Evidence for the Validity of the Clinical Perfectionism Questionnaire in a Nonclinical Population: More Than Just Negative Affectivity

Abstract

This study examined the validity of the Clinical Perfectionism Questionnaire (CPQ; Fairburn, Cooper, & Shafran, 2003) in a nonclinical sample of 61 men and 182 women. Consistent with expectations, we found that scores on the CPQ were positively associated with scores on common measures of maladjustment, namely, depressive symptoms, anxious symptoms, and stress. In addition, results from regression analyses indicated that the CPQ accounted for additional variance in each of the 3 indexes of maladjustment beyond what was accounted for by multidimensional perfectionism and negative affectivity. Accordingly, our findings provide promising support for the validity of the CPQ in a nonclinical population.

The Clinical Perfectionism Questionnaire: Further evidence for two factors capturing perfectionistic strivings and concerns

“…Our findings confirmed previous findings that the CPQ total scores showed convergent validity with measures of dispositional perfectionism (e.g., Chang & Sanna, 2012;Steele et al, 2011). In addition, our finding of large-sized positive correlations between CPQ total scores and perfectionism cognitions provide further evidence for the CPQ's convergent validity.…”

“…The findings are mixed. On the one hand, Steele, O'Shea, Murdock, andWade (2011) andSanna (2012) found the CPQ total scores to show good reliability (Cronbach's alphas = .83) and convergent validity displaying large-sized positive correlations 1 with personal standards perfectionism, evaluative concerns perfectionism, and the subscales of the Hewitt-Flett Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (HF-MPS).…”

A randomised controlled trial of face to face versus pure online self-help cognitive behavioural treatment for perfectionism

“…The CPQ (Fairburn, Cooper, & Shafran, 2003) is a 12-item questionnaire assessing levels of clinical perfectionism over the past month using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (all of the time). It has good convergent validity (Chang & Sanna, 2012), internal consistency, and test-retest reliability (Dickie, Surgenor, Wilson, & McDowall, 2012), although current internal consistency was marginal (a ¼ .69).…”

Clinical perfectionism and eating psychopathology in athletes: The role of gender

“…While the CPQ has been readily employed in clinical studies since its development, it is only recently that studies have assessed its validity and reliability, producing equivocal findings (Dickie et al, 2012;Stoeber & Damian, 2014). For example, using male and female undergraduate students, a number of studies have highlighted the CPQ to demonstrate good reliability and convergent validity (e.g., Chang & Sanna, 2012;Stoeber & Damian, 2014), while studies employing female clinical samples have noted it to be only satisfactory in terms of its reliability, meeting the minimum threshold (e.g., Steele, Waite, Egan, Finnigan & Handley et al, 2013).…”