(PS1-29) Factor Structure Examination of the Problem Gambling Severity Index in College Students

The Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI; Ferris & Wynne, 2001) is the gold-standard self-report screening measure for problem gambling. Since its creation, the nine-item scale has been conceptually parsed with four items measuring gambling behavior and five items measuring adverse consequences of gambling (Wynne, 2004). The theoretical distinction of the two subdomains has raised questions about the original unifactorial structure of the PGSI and potential implications for problem gambling identification and treatment. The current PGSI factor structure literature remains discordant with results across studies supporting one factor (Holtgraves, 2009; Tabri & Wohl, 2023) and two-factor (Cooper & Marmurek, 2023; Tseng et al., 2022) solutions. Within college students, a population with an elevated prevalence rate of problem gambling (Blinn-Pike et al., 2007), evaluations of the PGSI’s factor structure demonstrate preference for a single problem gambling factor (Arcan, 2020; Boldero & Richard, 2012). This project seeks to add to the PGSI factor analysis literature with a diverse sample of college students from ten North American universities who reported gambling within the past year (N = 1,953; M = 19.4 years, SD = 1.67; 37% Male; 81% Caucasian). Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted for both one and two-factor solutions. All nine PGSI items were loaded onto a single latent factor representing a broad problem gambling construct and demonstrated acceptable fit, χ² (27) = 705.51 p < .001, CFI = .94, TLI = .92, RMSEA = .11 (90% CI [.11-.12]). Marginal improvements in model fit were observed, yet remain “acceptable,” with a two-factor solution separating PGSI items into gambling behavior and adverse consequences, χ² (26) = 649.12, p < .001, CFI = .95, TLI = .92, RMSEA = .11 (90% CI [.10-.12]). The two latent factors were highly correlated (r = 0.96). Present results indicate that a more parsimonious one-factor solution accurately captures college student problem gambling when measured by the PGSI. The findings align with previous factor analysis research supporting a one-factor solution (Arcan, 2020; Boldero & Richard, 2012) and support continued use of a total score to identify problem gambling. For gambling treatment clinicians, some benefit may be garnered from conceptualizing treatment using the two-factor solution. However, further research is required to distinguish gambling behavior and the adverse consequences of gambling (i.e., harms), including temporal precedence and effective points of intervention. In the meantime, college students remain a vulnerable population with gambling opportunities becoming ever more accessible and mainstream. College student problem gambling as a unidimensional construct remains an effective approach for assessment and conceptualization.