Monday, May 16, 2022
EntertainmentHow to Determine Gambling Involvement - Three Common Questionnaires

How to Determine Gambling Involvement – Three Common Questionnaires

Collaborative Post

An additional, but no less important advantage of licensed and legal gambling is the full support of its activities by the regulatory authorities, which control not only the turnover of funds executed into the budget, but also the impact of gambling on the population. Also, the Aussie online casino is engaged in the regulation of gambling addiction.

Photo by Drew Rae from Pexels

DSM-IV

It is no secret that the extreme form of gambling addiction has its place in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). This system was created by the United States Psychiatric Association. The classifier of disorders itself is periodically updated and issued in new editions. As of 2013, a total of five such classifications have been issued. There have been revisions of some disorders and, as a consequence, their removal from the classifier.

By the way, the Bulgarian government has supported a bill to ban private rates.

When considering a diagnosis, the questionnaire takes into account the specific factors that occur in increased gambling addiction:

  • Psychosocial factors associated with gambling that ultimately aggravate the individual. Often these are interpersonal conflicts, divorces, etc.;
  • the presence of psychosomatic (physical disorders – ulcers, hypertension, etc.), mental (addictions, increased anxiety) diseases or background psychopathy (long-term irreversible disorders);
  • adaptation level. Here, the highest level of functioning in the past year is taken into account.

As stated in the report “Gambling Behavior in Great Britain in 2016. Evidence from England, Scotland and Wales,” the questionnaire responses must meet at least the three criteria outlined above in order to be diagnosed.

PGSI

Also used in the study of excessive gambling involvement is the gambling problem severity index (PGSI) questionnaire, which was developed for use in the general population rather than for clinical, more narrowly focused purposes.

The PGSI is known to have been developed and validated as part of a general study of more than 3,000 Canadians. According to the source “Spanish validation of the Problem Gambling Severity Index: A confirmatory factor analysis with sports bettors,” the PGSI was designed to reflect the socially oriented aspects of problem gambling. It has also adapted well to survey participants who prefer Internet gambling, online sports betting, and fantasy gaming. It is also known that this questionnaire was used by the Spanish national research center DSM Screen. Due to the fact that speakers of Spanish is 470 million people and it is one of the three most widely spoken languages in the world, the Spanish version of the PGSI have high expectations.

The structure of the questionnaire consists of nine items, ranked from “chasing loses,” to “gambling causing health problems,” to “gambling and feeling guilty about gambling. Each question in the scales presented is rated on a 4-point scale.

Based on the answers from the DSM-IV and PGSI questionnaires, a general picture of the prevalence of gambling by age, gender, social group, etc. is derived.

ICD-10 and others

There is also the statistical classification of diseases of the international format ICD-10, which is revised by the World Health Organization. The tenth edition was approved in 1990 by the World Health Assembly. In this version, excessive gambling passion is defined by such criteria:

  • Repeated incidents of gambling lasting one year or more;
  • a return to gambling, even though there is no possibility of material gain from it, and impairment related to professional and social adaptation;
  • Lack of strength to stop gambling by force of will;
  • Constant thoughts of returning to gambling.

CCMD-3 – China has its own classification of mental disorders (CCMD-3) because of great linguistic and cultural difference from European population. The main difference from the classifiers mentioned above is the presence of culturally conditioned diagnoses here.

Related Stories