The Consequences of Perfectionism Scale

Stoeber, Joachim; Hoyle, Alison J.

doi:10.1177/0748175613481981

Cited by 9 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 43 publications

(78 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Six studies were identified as having assessed the psychometric properties for the APS-R 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, 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 ; 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;…”

Section: Results Of the Search Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Hunt

Abbott

2020

Behav. change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Different and evolving conceptualisations of perfectionism have led to the development of numerous perfectionism measures in an attempt to capture the true representations of the construct. It is, therefore, important to ensure that these instruments are valid and reliable. The present systematic review examined the literature for the psychometric properties of the most commonly used general multidimensional trait perfectionism self-report measures. Relevant studies were identified by a systematic electronic search of academic databases. A total of 349 studies were identified, with 38 of these meeting inclusion criteria. The psychometric properties presented in each of these studies were subjected to assessment using a standardised protocol. All studies were evaluated by two reviewers independently. Results indicated that while none of the included measures demonstrated adequacy across all of the nine psychometric properties assessed, most were found to possess adequate internal consistency and construct validity. The absence of evidence to support adequate measurement properties over a number of domains for the measures included in this review may be attributed to the criteria of adequacy used, with some appearing overly strict and less relevant to perfectionism measures. Clinical and research relevance of the present findings and directions for future research are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Results Of the Search Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Hunt

Abbott

2020

Behav. change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It was taken into account that there are perfectionists who work hard with the desire to do things above their real performance over time (Antony -Swinson, 2009), who have achieved great success, who do not see productivity and success as the criterion of their own value that they set for themselves, and who can experience emotional satisfaction regardless of the result. Although the categorization of perfectionism as normal and neurotic, positive and negative, adaptive and maladaptive, harmless and harmful, functional and dysfunctional, clinical and non-clinical began with Hamachek's article titled "Psychodynamics of Normal and Neurotic Perfectionism" published in 1978 (Hamachek, 1978), its systematic conceptualization with its sub-dimensions dates back to the early 1990s, when multidimensional perfectionism scales were developed (For the scales, see Frost vd., 1990;Hewitt -Flett, 1991;Terry-Short vd., 1995;Johnson -Slaney, 1996;Hill vd., 2004;Kim, 2010;Stoeber vd., 2013;Smith vd., 2016).…”

Section: Introduction 1 Perfectionism and Pietymentioning

confidence: 99%

Mükemmeliyetçi Dindarlık Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi ve Geçerliği-Türkçe Versiyon (MDÖ-T)

ULU

Mehmedoğlu

2022

Marife Dini Araştırmalar Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fact that the absolute is only God, and therefore, God is the first to come to mind when perfection is mentioned, is a common occurrence among believers. Perfectionism was also associated with God by the early personality theorists, moved away from its religious meaning over time, and its relationship with piety was little taken into account until recently. The fact that perfectionism, which has a religious motif in its essence, came to life in the field of religious sciences in general and psychology of religion in particular, in other words, bringing the concept of religious perfectionism into the literature became possible by a limited number of measurement attempts made after 2010. In this study, which we carried out to contribute to the concept of religious perfectionism in the Turkish literature, religious perfectionism, which is based on setting high standards for religious life, was discussed as a whole with order, discipline, inadequacy of one's self, perfect religious expectations and generalizations about others. Our study aims to fill the gap in the relevant literature by making the operational definition of religious perfectionism, as well as measuring it. After determining the need for scale development and literature review, multidimensional perfectionism scales were reviewed and an item pool was created. Some features of perfectionism, such as discipline, generalization, and performance control, which are not dimensioned in multidimensional scales, were also adapted to piety. Previously developed religious perfectionism scales were also examined and, unlike them, we attempted to emphasize both the individual's religious life and the perfect God perception. The opinions of five experts in the field of Psychology of Religion were consulted about the adequacy of the items, so the first form of the scale was prepared for the pilot scheme. The study group of the study consists of 610 Muslim participants who live in Turkey, believe in Allah (God) and regularly perform at least one worship. A total of 254 people, 192 (75.6%) of whom were female and 62 (24.4%) were male, participated in the pilot scheme. A total of 356 participants, 242 (68%) of whom were women and 114 (32%) were men, participated in the main study. The educational background of the participants was undergraduate or postgraduate, and the majority of them were between the ages of 18-30. In order to determine the validity of the scale, construct validity and criterion-related validity were examined. Explanatory Factor Analysis (n=254) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (n=356) were used for construct validity and correlation analysis was performed for criterion-related validity. In addition, the differences between the item mean scores of the lower 27% and upper 27% groups were tested with the unrelated T-test for item discrimination. The reliability of the scale was determined by Cronbach's Alpha (a) and test-retest methods. As a result of Explanatory Factor Analysis, the scale was divided into two factors as Positive Religious perfectionism and Negative Religious perfectionism, as designed. The positive dimension of the scale included items that included the very high standards that the person set about God and his religious life, the order and discipline shown in worship. In the negative dimension of the scale, items such as finding the worships inadequate, doubting the actions and worrying about making mistakes, as well as the general acceptances that the individual has about himself, God or others, were included. The total score of the dimensions showed the general religious perfectionism level, and as the score gets higher, so does the religious perfectionism level. The scale can be used to measure the general religious perfectionism level based on the total score in the studies to be carried out, or it can also be used by dividing it into its positive and negative factors. The internal consistency coefficient of Positive Religious perfectionism was 0.913; it was 0.876 for Negative Religious perfectionism, and the overall reliability for the 22-item structure of the scale was 0.904. As a result of the test-retest performed with a new study group of 95 people with an interval of 14 days, a positive significant correlation was found between the pretest and retest levels (r=0.960 p

show abstract

The Effectiveness of Integrated Training Programme (ITP) in Decreasing Female Students’ Test Anxiety: Moderating Effect of Mothers’ Perfectionism

Pourtaleb

mirnasab

Hadidi

2018

Educational Psychology in Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Consequences of Perfectionism Scale

Cited by 9 publications

References 43 publications

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

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

Mükemmeliyetçi Dindarlık Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi ve Geçerliği-Türkçe Versiyon (MDÖ-T)

The Effectiveness of Integrated Training Programme (ITP) in Decreasing Female Students’ Test Anxiety: Moderating Effect of Mothers’ Perfectionism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About