Gambling participation and the prevalence of problem gambling survey: Experimental statistics stage
The four-point answer scale (condition A) showed improvements over the prior three-point scale, with more logical sequences of endorsement and reduced item non-response. It also provides more analytical opportunities than the binary 'yes' or “no” option (condition B).
For most harms, those responding yes' in condition B (binary answer option) produced similar endorsement rates to those responding 'fairly often or very often' in condition A. However, for some harms (such as lying to family and others about the extent of one’s gambling) those answering 'yes' likely included people who only experienced this once or twice.
Contrary to expectations, those answering 'yes' at the harms from others questions displayed less consistent patterns of association with personal wellbeing.
The changes to the screening questions to route people into the harms from others questions have resulted in improvements, matching the rate closer to the gambling participation rate.
Some of the harms from others answer options differed, potentially confusing participants by switching between different scales.
Some analytical ambiguity was identified in the gambling suicidality questions. The wording and routing for these questions should be determined by the data needs.Previous section
Last updated: 18 April 2023
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.