Abstract
There has been an increasing amount of research examining problematic shopping behavior (PSB), often referred to in the psychological literature as “compulsive buying” or “shopping addiction.” A popular scale for assessing the risk of PSB is the seven-item Bergen Shopping Addiction Scale (BSAS). To expand our knowledge of the psychometric properties of this instrument, the present study employed Item Response Theory (IRT) and differential item functioning analyses (DIF) while concurrently attempting to determine a preliminary cut-off point. A relatively large community sample completed the BSAS online (N = 968, Mage = 29.5 years, SDage = 9.36, 32.5% women). IRT analyses showed differences regarding the BSAS items’ discrimination, difficulty, and precision, with a raw score exceeding 23 (out of 28) indicating a higher risk of shopping addiction. Finally, while most BSAS items operated equally among males and females, Item 2 (mood modification) required a higher level of shopping addiction behaviors to be endorsed by males. The BSAS functions as a reliable assessment of the risk of shopping addiction, particularly between average and high levels of the trait. Clinical implications are discussed in light of these findings.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Scholars have investigated individuals’ “pathological propensity to buy,” suggesting the possibility of problematic shopping behavior (PSB; Aboujaoude, 2011; Aboujaoude, 2014; Andreassen et al., 2015; Georgiadou et al., 2021; Kyrios et al., 2018; Moulding et al., 2017 Müller et al., 2019; Müller et al., 2021a, 2021b; Rahman et al., 2018; Rigby, 2011; Uzarska et al., 2021). Many terms have been used to describe PSB (e.g., “compulsive buying,” “compulsive spending,” “shopping addiction,” “shopaholism,” “problematic shopping”) suggesting that such problematic behaviors are associated with an inability to regulate emotions and/or excessive impulsivity (Christenson et al., 1994). However, recent research suggests that much like psychoactive substance addictions, PSB, and other problematic behaviors are best understood from an addiction perspective, given that internal factors (e.g., distress) and external factors (e.g., environmental cues) precipitate cue reactivity providing the basis for craving and anticipation of rewards (Gomez et al., 2022; Starcke et al., 2018).
Previous research has identified negative consequences associated with PSB (e.g., financial solvency, compromised social relationships, psychological distress), suggesting the recognition of shopping addiction as a distinct behavioral addiction in psychopathology classification manuals such as the DSM-5 or ICD-11 (Andreassen et al., 2018; APA, 2013; Dittmar, 2005; Griffiths, 1996, 2017, 2018; Hartston, 2012; Uzarska et al., 2021; WHO, 2019; Zarate et al., 2022; Zhao et al., 2017). However, concerns have also been raised regarding the potential risk of over-pathologizing common behaviors (e.g., work, exercise, sex), suggesting that problematic behaviors are likely to manifest when individuals engage in subjectively enjoyable activities (Kardefelt-Winther et al., 2017; Niedermoser et al., 2021). Given these concerns and the relatively recent conceptualization of behavioral addictions, it is important to evaluate which symptoms (if any) may be problematic or indicative of impaired wellbeing due to problematic shopping, and therefore providing conceptual clarification and empirical validity to PSB.
The lack of consistency surrounding the recognition of PSB as a formal diagnosis has raised questions concerning prevalence rates and individual differences (Andreassen et al., 2018; Georgiadou et al., 2021; Granero et al., 2016; Otero-Lopez et al., 2021; Potenza, 2014; Uzarska et al., 2021). For example, the reported prevalence of PSB has ranged between 4.9 and 16.2% (Black, 2001; Dittmar, 2005; Duroy et al., 2014; Maraz et al., 2016), with a hypothesized ascending trend due to consumerism and the recent COVID-19 pandemic (among other factors; Georgiadou et al., 2021; Granero et al., 2016; Niedermoser et al., 2021). Additionally, studies investigating gender differences in PSB have reported mixed findings, with some showing higher prevalence among females (Dittmar, 2005; Maraz et al., 2016; Otero-Lopez & Villardefrancos, 2014) and others reporting no gender differences (Jiang & Shi, 2016; Müller et al., 2010). These observed discrepancies could be partially attributed to the lack of solid psychometric understanding of the instruments used to assess PSB (Georgiadou et al., 2021).
Past research has employed multiple psychometric instruments encompassing a variety of definitions/conceptualizations of PSB (e.g., Compulsive Buying Measurement Scale, Valence et al., 1988; Online Shopping Addiction Scale, Zhao et al., 2017; Compulsive Online Shopping Scale, Manchiraju et al., 2017). Within this broader context of measurement inconsistencies and dearth of solid psychometric findings, the seven-item Bergen Shopping Addiction Scale (BSAS; Andreassen et al., 2015) has been used more consistently based on its versatility (i.e., online shopping and in-person shopping), promising psychometric performance, and sound theoretical approach (i.e., components model of addiction; Griffiths, 1996, 2005; Kaur et al., 2019; Tanoto & Evelyn, 2019; Uzarska et al., 2019, 2021; Zhao et al., 2017). It has been proposed that PSB includes seven core symptoms, comprising (i) excessive preoccupation with shopping (salience), (ii) shopping to change mood state (mood modification), (iii) inability to fulfill daily obligations due to shopping (conflict), (iv) increased amount of shopping over time to obtain satisfaction (tolerance), (v) return to excessive shopping after a period of controlled shopping (relapse), (vi) irritability and frustration in the absence of shopping (withdrawal), (vii) and impaired wellbeing due to excessive shopping (problems; Andreassen et al., 2015; Griffiths, 2005). Despite these advantages in using the BSAS, to the best of the present authors’ knowledge, there is limited evidence evaluating the scale at the item level employing advanced approaches such as item response theory (IRT). Such work would add clarity to the assessment of PSB and the appropriate estimation of its prevalence rates.
Item Response Theory
It has been proposed that IRT outperforms classical test theory (CTT) approaches due to its ability to (i) assess relationships between item(s) and constructs, and therefore (ii) produce generalizable and sample independent results (Hambleton et al., 2010; Kircaburun et al., 2020). More specifically, IRT uses a logit function and logistic parameters (discrimination, α; difficulty, β; and pseudo-guessing, c) to assess item behavior at different levels of a latent trait θ (Embretson & Reise, 2013). In IRT, α evaluates how well an item “discriminates” between different θ levels (PSB), β examines the probability of endorsing an item at different θ levels, and c represents the probability of guessing “the correct response” to an item (De Ayala, 2008). Accordingly, IRT models can be estimated based on research needs, including “Rasch” models assuming equality constraints on α (Mellenbergh, 1994) or the graded response model assuming different α across items (GRM; Samejima, 1996). Although other models could be estimated (e.g., generalized partial credit, GPC; Muraki, 1992; nominal model for nominal and ordinal responses), the present study focuses on the Rasch and GRM due to its suitability for ordered polytomous items (Gomez et al., 2019; Marmara et al., 2021; Zarate et al., 2021).
Additionally, IRT provides three attractive features. Firstly, it can produce conditional precision indices (i.e., increased information produces lower standard errors increasing precision) to determine the reliability of a given instrument at different θ levels (Culpepper, 2013; Thomas et al., 2018). Secondly, it enables the estimation of prevalence rates via the employment of Summed Scores Expected a Posteriori (SSEAP [θ|x]) based on participants’ response patterns (i.e., raw scores ± 2 SD beyond the mean; Cai et al., 2011; Thissen, 1995). Thirdly, it can provide differential item functioning (DIF) statistics to investigate the equivalence of psychometric properties across groups (e.g., males and females; Meade & Wright, 2012).
The Present Study
The present study adds to the extant literature by (i) investigating the psychometric properties of the BSAS including items’ discrimination (α) and difficulty (β), (ii) proposing an optimal raw cut-off score, and (iii) DIF statistics at the item level across males and females. These considerations are important since they may help identify items to be prioritized in clinical assessments based on the severity of the different PSB presentations. Additionally, they may enhance clarity considering the PSB prevalence rates and gender differences.
Method
Participants
The initial sample comprised 1097 English-speaking individuals from the general community. However, 129 responses were removed due to being invalid (e.g., spam, incomplete responses). Therefore, a final sample of 968 individuals aged between 18 and 64 years participated (Mage = 29.5 years, SD = 9.36; 315 females, 32.5%). The sample used in the present study exceed the suggested minimum sample size for IRT analysis (N items*15; 7 × 15 = 105; Sahin & Anil, 2017). Table 1 provides descriptive statistics, and Supplementary Table 1 provides demographic statistics. Gender groups showed homogeneity of variance (Levene’s F = 1.306, p = 0.254) and females scored significantly higher on the BSAS than males (t [895] = 3.949, p < 0.001).
Instrument
Bergen Shopping Addiction Scale (BSAS): The BSAS (Andreassen et al., 2015) assesses the risk of shopping addiction using seven items rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Originally item scores ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) - 5 (strongly agree) and have been converted to start from 0 to serve the present IRT analyses’ purposes. Each item relates to an element of the “components model of addiction” including salience, mood modification, tolerance, withdrawal symptoms, conflict, relapse, and presenting problems (Griffiths, 2005; Kim & Hodgins, 2018). Examples of items include “I think about shopping/buying things all the time.” Total possible scores range from 0–28, with higher scores indicating a higher risk of shopping addiction. The scale’s internal reliability in the present study was excellent (Cronbach’s α = 0.88, McDonald’s ω = 0.88).
Procedure
The study was advertised via email (on the Victoria University student platform) and social media (Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, Instagram) after obtaining approval from the research team’s university Ethics Committee. Individuals over 18 years were eligible to participate and invited to complete an online survey including demographic questions and the BSAS. A Plain Language Information Statement was available upon accessing the link to ensure participant eligibility criteria were met (i.e., being adults), obtain informed consent, and ensure participation was voluntary. Data were collected between November 2020 and January 2021.
Statistical Analyses
Statistical analyses followed a sequential process. First, IRT models were estimated with IRT-PRO (Cai et al., 2011). Model fit was concurrently determined by: (i) traditional fit indices (χ2Loglikelihood); (ii) marginal likelihood information statistics M2 (one and two-way marginal tables to correct for potentially sparse information); (iii) RMSEA (< 0.06 = sufficient fit; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Gomez et al., 2021a); and (iv) estimation of error prediction based on Akaike information criterion (AIC; Akaike, 1974) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC; Schwarz, 1978). Given the potential sensitivity of M2 to large samples (N > 900), emphasis was placed on RMSEA to assess model fit (De Ayala, 2008). Subsequently, the best fitting model was determined based on Δχ2Loglikelihood (Gomez et al., 2021b). Secondly, following past recommendations (Zarate et al., 2021), DIF statistics using Wald tests were obtained for all items with p < 0.05 as indication of non-invariance. Subsequently, to avoid increasing type 1 error, invariant items were anchored, and only non-invariant items were assessed. Thirdly, the conversion of the BSAS raw scores into addictive shopping risk levels was conducted based on SSEAP [θ|x] to classify participants exceeding ± 2SD as high risk (Cai et al., 2011; Embretson & Reise, 2013).
Results
Missing values showed no discernible pattern (MCAR; Little’s χ2 = 23.9, p = 0.247; Little, 1988), and ranged between 1.50 and 2.60% satisfying the maximum recommended threshold (< 5%; Schafer, 1999). Therefore, IRT assumptions were tested. Firstly, the R Studio-Lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012) was used to fit a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and test BSAS unidimensionality employing the weighted least squares means and variance adjusted (WLSMV) estimator due to its ability to deal with polichoric matrices and asymptotic distributions (Enders & Bandalos, 2001). Following the cut-off values outlined in Li (2016), goodness-of-fit indicators suggested sufficient fit to the data (χ2[14] = 50.39, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.989; TLI = 0.984; RMSEA = 0.05 [CI 0.04, 0.07]), with all items loadings saliently on one factor (standardized λ = 0.672–0.828; see Fig. 1). Secondly, pairwise residual correlations (LDχ2 statistics; Chen & Thissen, 1997) showed that items were locally independent (i.e., LDχ2 < 10; see Supplementary Table 2). Finally, the BSAS showed monotonicity (i.e., raw score continuously increased with increments in θ), as demonstrated by the test characteristic curve (TCC).
IRT models were estimated using the Bock-Aitkin marginal maximum likelihood algorithm with expectation–maximization (Bock & Aitkin, 1981). Both the Rasch (M2[656] = 1569.37; p < 0.001; χ2Loglikelihood = 12,159.35; RMSEA = 0.04; BIC = 12,303.35; AIC = 12,649.68) and the GRM (M2[669] = 1831.48; p < 0.001; χ2Loglikelihood = 12,331.56; RMSEA = 0.04; BIC = 13,256.55) demonstrated sufficient fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). However, when α was constrained to be equal across items, there was as a significant drop in fit (Δ χ2loglikelihood[7] = 172.21, p < 0.01) indicating that the GRM provided superior fit (Gomez et at., 2019). Except for Item 2 (mood modification), all items showed appropriate fit. Therefore, results should be interpreted with caution (see S-χ2 diagnostic statistics in Supplementary Table 3).
Item Parameters and DIF Statistics
Considering α, all items were in the high to very high range (0 = non-discriminative; 0.01–0.34 = very low; 0.35–0.64 = low; 0.65–1.34 = moderate; 1.35–1.69 = high; > 1.70 = very high; Baker, 2001). The descending sequence of the items’ α is Item 4 (tolerance), Item 7 (presenting problems), Item 3 (conflict), Item 5 (relapse), Item 6 (withdrawal), Item 2 (mood modification), and Item 1 (salience; see Table 2 and Fig. 2). Considering β, there were fluctuations between the different thresholds across the seven items. For example, while the ascending item sequence of β for the first threshold (β1—strongly disagree) was Items 1, 2, 6, 5, 4, 3, and 7, the ascending sequence in the fourth threshold (β4—strongly agree) was Items 2, 1, 4, 5, 7, 3, and 6. Nonetheless, β values gradually increased for all items as the “difficulty” of endorsing an item increased, indicating that all items performed accordingly. Considering c, values progressively decreased with increments in Likert categories (i.e., from c1—strongly disagree to c4—strongly agree), suggesting that participants’ pseudo-guessing diminished with more “difficult” options.
Wald tests were employed to identify potentially significant DIF across gender groups. Interestingly, DIF showed that most BSAS items were invariant across gender groups suggesting that the BSAS captures the risk of shopping addiction similarly among males and females. However, Item 2 (mood modification) demonstrated non-invariance in β across all thresholds (χ2cja[4] = 12.5, p = 0.014; Table 3 and Fig. 3). More specifically, β threshold for males included β1 = − 1.06; β2 = − 0.01; β3 = 0.53; and β4 = 2.14. Alternatively, β threshold for females included β1 = − 1.25; β2 = − 0.34; β3 = 0.10; and β4 = 1.76. This indicates that males require a higher risk of shopping addiction to endorse this item when compared to female participants.
Considering item information, interesting fluctuations across items and θ levels were observed. More specifically, Item 4 provided the highest level of information between − 0.5SD and + 2.5SD, Item 7 between 0SD and + 2.5SD, Items 3 and 5 between − 0.5SD and + 2.5SD, and Items 1, 2, and 3 provided very limited information across θ levels (see Item Information Function, IIF—dotted line, Fig. 1). This indicates that Items 4, 3, 7, and 5 should be prioritized when assessing individuals above mean risk of shopping addiction levels, and more specifically Items 3 and 7 should be emphasized when assessing individuals with extremely high (+ 2SD) risk of shopping addiction scores (see Table 4).
IRT Properties at Scale Level and Prevalence
Considering the performance of the scale, the BSAS demonstrated good properties. More specifically, the test characteristic curve (TCC; Fig. 4 left panel) demonstrated a steep increase of BSAS raw scores as θ (PSB) increases. Similarly, the test information function (TIF; Fig. 4 right panel) indicated that the BSAS provided increased information for θ levels between − 0.5SD and + 2.5SD. However, the scale may not provide such high information at high (+ 2.5SD) and low (− 0.5SD) risk of shopping addiction values.
Considering raw BSAS scores, the SSEAP [θ|x] identified scaled scores of 5 = 0SD, 14 = + 1SD, and 23 = + 2SD based on participants’ responses to all seven BSAS items (Table 5). Therefore, a score of 23 could be recommended as a conditional diagnostic cut-off point (prior to clinical assessment confirmation). Based on this cut-off point for risk of shopping addiction, 8% of participants (n = 75) in the sample exceeded it with no significant differences between males and females (χ2[1] = 0.289, p = 0.519). Additionally, raw BSAS scores between 14 and 23 could be used to identify medium risk of shopping addiction.
Discussion
The present study used IRT to (i) investigate the psychometric properties of the BSAS, (ii) assess its differential functioning across males and females, and (iii) estimate the proposed cut-off score for risk of shopping addiction in an adult English-speaking sample. The results demonstrated the BSAS to be a unidimensional measure for the risk of shopping addiction. All seven items showed sufficient discrimination (α), difficulty (β), and precision, indicating that the BSAS is a psychometrically sound instrument. Additionally, while six items assessed the risk of shopping addiction among males and females similarly, Item 2 (mood modification) required significantly higher latent trait levels in males to endorse the item. Finally, a BSAS score of 23 was identified as a proposed cut-off for risk of shopping addiction, with 8% of participants exceeding it, and no significant differences were observed between male and female prevalence rates.
BSAS Structure
In line with previous studies, the BSAS demonstrated a unidimensional factorial structure and good psychometric properties (Fig. 1; Andreassen et al., 2015). The seven-item BSAS is based upon the components model of addiction (salience, mood modification, tolerance, withdrawal, conflict, and relapse) with the additional inclusion of “presenting problems” (Griffiths, 2005). As such, this instrument represents each component with one item, allowing it to maintain its theoretical basis while providing a practical and succinct instrument (Voss et al., 2013). Given the current debate in the field of behavioral addictions, it is important to employ sound theoretical models with clinically identifiable symptoms to contribute to a cohesive body of empirical evidence supporting the recognition of diagnoses and/or disorders such as PSB.
IRT Properties and DIF Statistics
Considering the BSAS, the risk of shopping addiction inclined sharply as the total score increased, demonstrating a positive correlation between the BSAS scores and shopping addiction presentation. Thus, the BSAS can be an adequate instrument to measure the risk of shopping addiction among individuals with differing levels of problematic shopping presentation. Moreover, all IRT parameters showed interesting variability across items when considering different levels of shopping addiction risk. In line with previous literature, variations in α indicated that the GRM provided the optimal solution to fit the data (Marmara et al., 2021; Zarate et al., 2021). Much like previous literature investigating behavioral addictions, tolerance demonstrated the highest α highlighting the item’s ability to detect subtle changes in the risk of shopping addiction (Gomez et al., 2019; Kircaburun et al., 2020; Primi et al., 2021). For example, Gomez and colleagues (2019) indicated that components relating to tolerance often show higher discrimination power concerning disordered gaming. Tolerance is characterized by a progressively higher engagement in the problematic behavior over time to derive the same pleasure or satisfaction as originally felt when engaging in the behavior, and it may lead to addiction or disordered behaviors (James & Jowza, 2019). Therefore, clinical questions related to tolerance may be prioritized.
Considering β, all items showed a gradual increase between the first and last point of the Likert scale. However, the sequence of β changed depending on the items’ threshold. For example, while salience showed the lowest β1 (strongly disagree), mood modification showed the lowest β4 (strongly agree). Mood modification showed a combined low α and β compared to other items suggesting that this item may indicate less severe problems and may not accurately detect changes in risk of shopping addiction. In line with the self-medication model of addiction and the Interaction of Person-Affect-Cognition-Execution (I-PACE; Brand et al., 2016), mood modification may result in individuals engaging in disordered shopping as a maladaptive coping mechanism and to actively seek physiological stimulation with direct and observable effects on mood state and reducing psychological distress (Kovacs et al., 2022). However, results of the present study suggest that mood modification may initially attract individuals to engage in the disordered behavior and may not represent chronic addiction-like symptoms or severe problematic behavior (such as tolerance). Moreover, in line with previous behavioral addiction studies (Gomez et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2017; Primi et al., 2021), withdrawal showed the highest β4, indicating that this item could be indicative of severe risk of shopping addiction. Interestingly, presenting problems showed both high α and β, suggesting that this newly added item is useful in detecting different levels of risk of shopping addiction.
In addition, DIF statistics confirmed that Items 1 and 3–7 assess shopping addiction risk in the same way for males and females. However, endorsing β thresholds in Item 2 (mood modification) required a significantly higher risk of shopping addiction among males. In other words, mood modification may indicate a less severe risk of shopping addiction among males suggesting that females may be more prone to engage in shopping activities to modify their mood. While previous research has reported mixed findings concerning PSB prevalence rates across males and females (Maraz et al., 2016), theoretical perspectives suggest that females may be conditioned to engage more frequently with shopping activities to modify their mood or stress levels than males (Dittmar, 2005). However, this assertion should be approached with caution considering that gender constructs are being constantly challenged producing fundamental changes in the social fabric of Western societies (Van Droogenbroeck & Van Hove, 2020).
Item and Scale Precision
Considerable variations in precision were observed across BSAS items. More specifically, conflict, tolerance, and presenting problems increased precision between − 0.5SD and + 2.5SD. Conversely, salience, mood modification, and withdrawal demonstrated limited precision across latent trait levels suggesting that they may be less accurate compared to other items. Additionally, none of the items provided sufficient information to reliably identify individuals with significantly low levels of shopping addiction (− 3SD to − 2SD). Indeed, the total information function (TIF, Fig. 4 right panel) demonstrated a significant decrease in precision at the scale level reflecting items’ behavior. Nonetheless, the scale provides excellent precision between − 0.5SD and + 2.5SD, suggesting that the BSAS is an accurate and reliable instrument to capture the risk of shopping addiction within this range.
Cut-off Scores and Prevalence of Risk of Shopping Addiction
Based on the present sample, raw BSAS scores’ translation into scaled scores indicated that a cut-off of 23 or above (out of 28) represents scores + 2SD above the mean, and thus indicate a high risk of shopping addiction (Embretson & Reise, 2013; Thissen, 1995). Accordingly, following this suggested cut-off score, 8% of participants (n = 75) were considered at-risk of shopping addiction. Additionally, respondents recording BSAS raw scores between 14 and 23 are suggested to be at medium risk of shopping addiction (+ 1SD to + 2SD), and less than 14 are less likely to experience the risk of shopping addiction. Prevalence rates showed no significant differences between males and females, suggesting a possible bias effect due to social desirability (Biolcati, 2017).
Limitations, Further Research, and Conclusion
Despite robust findings, there are several limitations in the present study. Firstly, the findings here may not be generalizable to other cultures or languages given that the sample used in this study only comprised English-speaking participants. Secondly, the convenience sampling used to recruit participants may have attracted individuals from the online community and, therefore, may not represent the larger community. This may explain the BSAS’ limited functionality in extremely low scores below the mean. Thirdly, the self-reporting nature of the scale may have enabled social desirability to operate as a confounding factor attenuating potential differences between males and females (Fisher & Katz, 2000). Fourthly, considering that the recruited sample had a large percentage of male participants, further studies with more balanced samples may be needed to replicate the preliminary findings reported here. These limitations may be addressed in future research. Additionally, it may be interesting to investigate shopping addiction by age, as different age groups are likely to have different propensities to develop such behavior.
Despite these weaknesses, the present study provides further evidence of the seven-item BSAS as a valuable and psychometrically sound instrument for assessing the risk of shopping addiction. Overall, the findings observed here demonstrate meaningful differences in item discrimination, difficulty, and precision, which can be used to assess the risk of shopping addiction. Considering IRT item parameters, tolerance (Item 4) appears to be the item with the highest discrimination power, while mood modification (Item 2) appears to perform differently across the two genders.
Data Availability
References
Aboujaoude, E. (2011). Virtually you. The dangerous powers of the e-personality. W.W. Norton & Company Inc.
Aboujaoude, E. (2014). Compulsive buying disorder: A review and update. Current Pharmaceutical Design, 20(25), 4021–4025. https://doi.org/10.2174/13816128113199990618
Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716–723. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705
American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Publishing.
Andreassen, C. S., Griffiths, M. D., Pallesen, S., Bilder, R., Torsheim, T., & Aboujaoude, E. (2015). The Bergen Shopping Addiction Scale: Reliability and validity of a brief screening test. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1374. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01374
Andreassen, C. S., Pallesen, S., Griffiths, M. D., Torsheim, T., & Sinha, R. (2018). The development and validation of the Bergen-Yale Sex Addiction Scale with a large national sample. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 144. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00144
Baker, F. B. (2001). The basics of item response theory. http://ericae.net/irt/baker. Accessed 09/03/2022.
Biolcati, R. (2017). The role of self-esteem and fear of negative evaluation in compulsive buying. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 8, 74. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00074
Black, D. W. (2001). Compulsive buying disorder: Definition, assessment, epidemiology, and clinical management. CNS Drugs, 15, 17–27. https://doi.org/10.2165/00023210-200115010-00003
Bock, R. D., & Aitkin, M. (1981). Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of an EM algorithm. Psychometrika, 46(4), 443–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02293801
Brand, M., Young, K. S., Laier, C., Wölfling, K., & Potenza, M. N. (2016). Integrating psychological and neurobiological considerations rearding the development and maintenance of specific Internet-use disorders: An Interaction of Person-Affect-Cognition-Execution (I-PACE) model. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 71, 252–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.08.033
Cai, L., Du Toit, S. H. C., & Thissen, D. (2011). IRTPRO: Flexible, multidimensional, multiple categorical IRT modeling [Computer software]. Scientific Software International.
Chen, W.-H., & Thissen, D. (1997). Local dependence indexes for item pairs using item response theory. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22(3), 265–289. https://doi.org/10.2307/1165285
Christenson, G. A., Faber, R. J., de Zwaan, M., Raymond, N. C., Specker, S. M., Ekern, M. D., et al. (1994). Compulsive buying: Descriptive characteristics and psychiatric comorbidity. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 55(1), 5–11.
Culpepper, S. A. (2013). The reliability and precision of total scores and IRT estimates as a function of polytomous IRT parameters and latent trait distribution. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37(3), 201–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621612470210
De Ayala, R. J. (2008). The theory and practice of item response theory. Guilford Publications.
Dittmar, H. (2005). Compulsive buying – A growing concern? An examination of gender age, and endorsement of materialistic values as predictors. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 467–491. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712605X53533
Duroy, D., Gorse, P., & Lejoyeux, M. (2014). Characteristics of online compulsive buying in Parisian students. Addictive Behaviors, 39(12), 1827–1830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.07.028
Embretson, S.E., & Reise, S.P. (2013). Item response theory for psychologists (2nd Ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers
Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8(3), 430–457. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_5
Fisher, R. J., & Katz, J. E. (2000). Social-desirability bias and the validity of self-reported values. Psychology & Marketing, 17(2), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(200002)17:2%3c105::AID-MAR3%3e3.0.CO;2-9
Georgiadou, E., Koopmann, A., Müller, A., Leménager, T., Hillemacher, T., & Kiefer, F. (2021). Who was shopping more during the spring lockdown in Germany? Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, 650989. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.650989
Gomez, R., Stavropoulos, V., Beard, C., & Pontes, H. M. (2019). Item response theory analysis of the recoded internet gaming disorder scale-short-form (IGDS9-SF). International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 17(4), 859–879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-018-9890-z
Gomez, R., Stavropoulos, V., Zarate, D., & Palikara, O. (2021a). Symptom Checklist-90-Revised: A structural examination in relation to family functioning. PLoS ONE, 16(3), e0247902. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247902
Gomez, R., Stavropoulos, V., Zarate, D., & Griffiths, M. D. (2021b). ADHD symptoms, the current symptom scale, and exploratory structural equation modeling: A psychometric study. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 111, 103850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2020.103850
Gomez, R., Stavropoulos, V., Brown, T., & Griffiths, M. D. (2022). Factor structure of ten psychoactive substance addictions and behavioral addictions. Psychiatry Research, 313, 114605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114605
Granero, R., Fernández-Aranda, F., Mestre-Bach, G., Steward, T., Baño, M., del Pino-Gutiérrez, A., ... & Jiménez-Murcia, S. (2016). Compulsive buying behavior: clinical comparison with other behavioral addictions. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 914. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00914
Griffiths, M. D. (1996). Behavioural addiction: An issue for everybody? Employee Councelling Today, 8(3), 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665629610116872
Griffiths, M. D. (2005). A ‘components’ model of addiction within a biopsychosocial framework. Journal of Substance Use, 10(4), 191–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/14659890500114359
Griffiths, M. D. (2017). Behavioural addiction and substance addiction should be defined by their similarities not their dissimilarities. Addiction, 112, 1716–1724. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13828
Griffiths, M. D. (2018). Conceptual issues concerning internet addiction and internet gaming disorder: Further critique on Ryding and Kaye (2017). International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 16(1), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-017-9818-z
Hambleton, R. K., van der Linden, W. J., & Wells, C. S. (2010). IRT models for the analysis of polytomously scored data: Brief and selected history of model building advances. In M. Nering & R. Ostini (Eds.), Handbook of polytomous item response theory models (pp. 21–42). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Hartston, H. (2012). The case for compulsive shopping as an addiction. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 44(1), 64–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2012.660110
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structural analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
James, D. L., & Jowza, M. (2019). Treating opioid Dependence. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 62(1), 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1097/grf.0000000000000422
Jiang, Z., & Shi, M. (2016). Prevalence and co-occurrence of compulsive buying, problematic Internet and mobile phone use in college studens in Yantai, China: Relevance of self-traits. BMC Public Health, 16(1), 1211. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3884-1
Kardefelt-Winther, D., Heeren, A., Schimmenti, A., van Rooij, A., Maurage, P., Carras, M., Edman, J., Blaszczynski, A., Khazaal, Y., & Billieux, J. (2017). How can we conceptualize behavioural addiction without pathologizing common behaviours? Addiction, 112, 1709–1715. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13763
Kaur, M., Maheshwari, S. K., & Kumar, A. (2019). Compulsive buying behavior and online shopping addiction among health science teachers. International Journal of Nursing Care, 7(1), 74–80. https://doi.org/10.5958/2320-8651.2019.00014.0
Kim, H. S., & Hodgins, D. C. (2018). Component model of addiction treatment: A pragmatic transdiagnostic treatment model of behavioral and substance addictions. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 9, 406. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00406
Kircaburun, K., Ünübol, H., Sayar, G. H., Stavropoulos, V., & Griffiths, M. D. (2020). Measurement, prevalence, and psychological risk factors associated with addictive food consumption: Development of a new food addiction scale and evidence from a national largescale sample. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 9(3), 836–852. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2020.00052
Kovacs, J., Zarate, D., se Sena Collier, G., Tran, T. T. D., & Stavropoulos, V. (2022). Disordered gaming: The role of a gamer’s distress profile. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue Canadienne des sciences du comportament. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000335
Kyrios, M., Trotzke, P., Lawrence, L., Fassnacht, D. B., Ali, K., Laskowski, N. M., & Müller, A. (2018). Behavioral neuroscience of buying-shopping disorder: A review. Current Behavioral Neuroscience Reports, 5(4), 263–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40473-018-0165-6
Li, C.-H. (2016). The performance of ML, DWLS, and ULS estimation with robust corrections in structural equation models with ordinal variables. Psychological Methods, 21(3), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000093
Lin, C.-Y., Broström, A., Nilsen, P., Griffiths, M. D., & Pakpour, A. H. (2017). Psychometric validation of the Persian Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale using classic test theory and Rasch models. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 6(4), 620–629. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.6.2017.071
Little, R. J. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1198–1202.
Manchiraju, S., Sadachar, A., & Ridgway, J. L. (2017). The Compulsive Online Shopping Scale (COSS): Development and validation using panel data. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 15, 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-016-9662-6
Maraz, A., Griffiths, M. D., & Demetrovics, Z. (2016). The prevalence of compulsive buying: A meta-analysis. Addiction, 111(3), 408–419. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13223
Marmara, J., Zarate, D., Vassallo, J., Patten, R., & Stavropoulos, V. (2021). Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS): Measurement invariance across genders and item response theory examination. BMC Psychology, 10, 31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-022-00720-z
Meade, A. W., & Wright, N. A. (2012). Solving the measurement invariance anchor item problem in item response theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 1016–1031. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027934
Mellenbergh, G. J. (1994). Generalized linear item response theory. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 300–307. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.300
Moulding, R., Duong, A., Nedeljkovic, M., & Kyrios, M. (2017). Do you think that money can buy happiness? A review of the role of mood, materialism, self, and cognitions in compulsive buying. Current Addiction Reports, 4(3), 254–261.
Müller, A., Mitchell, J. E., Crosby, R. D., Gefeller, O., Faber, R. J., Martin, A., … & de Zwaan, M. (2010). Estimated prevalence of compulsive buying in Germany and its association with sociodemographic characteristics and depressive symptoms. Psychiatry Research, 180(2-3), 137-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2009.12.001
Müller, A., Laskowski, N. M., Wegmann, E., Steins-Loeber, S., & Brand, M. (2021b). Problematic online buying-shopping: Is it time to considering the concept of an online subtype of compulsive buying-shopping disorder or a specific internet-use disorder? Current Addiction Reports, 8(4), 494–499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40429-021-00395-3
Müller, A., Brand, M., Clase, L., Demetrovics, Z., de Zwaan, M., Fernández-Arande, F., Frost, R. O., Jimenez-Murcia, S., Lejoyeoux, M., … & Kyrios, M. (2019). Buying-shopping disorder – Is there enough evidence to support its inclusion in ICD-11? CNS Spectrums, 24(4), 374-379. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1092852918001323
Müller, A., Laskowski, N. M., Trotzke, P., Ali, K., Fassnacht, D. B., de Zwaan, M., Brand, M., Häder, M., & Kyrios, M. (2021a). Proposed diagnostic criteria for compulsive buying-shopping disorder: A Delphi expert consensus study. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2021a.00013
Muraki, E. (1992). A generalized partial credit model: Application of an EM algorithm. ETS Research Report Series, 1, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.1992.tb01436.x
Niedermoser, D. W., Petitjean, S., Schweinfurth, N., Wirz, L., Ankli, V., Schilling, H., …& Walter, M. (2021). Shopping addiction: A brief review. Practice Innovations, 6(3), 199-207. https://doi.org/10.1037/pri0000152
Otero-López, J. M., & Villardefrancos, E. (2014). Prevalence, sociodemographic factors, psychological distress, and coping strategies related to compulsive buying: A cross sectional study in Galicia, Spain. BMC Psychiatry, 14, 101. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-14-101
Otero-López, J. M., Santiago, M. J., & Castro, M. C. (2021). Big five personality traits, coping strategies and compulsive buying in Spanish university students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(2), 821. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020821
Potenza, M. N. (2014). Non-substance addictive behaviors in the context of DSM-5. Addictive Behaviors, 39(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.09.004
Primi, C., Fioravanti, G., Casale, S., & Donati, M. A. (2021). Measuring problematic Facebook use among adolescents and young adults with the Bergen Facebook Addiction Scale: A psychometric analysis by applying item response theory. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(6), 2979. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18062979
Rahman, M. A., Islam, M. A., Esha, B. H., Sultana, N., & Chakravorty, S. (2018). Consumer buying behavior towards online shopping: An empirical study on Dhaka city Bangladesh. Cogent Business & Management, 5(1), 1514940. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1514940
Rigby, D. (2011). The future of shopping. Harvard Business Review, 89(12), 65–76.
Rosseel, Y., 2012. Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5–12 (BETA). Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/. Accessed 09/03/2022.
Sahin, A., & Anil, D. (2017). The effects of test length and sample size on item parameters in item response theory. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 17(1), 321–335. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2017.1.0270
Samejima, F. (1996). The graded response model. In W. J. van del Linden & Hambleton, R. K. (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 85–100). Springer.
Schafer, J. L. (1999). Multiple imputation: A primer. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 8(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/096228029900800102
Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344136
Starcke, K., Antons, S., Trotzke, P., & Brand, M. (2018). Cue-reactivity in behavioral addictions: A meta-analysis and methodological considerations. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7(2), 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.7.2018.39
Tanoto, S. R., & Evelyn, E. (2019). Financial knowledge, financial wellbeing, and online shopping addiction among young Indonesians. JMK, 21(1), 32–40. https://doi.org/10.9744/jmk.21.1.32-40
Thissen, D. (1995). Item response theory for scores on tests including polytomous items with ordered responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169501900105
Thomas, M. L., Brown, G. G., Gur, R. C., Moore, T. M., Patt, V. M., Risbrough, V. B., & Baker, D. G. (2018). A signal detection-item response theory model for evaluation neuropsychological measures. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 40(8), 745–760. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2018.1427699
Uzarska, A., Czerwinski, S. K., & Atroszko, P. A. (2019). Shopping addiction is driven by personal focus rather than social focus values but to the exclusion of achievement and self-direction. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 19(3), 837–849. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-019-00193-z
Uzarska, A., Czerwiński, S. K., & Atroszko, P. A. (2021). Measurement of shopping addiction and its relationship with personality traits and well-being among Polish undergraduate students. Current Psychology, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01712-9
Valence, G., d’Astous, A., & Fortier, L. (1988). Compulsive buying: Concept and measurement. Journal of Consumer Policy, 11(4), 419–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00411854
Van Droogenbroeck, E., & Van Hove, L. (2020). Intra-household task allocation in online grocery shopping: Together alone. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 56, 102153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retconser.2020.102153
Voss, T., Bahr, D., Cummings, J., Mills, R., Ravina, B., & Williams, H. (2013). Performance of a shortened Scale for Assessment of Positive Symptoms for Parkinson’s disease psychosis. Parkinsonism & Related Disorders, 19(3), 295–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parkreldis.2012.10.022
World Health Organization (2019). International classification of diseases and related health problems (11th ed.). https://icd.who.int/. Accessed 09/03/2022.
Zarate, D., Marmara, J., Potoczny, C., Hosking, W., & Stavropoulos, V. (2021). Body Appreciation Scale (BAS-2): Measurement invariance across genders and item response theory examination. BMC Psychology, 9, 114. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-021-00609-3
Zarate, D., Ball, M., Montag, C., Prokofieva, M., & Stavropoulos, V. (2022). Unravelling the web of addictions: A network analysis approach. Addictive Behaviors Reports. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep.2022.100406
Zhao, H., Tian, W., & Xin, T. (2017). The development and validation of the online shopping addiction scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 735. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00735
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions The data collection for the present study was obtained through a grant from The Victoria University, Early Career Researcher Fund ECR 2020, number 68761601. The Australian Research Council, Discovery Early Career Researcher Award, 2021, number DE210101107.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
DZ contributed to the article’s conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, methodology, project administration, and writing of the original draft. LF contributed to the article’s conceptualization, data curation, writing of the original draft, formal analysis, methodology, and writing of the original draft. MP and MG contributed to writing, reviewing, and editing the final draft. VS contributed to the article’s conceptualization, data curation, writing of the original draft, formal analysis, methodology, and writing of the original draft.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethical Approval and Consent to Participate
Ethics approval granted by the Victoria University Ethics Committee. The current study only involved adult subjects (+ 18 years old) and informed consent was obtained in all cases.
Consent for Publication
All authors of the manuscript have read and agreed to its content and are accountable for all aspects of the accuracy and integrity of the manuscript. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Zarate, D., Fullwood, L., Prokofieva, M. et al. Problematic Shopping Behavior: An Item Response Theory Examination of the Seven-Item Bergen Shopping Addiction Scale. Int J Ment Health Addiction 21, 4108–4126 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-022-00844-8
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-022-00844-8