Roth Isabel, Cludius Barbara, Egan Sarah J, Limburg Karina
Department of Psychology, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
School of Psychology and Speech Pathology, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.
Clin Psychol Eur. 2021 Jun 18;3(2):e3623. doi: 10.32872/cpe.3623. eCollection 2021 Jun.
The aim was to create a German version of the Clinical Perfectionism Questionnaire (CPQ-D) and to test its factor structure, reliability, and validity in a non-clinical population.
We recruited N = 432 participants via an online panel. The factor structure of CPQ-D was examined. The convergent, discriminative, and incremental validity was assessed in relation to the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS) and the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS).
Exploratory factor analysis resulted in two factors. Factor 1 represented the over evaluation of striving and Factor 2 was associated to concern over mistakes. Internal consistency was acceptable with ω = .81 for the total score, ω = .77 for Factor 1, and ω = .73 for Factor 2. Convergent, discriminative, and incremental validity was demonstrated. Important to note, Item 12 should be used with caution since it showed low communality and a low item-total correlation and should therefore be further evaluated in future research.
The results indicate that the German translated version of the CPQ has acceptable internal consistency, convergent, discriminative and incremental validity. Future research should test the CPQ-D scale further in clinical and non-clinical populations and assess a broader variety of scales to determine validity of the scale.
目的是创建《临床完美主义问卷》德文版（CPQ-D），并在非临床人群中测试其因子结构、信度和效度。
我们通过在线小组招募了N = 432名参与者。对CPQ-D的因子结构进行了检验。针对弗罗斯特多维完美主义量表（FMPS）和正负性情绪量表（PANAS）评估了其聚合效度、区分效度和增量效度。
探索性因子分析得出两个因子。因子1代表对努力的过度评价，因子2与对错误的担忧相关。总分的内部一致性可接受，ω = 0.81；因子1的内部一致性为ω = 0.77；因子2的内部一致性为ω = 0.73。证明了聚合效度、区分效度和增量效度。需要注意的是，第12项应谨慎使用，因为它的共同度较低且项目总分相关性较低，因此应在未来研究中进一步评估。
结果表明，CPQ的德文翻译版本具有可接受的内部一致性、聚合效度、区分效度和增量效度。未来研究应在临床和非临床人群中进一步测试CPQ-D量表，并评估更广泛的量表以确定该量表的效度。
