The Reliability and Validity of Scores on the Almost Perfect Scale–Revised With Academically Talented Middle School Students

Abstract

The psychometric properties of the Almost Perfect Scale–Revised (APS-R, Slaney, Mobley, Rice, Trippi, & Ashby, 1999) scores were examined in this study. The APS-R consists of three subscales measuring adaptive (high standards, order) and maladaptive (discrepancy) perfectionism. Participants consisted of 342 academically talented middle school students from an academic summer school. Reliability estimates of APS-R subscale scores were in the moderate to high range. The three subscales emerged on exploratory factor analyses; however, confirmatory analyses indicated that the goodness-of-fit indices were just below the criteria for acceptability. The best fit was found for the Slaney et al.'s three-factor model. Correlations between APS-R subscales and grade-point average, an organization variable, and future goal completion provided convergent and divergent validity support for the three scores. The authors concluded that the validation of another perfectionism subscale in an academically talented sample prepares the field for longitudinal studies of perfectionism.

Perfectionism in adolescent school students: Relations to motivation, achievement, and well-being

“…In contrast, high standards-a core facet of perfectionistic strivings-were related to mastery orientation (indicating a preference for challenging tasks), work orientation (reflecting the desire to work hard), and higher grade point average. Similar findings are reported by two further studies (Nounopoulos et al, 2006;Vandiver & Worrell, 2002) that investigated perfectionism and school engagement in middle school students, and that also found high standards to be related to higher grade point average.…”

“…So far, only four studies have investigated how perfectionism relates to motivation, school achievement, and well-being in adolescent school students (Accordino, Accordino, & Slaney, 2000;Einstein, Lovibond, & Gaston, 2000;Nounopoulos, Ashby, & Gilman, 2006;Vandiver & Worrell, 2002). Employing Hewitt and Flett's multidimensional measure of perfectionism (Hewitt & Flett, 1991), Einstein et al (2000) investigated how self-oriented and socially prescribed pefectionism related to motivation, school engagement, and well-being in high school students prior to a period of major exams.…”

Perfectionism and Performance

“…In contrast, the relationship of perfectionistic concerns with academic performance is less clear. Whereas most studies did not find significant negative correlations of perfectionistic concerns with academic performance , some studies report small negative correlations (Blankstein et al, 2008;Flett, Blankstein, & Hewitt, 2009;Leenaars & Lester, 2006;Mobley, Slaney, & Rice, 2005;Nounopoulos et al, 2006;Rice & Ashby, 2007;Sevlever & Rice, 2010;Vandiver & Worrell, 2002). However, the majority of these findings are from studies that measured perfectionistic concerns with the APS-R Discrepancy scale (Slaney et al, 2001) which mainly J. Stoeber: Perfectionism and Performance 8 captures perfectionistic concerns about the discrepancy between one's expectations and performance.…”

“…Regarding the studies on perfectionism and academic performance, the overwhelming majority shows that perfectionistic strivings are positively associated with academic performance: students with higher levels of perfectionistic strivings show higher exam performance, higher individual grades, and a higher GPA than students with lower levels of perfectionistic strivings (Accordino, Accordino, & Slaney, 2000;Bieling, Israeli, Smith, & Antony, 2003;Blankstein, Dunkley, & Wilson, 2008;Blankstein & Winkworth, 2004;Brown et al, 1999;Castro & Rice, 2003;Enns, Cox, Sareen, & Freeman, 2001;Grzegorek, Slaney, Franze, & Rice, 2004;Kawamura, Frost, & Harmatz, 2002;Leenaars & Lester, 2006;Nounopoulos, Ashby, & Gilman, 2006;Rice & Ashby, 2007;Sevlever & Rice, 2010;Stoeber & Eismann, 2007;Stoeber & Rambow, 2007;Vandiver & Worrell, 2002;Verner-Filion & Gaudreau, 2010;Witcher, Alexander, Onwuegbuzie, Collins, & Witcher, 2007). In contrast, the relationship of perfectionistic concerns with academic performance is less clear.…”

Measuring Student Support for Participative Assessment and Related Strategies: Development and Testing of the Beliefs about Participative Assessment Instrument (BAPAI)

“…The subsequent fit indices were an improvement but still not satisfactory (CFMIN/df = 1.827; RMR =.07; GFI = .88; AGI = 0.85; RMSEA = 0.06; CFI = 0.91). Modification indices provide information to improve goodness of fit through the process of item reduction or scale revision (Vandiver & Worrell, 2002). The modification index for the errors associated with items 4 and 6 was identified as problematic (MI = 18.03) and item 6 was chosen for trimming having the lower coefficient of the two items in the EFA and reasonable fit indices were then obtained (CFMIN/df = 1.59; RMR =.06; GFI = .91; AGI = 0.87; RMSEA = 0.05; CFI = 0.94).…”