How Should Discrepancy Be Assessed in Perfectionism Research? A Psychometric Analysis and Proposed Refinement of the Almost Perfect Scale–Revised

Abstract

Research on perfectionism with the Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (APS-R) distinguishes adaptive perfectionists versus maladaptive perfectionists based primarily on their responses to the 12-item unidimensional APS-R discrepancy subscale, which assesses the sense of falling short of standards. People described as adaptive perfectionists have high standards but low levels of discrepancy (i.e., relatively close to attaining these standards). Maladaptive perfectionists have perfectionistic high standards and high levels of discrepancy. In the current work, we re-examine the psychometric properties of the APS-R discrepancy subscale and illustrate that this supposedly unidimensional discrepancy measure may actually consists of more than one factor.Psychometric analyses of data from student and community samples distinguished a pure fiveitem discrepancy factor and a second four-item factor measuring dissatisfaction. The five-item factor is recommended as a brief measure of discrepancy from perfection and the four-item factor is recommended as a measure of dissatisfaction with being imperfect. Overall, our results confirm past suggestions that most people with maladaptive perfectionism are characterized jointly by chronic dissatisfaction as well as a sense of being discrepant due to having fallen short of expectations. These findings are discussed in terms of their implications for the assessment of perfectionism, as well as the implications for research and practice. Assessing Discrepancy 3 How Should Discrepancy be Assessed in Perfectionism Research? A Psychometric Analysis and Proposed Refinement of the Almost Perfect Scale -RevisedThe current article re-examines the psychometric characteristics of the Almost Perfect Scale -Revised (APS-R; Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, & Ashby, 2001), which is a measure with an ironic name given the likelihood that no measure is perfect. While this paper is primarily focused on assessment issues, it stands as an example of how assessment and conceptual issues are often inextricably linked. Our particular focus is the APS-R discrepancy subscale, which is a unique, important, and influential subscale in theory and research on perfectionism (for a discussion, see Flett & Hewitt, 2014). Perfectionism is defined within the framework espoused by Slaney and colleagues as having both positive and negative aspects. Discrepancy largely accounts for the negative element. According to Slaney et al. (2001), discrepancy is "… the central and defining negative aspect of perfectionism" (p. 133). They defined discrepancy as "the perceived discrepancy or difference between the standards one has for oneself and one's actual performance" (p. 133). In a subsequent chapter, Slaney, Rice, and Ashby (2002) defined discrepancy as "… the perception that one consistently fails to meet the high standards one has set for themselves." When perfectionists judge themselves with discrepancy as their key context, perfectionists are distressed primarily because they tend to fall short of extant standards and ex...

Addressing Concerns About How Perfectionistic Discrepancy Should Be Measured With the Revised Almost Perfect Scale

“…Recently, Flett, Mara, Hewitt, Sirois, and Molnar (2016) provided a critical evaluation of the APS-R Discrepancy subscale. They examined item content and hypothesized that the subscale was not unidimensional because the items seemed to conflate discrepancy with negative affect and dissatisfaction.…”

A Systematic Review of the Psychometric Properties of Multidimensional Trait Perfectionism Self-Report Measures

“…Six studies were identified as having assessed the psychometric properties for the APS-R (Ashby & Rice, 2002; Flett, Mara, Hewitt, Sirois, & Molnar, 2016; Grzegorek, Slaney, Franze, & Rice, 2004; Rice, Ashby, & Slaney, 2007; Rice, Richardson, & Tueller, 2014; Slaney et al, 2001); one study for the BDQ (Lee, Roberts-Collins, Coughtrey, Phillips, & Shafran, 2011); two studies for the COPS (Kim, 2010; Stoeber, Hoyle, & Last, 2013); eleven studies for the FMPS (Anshel & Seipel, 2006; Burgess, Frost, & DiBartolo, 2016; Frost et al, 1990; Harvey, Pallant, & Harvey, 2004; Khawaja & Armstrong, 2005; Parker & Adkins, 1995; Purdon, Antony, & Swinson, 1999; Rice & Dellwo, 2001; Rice, Ashby, & Slaney, 1998; Stallman & Hurst, 2011; Stoeber, 1998); three studies for the HMPS (Hewitt & Flett, 1991; Hewitt, Flett, Turnbull-Donovan, & Mikail, 1991; Trumpeter, Watson, & O'Leary, 2006); three studies for the PANPS (Egan, Piek, Dyck, & Kane, 2011; Haase & Prapavessis, 2004; Terry-Short, Owens, Slade, & Dewey, 1995); two studies for the PI (Cruce, Pashak, Handal, Munz, & Gfeller, 2012; Hill et al, 2004); one study for the PSPS (Hewitt, Flett, Sherry, et al, 2003); two studies for the APS-R and FMPS (Kim, Chen, MacCann, Karlov, & Kleitman, 2015; Pearson & Gleaves, 2006); five studies for the FMPS and HMPS (Bieling, Israeli, & Antony, 2004; Cox, Enns, & Clara, 2002; Flett, Hewitt, Endler, & Tassone, 1995; Frost, Heimberg, Holt, Mattia, & Neubauer, 1993; Slaney, Ashby, & Trippi, 1995); and two studies for the APS-R, FMPS, and HMPS (Rice & Ashby, 2007; Suddarth & Slaney, 2001). A brief description of the measures of general multidimensional trait perfectionist included in this review, their subscales, and the constructs they aim to measure is detailed in Table 1.…”

Mediation Among Maladaptive Perfectionism, Maladaptive Emotion Regulation, and Distress

“…Support for validity was found as the subscales were significantly correlated with related measures of perfectionism (Slaney et al, 2001). Maladaptive perfectionists are typically defined by having high scores on the Standards and Discrepancy subscales, whereas adaptive perfectionists and non-perfectionists have low scores on Discrepancy (Flett et al, 2016). In the present study, Cronbach's coefficient alpha ranged from .82 to .91 for scores from the three subscales.…”

“…In a later text, Slaney, Rice, and Ashby (2002) described Discrepancy as the perception that one consistently fails to meet the high standards one sets for oneself. Seeing the significant impact Discrepancy has on maladaptive manifestations of perfectionism, Flett, Mara, Hewitt, Sirois, and Molnar (2016) evaluated the construct further to find two distinguishable factors of Discrepancy. Whereas one was found to be pure discrepancy, as defined above, a second was dissatisfaction, which refers to feelings of dissatisfaction after falling short.…”

“…This pattern may have to do with the measures of maladaptive perfectionism used in this study. High scores on the Discrepancy subscale of the APS-R represent dissatisfaction in one's performance in relation to one's high standards (Flett et al, 2016). High scores on the Doubts about Actions and Concerns over Mistakes subscales of the F-MPS are associated with selfcritical aspects of depression .…”