Comparison of clinicians' and researchers' ratings of proposed diagnostic criteria for compulsive buying-shopping disorder within a Delphi study

PLoS One. 2023 Apr 4;18(4):e0283978. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283978. eCollection 2023.

Abstract

Diagnostic criteria for compulsive buying shopping disorder were recently proposed based on a Delphi consensus study including 138 experts from 35 countries. The present study represents a secondary analysis of those data. To provide further support for the validity of expert responses in the Delphi study, the sample was retrospectively divided into clinician and researcher subgroups. The two groups were compared with respect to demographic variables, their importance ratings of clinical features, possible diagnostic criteria, differential diagnoses and specifiers of compulsive buying shopping disorder. Researchers reported less years of treating/assessing individuals with compulsive buying shopping disorder and stated that they have treated/assessed individuals with compulsive buying shopping disorder less often in the last 12 months than clinicians. Responses from the two groups concerning the importance ratings of possible diagnostic criteria of compulsive buying shopping disorder converged with only few minor differences with small to moderate group effects. However, even for those criteria, the consensus threshold (≥75% agreement with the proposed criterion) was reached in both groups. The lack of differences in the responses of the two groups indicates good validity for the proposed diagnostic criteria. Future research should address the clinical applicability and diagnostic validity of the criteria.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Compulsive Behavior* / diagnosis
  • Compulsive Personality Disorder*
  • Consumer Behavior
  • Delphi Technique
  • Humans
  • Retrospective Studies

Grants and funding

The study was supported by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD, Project Related Personal Exchange, grant 57387119) from the budget of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and by the Australia-Germany Joint Cooperation Scheme. The work of AM on this article was carried out in the context of the Research Unit ACSID, FOR 2974, funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) – 411232260. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.