Independent Coverage of Global Casino & Gaming Regulation

Tuesday, January 2026

Compliance Tool Last Updated: January 2026

Problem Gambling Indicator Assessment Tool

Educational tool for understanding behavioral markers and risk indicators associated with gambling harm. Designed for compliance professionals, researchers, and policy analysts.

Educational Purpose Only: This tool provides general educational information about gambling harm indicators based on published research and regulatory frameworks. It is not a diagnostic instrument and should not be used to assess individuals. For clinical assessment, consult qualified healthcare professionals using validated screening tools such as the PGSI or DSM-5 criteria.

Behavioral Indicators

Weight: 30%
Loss Chasing
Continuing to gamble to recover previous losses, often with increasing bet sizes.
High
Preoccupation with Gambling
Frequent thoughts about gambling, planning next sessions, or reliving past gambling experiences.
High
Tolerance Development
Needing to gamble with increasing amounts to achieve desired excitement.
Medium
Failed Control Attempts
Repeated unsuccessful efforts to cut back or stop gambling behavior.
Medium
Extended Session Duration
Gambling sessions significantly longer than initially planned.
Low
Unusual Time Patterns
Gambling at atypical hours (late night/early morning) or during work hours.
Low

Financial Indicators

Weight: 35%
Gambling Beyond Financial Means
Wagering amounts that represent disproportionate share of income or using essential funds.
High
Borrowing to Gamble
Taking loans, using credit, or borrowing from others specifically to fund gambling.
High
Multiple Declined Transactions
Repeated failed deposit attempts suggesting insufficient funds or credit limits.
High
Multiple Payment Methods
Using numerous different payment methods or accounts to fund gambling.
Medium
Deposit Spikes
Sudden significant increases in deposit amounts relative to historical patterns.
Medium
Withdrawal Cancellations
Frequently canceling pending withdrawals to continue gambling.
Low

Psychological & Social Indicators

Weight: 20%
Gambling as Escape
Using gambling to escape problems or relieve negative emotions (anxiety, depression, guilt).
High
Concealment
Lying to family, friends, or others about gambling extent or losses.
High
Relationship Impact
Gambling causing conflicts with family, friends, or colleagues.
Medium
Neglecting Responsibilities
Missing work, family events, or other obligations due to gambling.
Medium

Platform-Specific Indicators

Weight: 15%
Self-Exclusion History
Previous self-exclusion from gambling platforms or requests for cooling-off periods.
High
Limit Setting Changes
Repeatedly increasing or removing self-imposed deposit/loss/time limits.
Medium
Distressed Communications
Customer service contacts expressing distress, frustration about losses, or requests for help.
Medium
Bonus Dependency
Primary gambling activity centered around bonus offers and promotions.
Low
Multiple Account Attempts
Attempts to create multiple accounts or circumvent self-exclusion measures.
Low

Assessment Summary

0
Risk Score (0-100)
Select indicators to calculate risk
Indicators Selected 0 / 21
High Severity 0
Medium Severity 0
Low Severity 0

Regulatory Context

Select indicators above to see relevant regulatory guidance and intervention recommendations.

Indicator Category Severity Detection Method

Comparison of validated problem gambling screening instruments used in clinical settings and regulatory compliance frameworks worldwide.

PGSI (Problem Gambling Severity Index)

Origin
Canadian Problem Gambling Index (CPGI), developed by Ferris & Wynne (2001)
Items
9 items, scored 0-3 each (total 0-27)
Categories
Non-problem (0), Low-risk (1-2), Moderate-risk (3-7), Problem gambler (8+)
Usage
Population surveys, clinical screening, regulatory research. Required by UKGC for prevalence studies.

DSM-5 Gambling Disorder Criteria

Origin
American Psychiatric Association (2013)
Items
9 criteria evaluated over 12-month period
Categories
Mild (4-5 criteria), Moderate (6-7), Severe (8-9)
Usage
Clinical diagnosis, treatment settings, insurance classification. Gold standard for clinical assessment.

SOGS (South Oaks Gambling Screen)

Origin
Lesieur & Blume (1987), South Oaks Foundation
Items
20 items (12 scored), lifetime or past-year versions
Categories
Non-problem (0-2), Some problems (3-4), Probable pathological (5+)
Usage
Historical research, treatment intake. Less commonly used in modern regulatory contexts.

Lie/Bet Questionnaire

Origin
Johnson et al. (1997)
Items
2 items (brief screening)
Categories
Positive screen if either question answered "yes"
Usage
Quick primary care screening, initial triage. High sensitivity for detecting at-risk individuals.

GamTest

Origin
Jonsson (2003), Sweden
Items
15 items covering gambling behavior and consequences
Categories
Green (no problems), Yellow (at risk), Red (problem gambling)
Usage
Swedish gambling operators, Spelinstitutet research. Required by Spelinspektionen for player messaging.

NODS (NORC DSM Screen)

Origin
National Opinion Research Center (1999), based on DSM-IV
Items
17 items mapping to 10 DSM criteria
Categories
Non-problem (0), At-risk (1-2), Problem (3-4), Pathological (5+)
Usage
US national prevalence surveys, research studies. Used by American Gaming Association research.

Framework Resources

Understanding Problem Gambling Indicators

Problem gambling, also known as gambling disorder, is recognized by the American Psychiatric Association as a behavioral addiction characterized by persistent and recurrent problematic gambling behavior leading to clinically significant impairment or distress. Understanding the indicators associated with gambling harm is essential for regulatory compliance, public health research, and the development of effective intervention strategies.

Key Concepts in Gambling Harm Research

Harm Minimization

A public health approach that focuses on reducing the negative consequences of gambling rather than solely preventing gambling participation. This framework underpins regulatory requirements in jurisdictions such as the UK and Australia.

Behavioral Markers

Observable patterns in gambling activity that may indicate elevated risk of harm. Regulators require operators to monitor these markers as part of customer interaction obligations.

Player Protection

Regulatory requirements mandating operators to identify vulnerable players and intervene appropriately. The UK Gambling Commission's LCCP sets detailed requirements for customer interaction.

Responsible Gambling

Industry practices designed to minimize harm, including self-exclusion programs, deposit limits, reality checks, and staff training on identifying at-risk behavior.

Regulatory Requirements for Indicator Monitoring

Major gambling regulators require licensed operators to implement systems for identifying and responding to problem gambling indicators. The UK Gambling Commission's Customer Interaction Guidance outlines specific requirements for monitoring player behavior and taking appropriate action when indicators are detected.

In the European context, the Malta Gaming Authority's Player Protection Directive requires licensees to implement responsible gambling measures including player activity monitoring, self-exclusion systems, and staff training programs.

Research from the Responsible Gambling Council has contributed to developing evidence-based approaches to player protection, informing regulatory frameworks across multiple jurisdictions.

Limitations and Considerations

It is important to recognize that individual indicators in isolation may not reliably predict gambling harm. Research published in the Journal of Gambling Studies demonstrates that gambling harm exists on a continuum, and effective identification requires consideration of multiple factors in combination with behavioral context.

Operators and researchers should be aware that false positives (identifying non-problem gamblers as at-risk) and false negatives (failing to identify at-risk gamblers) are both possible. The goal of indicator monitoring is to enable timely intervention and support, not to restrict recreational gambling activity.

Related Resources

For further analysis of responsible gambling compliance requirements, see our coverage of self-exclusion programs and global responsible gambling standards. Our affordability assessment calculator provides guidance on financial harm indicators, while the player protection cost calculator helps operators estimate compliance implementation costs.

For regulatory enforcement context, review our analysis of major enforcement actions and license suspension triggers, which frequently involve failures in responsible gambling compliance.

Related Analysis