Mixed-methods design validated gambling harm instruments in diverse populations, suggesting improved support for affected others.
BackgroundGambling-related harm is increasingly recognised as a complex, multi-dimensional public health problem which variably impacts health, relationships, resources, and broader social functioning. Existing measures – often focused on diagnostic “problem gambler” thresholds – typically fail to capture the breadth of such harms. Moreover, there are very few instruments designed to capture the perspective of those harmed by someone else’s gambling – ‘affected others’ (AOs). AimsThis study reports the content development and validation of the Gambling Harms Severity Index (GHSI-10) and GHSI for affected others (GHSI-AO-10); co-designed, person-centred, non-stigmatising instruments designed to assess impacts, severity and changes in gambling-related harm across diverse contexts and populations.Design, setting and participantsWe employed a multi-phase, mixed-methods design informed by best practice guidelines for patient-reported outcome development. Conceptualisation was constructed on a ‘holistic framework of gambling harm and recovery,’ derived from structured literature reviews and qualitative research. Item generation and refinement were co-produced with individuals with lived experience, AOs, practitioners, and academic experts. Psychometric validation was conducted via a convenience paid-for online sample from the UK (n= 3,315 for people that gamble; n= 3,017 for AOs). MeasurementsStatistical validation of GHSI-10 and GSHI-AO-10 involved a combination of classical test statistics (CTT) and Rasch Measurement Theory (RMT), alongside convergent validity versus existing measures of harm (e.g. PGSI) and divergence from measures of wellbeing (e.g. ICECAP-A).FindingsItems were co-developed to assess harms across multiple components: wellbeing (mental, physical), relationships (personal, social/community), and resources (financial, occupational, ethical). This process refined the instrument to be non-stigmatising, person-centred and reflecting the language of lived experience, to reduce biases related to denial and social desirability, with a 3-month recall period, and a focus on harms that are dynamic and responsive to recovery pathways, rather than static, unchangeable harms (i.e. divorce, bankruptcy).Quantitative validation supported unidimensional measurement, good reliability (GHSI-10 α = 0.94, GHSI-AO-10 α = 0.95), convergent validity with existing measures (rho > .7), and criterion-related validity with measures of wellbeing (GHSI-10 rho < -.3, GHSI-AO-10 rho < -.23). Both GHSI-10 and GHSI-AO-10 met all RMT fit criteria, did not display infit or outfit, had well-ordered and fitting response options, and rationally ordered item locations. ConclusionsThe GHSI-10 and GHSI-AO-10 are psychometrically valid tools, co-designed to support research, service commissioning, and outcome evaluation across the gambling treatment and support ecosystem. They are grounded in diverse lived experience and aligned with public health principles.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Close et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: