Cross-cultural adaptation and content validity of the PGSI into Brazilian Portuguese
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11606/s1518-8787.2026060007368Palavras-chave:
Gambling, Psychometrics, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Brazil, Translations, Behavioral AddictionsResumo
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to cross-culturally adapt the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) into Brazilian Portuguese and to conduct a preliminary assessment of its content and face validity. METHODS: The adaptation process followed internationally recognized guidelines and included several stages: initial translation, translation synthesis, back-translation, review by a committee of experts, evaluation by an expert panel of 11 specialists, pre-test with participants from the general population, and final revision. The Content Validity Index (CVI), Clarity Index (CI), and Content Validity Ratio (CVR) were calculated based on the experts’ evaluations. As a first step, establishing semantic and content validity is essential before broader psychometric testing can be meaningfully conducted in the target population. RESULTS: The adapted PGSI demonstrated strong content validity, with all items reaching a CVI of 0.90 or higher and an overall mean of 0.98. The CI ranged from 2.63 to 2.90, and the CVR indicated high agreement regarding the essentiality of the items. Face validity testing with 33 participants from the general population revealed that all items were rated as understandable or entirely understandable by most participants (84.9% to 100%). Expert feedback was also used to refine the wording of items, particularly to distinguish between “gaming” and “gambling” in the Brazilian context. CONCLUSION: The Brazilian Portuguese version of the PGSI presented robust preliminary evidence of semantic, conceptual, and cultural adequacy. This version fills a critical methodological gap and provides a culturally appropriate screening and monitoring tool for use in clinical and research settings in Brazil, supporting prevention and public health monitoring of gambling-related harms, including financial impacts. Future studies will evaluate additional psychometric properties further to consolidate its use in clinical and epidemiological contexts.
Referências
1. Potenza MN, Balodis IM, Derevensky J, Grant JE, Petry NM, VerdejoGarcia A et al. Gambling disorder. Nat Rev Dis Primer. 2019;5(1):51. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-019-0099-7
2. Rash CJ, Weinstock J, Van Patten R. A review of gambling disorder and substance use disorders. Subst Abuse Rehabil. 2016;7:3-13. https://doi.org/10.2147/SAR.S83460
3. Tran LT, Wardle H, Colledge-Frisby S, Taylor S, Lynch M, Rehm J et al. The prevalence of gambling and problematic gambling: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Public Health. 2024;9(8):E594-E613. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(24)00126-9
4. Tavares H, Carneiro E, Sanches M, Pinsky I, Caetano R, Zaleski M et al. Gambling in Brazil: lifetime prevalences and socio-demographic correlates. Psychiatry Res. 2010;180(1):35-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2010.04.014
5. Spritzer DT, Rohde LA, Benzano DB, Laranjeira RR, Pinsky I, Zaleski M et al. Prevalence and correlates of gambling problems among a nationally representative sample of Brazilian adolescents. J Gambl Stud. 2011;27(4):649-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-010-9236-7
6. St-Pierre R, Derevensky JL. Youth gambling behavior: novel approaches to prevention and intervention. Curr Addict Rep. 2016;3(2):157-65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40429-016-0104-0
7. Merkouris SS, Greenwood C, Manning V, Oakes J, Rodda S, Lubman D et al. Enhancing the utility of the problem gambling severity index in clinical settings: identifying refined categories within the problem gambling category. Addict Behav. 2020;103:106257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.106257
8. Stone CA, Romild U, Abbott M, Yeung K, Billi R, Volberg R. Effects of different screening and scoring thresholds on PGSI gambling risk segments. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2015;13(1):82-102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-014-9515-0
9. American Psychiatric Association – APA. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5). 5th ed. Arlington: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013.
10. Lesieur HR, Blume SB. The south oaks gambling screen (SOGS): a new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. Am J Psychiatry. 1987;144(9):1184-8. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.144.9.1184
11. Gerstein D, Volberg R, Toce M, Harwood H, Johnson R, Buie T. Gambling impact and behavior study: Report to the national gambling impact study commission. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center; 1999.
12. Stinchfield R. Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy of the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS). Addict Behav. 2002;27(1):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0306-4603(00)00158-1
13. Ferris J, Wynne H. The canadian problem gambling index: final report. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse; 2001.
14. Pallanti S, DeCaria CM, Grant JE, Urpe M, Hollander E. Reliability and validity of the pathological gambling adaptation of the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (PGYBOCS). J Gambl Stud. 2005;21(4):431-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-005-5557-3
15. Kim SW, Grant JE, Potenza MN, Blanco C, Hollander E. The gambling symptom assessment scale (G-SAS): a reliability and validity study. Psychiatry Res. 2009;166(1):76-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2007.11.008
16. Miller NV, Currie SR, Hodgins DC, Casey D. Validation of the problem gambling severity index using confirmatory factor analysis and rasch modelling. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2013;22(3):245-55. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1392
17. James R, Tillsley J, Hitcham L, Mou C, Kim H, Tunney R. Disordered gambling, or dependence and consequences: a bifactor exploratory structural equation model analysis of the problem gambling severity index. Addict Res Theory. 2025;33(2):122-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/16066359.2024.2352094
18. Loo JMY, Oei TPS, Raylu N. Psychometric evaluation of the problem gambling severity index-chinese version (PGSI-C). J Gambl Stud. 2011;27(3):453-66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-010-9221-1
19. Lopez-Gonzalez H, Estévez A, Griffiths MD. Spanish validation of the problem gambling severity index: a confirmatory factor analysis with sports bettors. J Behav Addict. 2018;7(3):814-20. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.7.2018.84
20. Griffiths MD, Nazari N. Psychometric validation of the persian version of the problem gambling severity index. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2021;19(6):2411-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-020-00336-7
21. So R, Matsushita S, Kishimoto S, Furukawa TA. Development and validation of the Japanese version of the problem gambling severity index. Addict Behav. 2019;98:105987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.05.011
22. Currie SR, Hodgins DC, Casey DM. Validity of the problem gambling severity index interpretive categories. J Gambl Stud. 2013;29(2):311-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-012-9300-6
23. Christensen DR, Dowling NA, Jackson AC, Thomas SA. Gambling participation and problem gambling severity in a stratified random survey: findings from the second social and economic impact study of gambling in Tasmania. J Gambl Stud. 2015;31(4):1317-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-014-9495-9
24. Williams RJ, Volberg RA. The classification accuracy of four problem gambling assessment instruments in population research. Int Gambl Stud. 2014;14(1):15-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2013.839731
25. Sousa VD, Rojjanasrirat W. Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clear and user-friendly guideline. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011;17(2):268-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x
26. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186-91. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
27. Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006;29(5):489-97. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147
28. Herdman M, Fox-Rushby J, Badia X. A model of equivalence in the cultural adaptation of HRQoL instruments: the universalist approach. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehabil. 1998;7(4):323-35. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024985930536
29. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(12):1417-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-n
30. Rodrigues IB, Adachi JD, Beattie KA, MacDermid JC. Development and validation of a new tool to measure the facilitators, barriers and preferences to exercise in people with osteoporosis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18(1):540. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-017-1914-5
31. Sutoro null, Guntoro TS, Putra MFP. Development and validation mental training model: mental toughness training circle (MTTC). F1000Research. 2023;12:169. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.129010.1
32. Islaeli I, Said FM, Nambiar N, Umar NS. Development and validation of a revised vas-anxiety measurement tools for preschool hospitalized children. Malays J Nurs MJN. 2023;14(3):46-54. https://doi.org/10.31674/mjn.2023.v14i03.006
33. Chua WL, Smith D, Wee LPC, Ting KC, Yeo MLK, Mordiffi SZ et al. Development and psychometric evaluation of the attitudes towards recognising early and noticeable deterioration (ATREND) scale. J Clin Nurs. 2023;32(11–12):2684-99. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.16350
34. Maasoumi R, Lamyian M, Montazeri A, Azin SA, Aguilar-Vafaie ME, Hajizadeh E. The sexual quality of life-female (SQOL-F) questionnaire: translation and psychometric properties of the Iranian version. Reprod Health. 2013;10:25. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-4755-10-25
35. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2007;30(4):459-67. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199
36. Tilden VP, Nelson CA, May BA. The IPR inventory: development and psychometric characteristics. Nurs Res. 1990;39(6):337-43.
37. Mohammadsalehi N, Mohammadbeigi A, Jadidi R, Anbari Z, Ghaderi E, Akbari M. Psychometric properties of the persian language version of yang internet addiction questionnaire: an explanatory factor analysis. Int J High Risk Behav Addict. 2015;4(3):e21560. https://doi.org/10.5812/ijhrba.21560
38. Ayre C, Scally AJ. Critical values for lawshe’s content validity ratio: revisiting the original methods of calculation. Meas Eval Couns Dev. 2014;47(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175613513808
39. Orford J, Wardle H, Griffiths M, Sproston K, Erens B. PGSI and DSM-IV in the 2007 british gambling prevalence survey: reliability, item response, factor structure and inter-scale agreement. Int Gambl Stud. 2010;10(1):31-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/14459790903567132
40. Pio RP, Ruwel AG, Daitschman D, Souza CS, Moura HF, Kessler FCP et al. Apostas esportivas problemáticas: uma nova tendência global num mundo de alta tecnologia. Debates Psiquiatr. 2024;14:1-20. https://doi.org/10.25118/2763-9037.2024.v14.1352
41. Tavares H. Gambling in Brazil: a call for an open debate. Addict Abingdon Engl. 2014;109(12):1972-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.12560
42. Wardle H, Degenhardt L, Marionneau V, Reith G, Livingstone C, Sparrow M et al. The Lancet Public Health Commission on gambling. Lancet Public Health. 2024;S2468-2667(24)00167-1. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(24)00167-1
Publicado
Edição
Seção
Licença
Direitos autorais (c) 2026 Carla Cavalheiro Moura, Daniel Tornaim Spritzer, Rodrigo Menezes Machado, Rodrigo Nogueira Borghi, Nathalia Seminário Gabioneta, André Monezi de Andrade, Hermano Tavares
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
