Proposed diagnostic criteria for compulsive buying-shopping disorder: A Delphi expert consensus study

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background and aims

Consensus in acknowledging compulsive buying-shopping disorder (CBSD) as a distinct diagnosis has been lacking. Before research in this area can be advanced, it is necessary to establish diagnostic criteria in order to facilitate field trials.

Methods

The study consisted of the following phases: (1) operationalization of a broad range of potential diagnostic criteria for CBSD, (2) two iterative rounds of data collection using the Delphi method, where consensus of potential diagnostic criteria for CBSD was reached by an international expert panel, and (3) interpretation of findings taking into account the degree of certainty amongst experts regarding their responses.

Results

With respect to diagnostic criteria, there was clear expert consensus about inclusion of the persistent and recurrent experience of (a) intrusive and/or irresistible urges and/or impulses and/or cravings and/or preoccupations for buying/shopping; (b) diminished control over buying/shopping; (c) excessive purchasing of items without utilizing them for their intended purposes, (d) use of buying-shopping to regulate internal states; (e) negative consequences and impairment in important areas of functioning due to buying/shopping; (f) emotional and cognitive symptoms upon cessation of excessive buying/shopping; and (g) maintenance or escalation of dysfunctional buying/shopping behaviors despite negative consequences. Furthermore, support was found for a specifier related to the presence of excessive hoarding of purchased items.

Conclusions

The proposed diagnostic criteria can be used as the basis for the development of diagnostic interviews and measures of CBSD severity.

Related collections

Most cited references 65

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

A ‘components’ model of addiction within a biopsychosocial framework

Mark Griffiths (2009)

0 comments Cited 622 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies.

Ivan Diamond, Robert C Grant, Brian Feldman … (2014)

To investigate how consensus is operationalized in Delphi studies and to explore the role of consensus in determining the results of these studies. Systematic review of a random sample of 100 English language Delphi studies, from two large multidisciplinary databases [ISI Web of Science (Thompson Reuters, New York, NY) and Scopus (Elsevier, Amsterdam, NL)], published between 2000 and 2009. About 98 of the Delphi studies purported to assess consensus, although a definition for consensus was only provided in 72 of the studies (64 a priori). The most common definition for consensus was percent agreement (25 studies), with 75% being the median threshold to define consensus. Although the authors concluded in 86 of the studies that consensus was achieved, consensus was only specified a priori (with a threshold value) in 42 of these studies. Achievement of consensus was related to the decision to stop the Delphi study in only 23 studies, with 70 studies terminating after a specified number of rounds. Although consensus generally is felt to be of primary importance to the Delphi process, definitions of consensus vary widely and are poorly reported. Improved criteria for reporting of methods of Delphi studies are required. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.