Items of the scale were translated into Chinese using the same procedure we used for the PGSI
Among a lot of measurement instruments, the consensus in the literature is that the PGSI
(Ferris and Wynne, 2001) is the most appropriate measure of disordered gambling in terms of psychometric properties (Jackson, Wynne, Dowling, Tomnay, & Thomas, 2009; McMillen & Wenzel, 2006;
Problem gambling prevalence estimates (past year) as measured by the PGSI were 0.
The prevalence of probable pathological gambling measured by the PGSI was 0.
The PGSI consists of nine items calling for responses reported on a 4-point Likert scale ("never", "sometimes", "most of the time", "almost always").
Differences in gambling motives according to severity level: Table 1 shows the scores (mean and standard deviation) obtained on each of the scales of the two models analyzed (GMQ and GMQ-F) by severity category (low level of problems, moderate level of problems, and problem gambling with loss of control) according to the values obtained on the PGSI.
001) was associated with greater severity measured by the PGSI.
However, this study asked only about gambling participation and administered the PGSI.
All gamblers were administered the nine items that comprise the PGSI (Ferris and Wynne 2001).
Diferencias en los motivos de apuestas en funcion del grado de severidad: En la tabla 1 se presentan los puntajes (media y desviacion estandar) obtenidos en cada una de las escalas de los dos modelos analizados (GMQ y GMQ-F) en funcion de la categoria de severidad (nivel bajo de problemas, nivel moderado de problemas y juego problema con perdida de control) segun los valores obtenidos en el PGSI.
001) se asociaron a un mayor nivel de severidad medido por el PGSI.
At this stage no tools to measure the prevalence of problem gambling have been validated within the Australian Indigenous population; however, the PGSI
component of the CPGI is probably best placed for cultural adaptation and trial.