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. Phase 4: Illegal Gambling Index – Technical Report

Report

Phase 4: Illegal Gambling Index – Technical Report

The Gambling Commission’s technical report detailing the development of the Illegal Gambling Index.

Published
5 November 2026

Last updated
5 November 2026 - Changes

Document actions
Print or save (opens in new tab)

Contents

Recommendations for future use

Further analytics

While Phase 2, its findings, and its outputs for the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB), have been subject to rigorous academic and stakeholder input and analysis, there is scope for more in-depth analytical approaches to strengthening findings.

A factor analysis could be employed to distil the indicators into a set of themes, while also allowing us to see the greatest correlation with a pre-set construct of ‘illegal usage’. This technique derives attributes from the data that are similar to underlying imaginary constructs called factors and assigns a score to each attribute which explains the importance towards that factor. Factor analysis gives us additional layer of information in order for us to make the most statistically robust decision.

In conjunction with importance and performance scores, a factor analysis gives further credence to the scores and strengths assigned to the variables for index creation.

Using the GSGB data to further investigate different audiences

The primary aim of this study was to give an overview of the most pertinent indicators of illegal gambling. Future use of the data could deep dive into how the index score and individual statements within it differ for different consumer audiences. For example, there may be value in an assessment of the most prevalent indicator of illegal gambling for those with a higher propensity to gamble, or with a higher Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) score. Data from the GSGB survey will provide robust sample sizes to analyse different audiences with greater confidence.

Maintaining trackability of the core index

While altering the core statements too frequently risks introducing noise into the data, which can undermine the ability to track trends effectively, Yonder have designed this index so it can flex somewhat, given the volatile nature of the illegal market and the need for the Gambling Commission to be flexible in responding to emergent changes in legislation and play behaviours. Changes to the index should therefore be made cautiously and only when there is strong evidence that new themes are both critical and enduring.

When changes are necessary, statements could be added to the list of indicators and sit outside of the index, to begin with, in order for the Commission to take the same data-led approach, supplemented by academic and stakeholder review, to assessing how emergent indicators should feed into the composite index. Once this process has taken place, the index calculation is designed to flex. Overleaf are some demonstrations on how this flexing can take place – either to incorporate a new indicator, to remove one, or to reflect the increased strength of confidence one indicator gives as to a respondent’s engagement with the illegal market.

Previous section
Flexing the index for the GSGB
Is this page useful?
Back to top