Report
Measuring the adverse consequences from gambling
Read how we have developed new questions about adverse consequence from gambling which are included in the GSGB survey.
Testing binary versus scaled response options (Experimental phase)
In order to address the issues identified in the pilot survey, the experimental statistics phase evaluated the performance of two different response formats for questions relating to other potential adverse consequences of gambling. Specifically, the aim was to compare responses when these consequences were measured using a 4-point scale (never, occasionally, fairly often, very often) and binary 'yes' and 'no' options. A question about absence from work or studying was included following suggestions from Dr Volberg and Professor Williams. Over 4,000 participants were administered questions using the scaled response options (Condition A), and over 2,000 participants were administered questions using binary response options (Condition B).
The experimental phase tested different response options to the items that used a scaled response format. The decision was made to remove the item that was adapted from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-IV) (such as, ‘Asked others to provide money to help with a desperate financial situation caused by gambling’) as it was thought to overlap with an item from the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) (such as, ‘Have you borrowed money or sold anything to get money to gamble’). Given that 3 of the items were derived from a validated scale (such as, the PGSI), we did not test responses to these items.
The following 6 items were included in the experimental phase:
- reducing or cutting back on spending on everyday items such as food, bills, and clothing
- using savings or increasing the use of credit to gamble
- experiencing conflict or arguments with friends, family, and/or work colleagues
- feeling isolated from other people, left out, or completely alone
- lying to family or others to hide the extent of gambling
- being absent or performing poorly at work or study.
Each item was asked to respondents who had gambled in the past 12 months and to those who knew someone who had gambled. To address possible under-reporting of ‘consequences from someone else’s gambling', the screening question was refined to remind participants of the different types of gambling and to answer this question even if people close to them only gambled occasionally. More than half (57 percent) of participants said they knew someone who gambled. This figure was closer to past-year gambling participation rates, suggesting that under-reporting was successfully addressed.
Response patterns for the 4-point scale were as expected, with fewer respondents reporting experiencing each harm 'very often' than 'occasionally'. Scaled responses showed better convergent validity than binary responses and were significantly associated with several measures of well-being, including the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS), and alcohol intake. For most questions, 'yes' responses in Condition B (binary responses) yielded similar endorsement rates to 'fairly often’ or ‘very often' responses in Condition A (scaled responses). These findings suggest that the 4-point answer scale provided a more valid measure of harms, and more analytical opportunities than the binary 'yes' or 'no' option. The 4-point scale also demonstrated improvements over the prior 3-point scale used in the pilot study, with logical sequences of endorsement.
The results of the experimental phase had important implications for the development of the survey questions. In particular, the decision was made to retain the 4-point response format for questions about potential adverse consequences from gambling, given its improved data quality and ability to capture a more detailed gradient of responses. It was recommended that the Gambling Commission conduct further research to identify the point at which endorsement of scaled items reflects negative impacts of gambling. In particular, further work was needed to clarify whether impacts experienced ‘occasionally’ were considered harmful. To address these recommendations, we conducted further analyses of experimental survey data, and initiated follow-up interviews with survey participants to provide insight into how harm is experienced and reported.
Previous sectionPeer review Next section
Evaluating 'occasionally' responses
Last updated: 25 July 2024
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.