29.
PattonJ. H.StanfordM. S.BarrattE. S. (1995). Factor structure of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 768–774.
30.
PetersenI. (2004). Addressing the need for psychological services at the primary level of care in South Africa: Can a new psychological professional fill the gap?Health Policy and Planning, 19, 33–40.
31.
PetryN. M. (2005). Pathological gambling: Etiology, comorbidity and treatment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
SharpC.SkinnerD.MotsaathebeS.RossM. W. (2011). A qualitative study of the cultural appropriateness of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC-IV) in South Africa. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 46, 743–751.
34.
SharpC.SteinbergL.YaroslavskyI.HofmeyrA.DellisA.KincaidH.RossD. (2012). An item response theory analysis of the Problem Gambling Severity Index. Assessment, 19, 167–175.
35.
StanfordM. S.MathiasC. W.DoughertyD. M.LakeS. L.AndersonN. E.PattonJ. H. (2009). Fifty years of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale: An update and review. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 385–395.
StinchfieldR. (2002). Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy of the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS). Addictive Behaviors, 27(1), 1–19.
38.
SvetievaE.WalkerM. (2008). Inconsistency between concept and measurement: The Canadian Problem Gambling Index (CPGI). Journal of Gambling Issues, 22, 157–173.
39.
SwartzL. (1998). Culture and mental health: A Southern African view. Cape Town, South Africa: Oxford University Press.
40.
ThompsonA.WalkerM.MiltonS.DjukicE. (2005). Explaining the high false positive rate of the South Oaks Gambling Screen. International Gambling Studies, 5(1), 45–56.
UrsuaM. P.UribelarreaL. L. (1998). 20 Questions of Gamblers Anonymous: A psychometric study with population of Spain. Journal of Gambling Studies, 14(1), 3–15.
43.
VolbergR. A.ValesP. A. (2002). Estimados de prevalencia sobre el juego patológico en Puerto Rico [Prevalence estimates of pathological gambling in Puerto Rico]. Revista Puertorriqueña de Psicología, 13, 71–98.
44.
WalkerM. B.DickersonM. G. (1996). The prevalence of problem and pathological gambling: A critical analysis. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 233–249.
45.
WilliamsR. J.VolbergR. A. (2013). The classification accuracy of four problem gambling assessment instruments in population research. International Gambling Studies. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/14459795.2013.839731
46.
WintersK. C.SpeckerS.StinchfiledR. D. (1997). Brief manual for use of the Diagnostic Interview for Gambling Severity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Medical School.
47.
WintersK. C.SpeckerS.StinchfieldR. D. (2002). Measuring pathological gambling with the Diagnostic Interview for Gambling Severity (DIGS). In MarottaJ.CorneliusJ.EadingtonW. (Eds.), The downside: Problem and pathological gambling (pp. 143–148). Reno: University of Nevada Press.
