To investigate differences and similarities in the dimensional constructs of the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS; Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990), Child and Adolescent Perfectionism Scale (CAPS; Flett, Hewitt, Boucher, Davidson, & Munro, 2000), and Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (APS-R; Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, & Ashby, 2001), 938 high school students completed the 3 perfectionism questionnaires, as well as the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). Preliminary analyses revealed commonly observed factor structures for each perfectionism questionnaire. Exploratory factor analysis of item responses from the questionnaires (combined) yielded a 4-factor solution (factors were labeled High Personal Standards, Concerns, Doubts and Discrepancy, Externally Motivated Perfectionism, and Organization and Order). A latent class analysis of individuals' mean ratings on each of the 4 factors yielded a 6-class solution. Three of the 6 classes represented perfectionist subgroups (labeled adaptive perfectionist, externally motivated maladaptive perfectionist, and mixed maladaptive perfectionist), and 3 represented nonperfectionist subgroups (labeled nonperfectionist A, nonperfectionist B, and order and organization nonperfectionist). Each of the 6 subgroups was meaningfully associated with the DASS. Findings showed that 3 out of 10 students were classified as maladaptive perfectionists, and maladaptive perfectionists were more prevalent than adaptive perfectionists. In sum, it is evident that combined ratings from the FMPS, CAPS, and APS-R offer a meaningful characterization of perfectionism.

No abstract

Seeing the talker improves the intelligibility of speech degraded by noise (a visual speech benefit). Given that talkers exaggerate spoken articulation in noise, this set of two experiments examined whether the visual speech benefit was greater for speech produced in noise than in quiet. We first examined the extent to which spoken articulation was exaggerated in noise by measuring the motion of face markers as four people uttered 10 sentences either in quiet or in babble-speech noise (these renditions were also filmed). The tracking results showed that articulated motion in speech produced in noise was greater than that produced in quiet and was more highly correlated with speech acoustics. Speech intelligibility was tested in a second experiment using a speech-perception-in-noise task under auditory-visual and auditory-only conditions. The results showed that the visual speech benefit was greater for speech recorded in noise than for speech recorded in quiet. Furthermore, the amount of articulatory movement was related to performance on the perception task, indicating that the enhanced gestures made when speaking in noise function to make speech more intelligible.