Validation of the problem gambling severity index using confirmatory factor analysis and rasch modelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI), a screening tool used to measure the severity of gambling problems in general population research, was subjected to confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch modelling to (a) confirm the one-factor structure; (b) assess how well the items measure the continuum of problem gambling severity; (c) identify sources of differential item functioning among relevant subpopulations of gamblers. Analyses were conducted on a nationally representative sample of over 25,000 gamblers compiled by merging data from the Canadian Community Health Survey and Canadian Problem Gambling Index (CPGI) integrated datasets. Results provided support for a one-factor model that was invariant across gender, age, income level, and gambler type. Rasch modelling revealed a well-fitting, unidimensional model with no miss-fitting items. The average severity assessed by the PGSI is consistent with moderately severe problem gambling. The PGSI is therefore weak in assessing low to moderate problem severity, a notable limitation of most brief gambling screens. Evidence of clinically significant differential item functioning was found with only one item, borrowing money to gamble, which behaved differently in gamblers who play electronic gaming machines or casino games compared to gamblers who avoid these games.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.053 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".