The Gambling Commission has suggested that the way in which it undertakes the Gambling Survey of Great Britain may be behind the significant disparity in results when compared to other studies, claiming that in-person interviews encourage people to downplay their gambling participation. Everyone has been telling the regulator that its methodology is deceptive, and even the OSR has told GamCom to put its statistical house in order. Yet now, when it’s way past too late o’clock, the Commission has the nerve to highlight the discrepancy, but without the balls to own up to the massive damage it’s caused?
The Gambling Commission has published a report which suggests the disparity between results produced by the Gambling Survey for Great Britain and those such as the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey are due to the fact that in-person interviews encourage people to “under-report undesirable behaviours.”
The study, conducted by Professor Patrick Sturgis, investigates why the GSGB records significantly higher estimates of gambling and risk levels than traditional face-to-face surveys, and found that the self-completion element was behind an almost 50 per cent increase in those registering on the PGSI scale.
“The study found an interviewer asking the questions via telephone had a substantial impact on reported PGSI scores,” said the Commission. “The rate for those who scored one or above on the PGSI was 4.4 percentage points higher in the online self-completion condition compared to telephone interviews.”
“This represents an almost 50 percent increase in those scoring one or above on the PGSI and strongly suggests that respondents under-report undesirable behaviours in the presence of an interviewer, which reflects the general literature in this area.”
The 2023 GSGB estimated that 2.5 percent of British residents aged 18 and over scored above eight on the PGSI, however the 2021 Health Survey for England put the figure at 0.3 percent for those above 16, and the APMS for 2023/24 reported a rate of 0.4 percent for the same age bracket, differences which the Commission itself described as “substantial.”
One wonders why?
Time to address the GSGB elephant in the room…
You couldn’t possibly have been expecting an admission from the Gambling Commission that it’s GSGB methodology has been a disastrous attempt at re-writing a decade plus of history on gambling participation statistics and, most importantly, problem gambling levels.
But it did get close to being forced to say so following another appraisal of its survey methodology by its original independent assessor Professor Patrick Sturgis.
The prof and his LSE team identified the reasons why the GC’s survey is so massively out of kilter with all other surveys.
It has a tendency to bias and leading the participant. That’s not to say it’s deliberate; it’s worse than that, it’s a fundamental flaw.
This gaping error from the way the GSGB conducts its research reached its peak last year when the the first year’s findings opened the door to an eight-fold increase in problem gambling levels – running at a rate of 2.5 percent compared to 0.4 according to the NHS.
This massive misdirect led to a tsunami of inaccurate reporting in all the media and served to fuel the wave of hostility towards the industry by politicians both local and national.
Oddly, it was Patrick Sturgis’ original assessment some 18 months ago that identified a mass of problems with the GSGB and he warned the Commission that their methodology was flawed and could not be trusted.
His latest stab at the survey’s credentials offered very little in the way of comfort for the regulator.
His best effort was to note: “While no single study will enable us to determine the ‘true’ values for key gambling estimates, these findings make an important contribution to our understanding of how different survey design features influence the results obtained.”
Well, that’s certainly not the ringing endorsement the Commission needed just months after being highly criticised by the OSR.
And so it shouldn’t be.
Basically, if you read between the lines, it’s been a waste of time, money and effort.
All the GSGB has achieved in little over two years is to employ a biased research procedure that serves to inflate the gambling statistics – by some way. And as a result, it’s created unreliable findings, that have been wildly misinterpreted and misused to mislead.
In return, it’s offered sweet fanny adams to the process of identifying the level of problem gamblers in the country.
In fact, it has actually done more harm than good – it created mayhem and a media frenzy by sensationalising an eight fold increase in problem gambling.
And the best take the Commission can come up with from the latest LSE assessment? At least now the researchers on the GSGB will know how to ask the questions properly.
Two and half years on, and god knows how much money wasted on the GSGB – the LSE says we have to recognise that each survey may vary and no single survey will enable us to determine the ‘true’values.
Well that’s been a useful exercise, hasn’t it?
So, what’s the government doing about this mess? These stats are shaping their policy – and the GSGB figures are no more accurate than all the other survey findings out there.
Sadly, the government usually runs scared when it comes to confrontation with the regulator.
But here’s a reality check, you control the Gambling Commission, so step up to the plate. Because there are good reasons why you should.
A regulator has been pumping out misleading statistics, and has stood by them and defended them against all critics. And now, everyone knows they’re worth no more, and possibly less – because of their tendency for bias – than all the other surveys out there.
Does that sound like something the government should be getting involved with?
Baronness Twycross has been fooled by the misleading data, and that data is making a fool out of her.
But if she doesn’t like listening to the likes of Coinslot, perhaps prof Sturgis, who has a far more gentle and polite approach, may help guide her.
His latest study recommends that the Commission “reviews its online guidance on interpreting GSGB estimates of gambling and gambling harm to better reflect the likely causes of differences between them and those of earlier health surveys.”
And as kind as he puts it, it still boils down to a simple declaration: the GC needs to review its obsessive defence of the GSGB because there is no defence.It’s obsolete and the regulator needs to reassess its approach.
But we can rest easy …“This is an action the Commission will be carrying out as part of its ongoing drive to improve research development.”
You think? Nearly three years into this bullshit GSGB survey and the regulator is continuing to carry out its ongoing drive to improve research development?
How much time does it want to perfect this failed methodology?
The LSE findings are tantamount to saying that the Commission is not fit for purpose when it comes to gambling statistics. It should stick to the NHS quarterly stats that have been the trusted record for over a decade and not reach far beyond its capabilities by creating a new one.
The Commission is very good at smacking down errors by the industry. So who’s going to smack them down for the disastrous fall-out of its mis-handling of the 2.5 percent problem gambling narrative driven by the failing GSGB?
This two year run of misleading statistics from the Commission’s folly could cost billions if it stirs more restrictive legislation and regulation.
That’s how serious it is, and that’s why the government needs to step up and do something.
