Sironic Amanda, Reeve Robert A
Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne.
Psychol Assess. 2015 Dec;27(4):1471-83. doi: 10.1037/pas0000137. Epub 2015 May 18.
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.
为了探究弗罗斯特多维完美主义量表(FMPS;弗罗斯特、马滕、拉哈特和罗森布拉特,1990)、儿童与青少年完美主义量表(CAPS;弗利特、休伊特、布歇、戴维森和芒罗,2000)以及修订版近乎完美量表(APS-R;斯莱尼、赖斯、莫布利、特里皮和阿什比,2001)在维度结构上的异同,938名高中生完成了这三份完美主义问卷以及抑郁焦虑压力量表(DASS;洛维邦德和洛维邦德,1995)。初步分析揭示了每份完美主义问卷常见的因子结构。对问卷(合并后)的项目回答进行探索性因子分析得出了一个四因子解决方案(因子分别标记为高个人标准、担忧、怀疑与差异、外部动机完美主义以及条理与秩序)。对个体在这四个因子上的平均评分进行潜在类别分析得出了一个六类别解决方案。六个类别中的三个代表完美主义亚组(分别标记为适应性完美主义者、外部动机适应不良完美主义者和混合适应不良完美主义者),另外三个代表非完美主义亚组(分别标记为非完美主义A、非完美主义B以及条理与秩序非完美主义者)。六个亚组中的每一个都与抑郁焦虑压力量表有显著关联。研究结果表明,每十名学生中有三名被归类为适应不良完美主义者,且适应不良完美主义者比适应性完美主义者更为普遍。总之,很明显,FMPS、CAPS和APS-R的综合评分能够对完美主义进行有意义的刻画。