ArticleFrontiers in psychology2021
The Relationship Between Compulsive Buying and Hoarding in China: A Multicenter Study.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of a risk identification model for frailty in stroke survivors: new evidence from CHARLS.BMC public health · 2025Article
- The Prevalence of Compulsive Buying and Hoarding Behaviours in Emerging, Early, and Middle Adulthood: Multicentre Epidemiological Analysis of Non-clinical Chinese Samples.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is no previous research that has explored the correlation between compulsive buying and hoarding in the Chinese population. This study aims to determine the relationship between compulsive buying and hoarding in a sample of the Chinese population comprising participants from mainland China (emerging economy) and Hong Kong (developed economy). Self-reported measures consisting of demographic questions, the Chinese version of the Hoarding Rating Scale (CHRS), and Richmond Compulsive Buying Scale-Traditional Chinese (RCBS-TC) were administered to participants. After data collection, common method biases were precluded. The RCBS-TC and CHRS were validated by confirmatory factor analysis and found correlated by Pearson correlation coefficient. The RCBS-TC and CHRS demonstrated satisfactory levels of internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.872 and 0.828, respectively). A three-factor model, including hoarding, obsessive-compulsive, and impulse control disorders, was obtained through Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) with the satisfactory fit for the total sample from Hong Kong and mainland China. A significant correlation was found between RCBS-TC and CHRS (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.