Cookies on the Gambling Commission website

The Gambling Commission website uses cookies to make the site work better for you. Some of these cookies are essential to how the site functions and others are optional. Optional cookies help us remember your settings, measure your use of the site and personalise how we communicate with you. Any data collected is anonymised and we do not set optional cookies unless you consent.

Set cookie preferences

You've accepted all cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Skip to main content
  1. Home
  2. About us
  3. Measuring the adverse consequences from gambling

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.

Published
25 July 2024

Last updated
25 July 2024 - Changes

Document actions
Print or save (opens in new tab)

  1. Contents
  2. Survey development, testing, and selection of items
  3. Pilot study

Pilot study

In January 2022, the Gambling Commission conducted a pilot survey of questions about the adverse consequences from gambling as part of the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) development. Respondents who had gambled in the past 12 months answered questions about adverse consequences experienced due to their own gambling. Respondents who said that someone close to them gambled answered similar questions about harms resulting from someone else's gambling.

Over 1,000 participants aged 16 and above took part in the survey. Items that referred to serious negative consequences from gambling, even if experienced only once, were classified as 'Type 1' or ‘severe’ harms (for example violence or abuse). 'Type 2' harms describe adverse consequences that can have a more cumulative and gradual negative impact on people's lives (for example reduced spending on everyday items).

Respondents were asked to indicate the presence of 'Type 1' harms using a binary 'yes' or 'no' response, while 'Type 2' harms were reported on a three-point scale: 'Not at all,' 'A little,' or 'A lot.' Questions that were taken from the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-IV) retained their original response format (PGSI: 'Never', 'Sometimes', 'Fairly often', 'Very often'; DSM-IV: 'Never', 'Sometimes', 'Most of the time', 'Almost always').

Adverse consequences from own gambling

As expected, endorsement of 'Type 1' or severe harms was low, with between 2 and 3 participants reporting experience of each harm. For other adverse consequences (that is, 'Type 2' harms), the distribution of responses across the response options deviated from the expected pattern. Typically, for scaled response options where the measured experience is relatively rare, endorsement rates tend to decrease as severity or frequency increases. Contrary to this expectation, the pilot study data showed a higher proportion of past year gamblers who reported experiencing each impact 'a lot' (2 to 3 percent) than those who reported experiencing each impact 'a little' (1 to 2 percent). These findings indicated that the response options may not have effectively captured the frequency or severity of gambling-related harm, and highlighted the need for further refinement of the response format.

Adverse consequences experienced from someone else’s gambling

Endorsement rates for 'Type 1' or severe harms caused by someone else’s gambling were generally low. One participant reported losing something of significant financial value and 9 participants reported a breakdown in relationships. For items referring to other potential negative consequences (that is, 'Type 2' harms), the percentage of respondents who reported experiencing each harm 'a little' ranged from 2 percent (seven participants), for 'increased use of credit', to 7 percent (22 participants) for 'increased conflict or arguments.' Approximately 2 percent of respondents reported experiencing other adverse consequences (that is, 'Type 2' harms) 'a lot.' Findings also indicated some evidence of under-reporting; while 40 percent of respondents said they lived with someone who gambles, only 29 percent said that someone close to them gambles. This discrepancy may be due to a lack of clarity in the definition of gambling in the question or to the method of filtering respondents into the 'harm from others' questions.

Cognitive testing

Cognitive testing was conducted with 14 participants to assess their understanding of the survey questions. While some participants found the questions slightly uncomfortable or intrusive, most reported that the questions were clear, straightforward, and covered an appropriate range of gambling-related harms. Some areas for improvement were also highlighted, such as the need to define certain terms and to clarify that the questions relate specifically to the effects of gambling.

Previous section
Refining items Next section
Peer review
Is this page useful?
Back to top