Author
Listed:
- Nora M Laskowski
- Patrick Trotzke
- Kathina Ali
- Dan B Fassnacht
- Mike Kyrios
- Michael Häder
- Astrid Müller
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.
Suggested Citation
Nora M Laskowski & Patrick Trotzke & Kathina Ali & Dan B Fassnacht & Mike Kyrios & Michael Häder & Astrid Müller, 2023.
"Comparison of clinicians’ and researchers’ ratings of proposed diagnostic criteria for compulsive buying-shopping disorder within a Delphi study,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(4), pages 1-15, April.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0283978
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283978
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0283978. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.