Psychometric Evidence of the Short Almost Perfect Scale (SAPS) in Brazil

Abstract

Portuguese

Perfectionism can be understood as a personality trait that establishes excessively high standards for the performance of individuals and ostensibly critical self-evaluations. It is associated with a range of variables, such as anxiety, suicidal tendencies, depression, and low satisfaction with life. The Short Almost Perfect Scale (SAPS) overcame some limitations of previous measures (e.g., ambiguity, nonnecessary factors). In the present research, we provide psychometric evidence of the adequacy of the SAPS in Brazil. The original two-factor structure was replicated. The items showed good discrimination, level of difficulty, and informativeness for the overall measure. The SAPS also presented acceptable reliability levels, full measurement invariance across participants’ gender, and partial invariance across countries (Brazil and the United States). Finally, perfectionism was meaningfully associated with personality traits and human values. In sum, our findings suggest that the SAPS is psychometrically adequate for further use in Brazil.

Keywords

perfectionism validation psychometric properties personality human values

Significance of the Scholarship to the Public

Perfectionism can have a negative impact on people’s lives. For example, perfectionism is associated with anxiety and suicidal tendencies. A fundamental requirement to study perfectionism is its reliable and valid measurement. The present research provides psychometric evidence for the adequacy of the Short Almost Perfect Scale (SAPS) in Brazil through a range of methods. Our research shows that the SAPS is a reliable and psychometrically robust measure, which can benefit researchers and practitioners alike. Further, our research also contributes to the cross-cultural understanding of perfectionism.

Perfectionism can be understood as a personality trait that establishes excessively high standards for individuals’ performance and critical self-evaluations (Frost et al., 1990; Hewitt & Flett, 2014). Perfectionism can be relevant in many situations. For example, if you are starting a new business, it is important to invest time and effort to make your company known and to establish a good reputation. Setting high standards for yourself—that is, being (somewhat) perfectionistic—might help one to be perceived as reliable, and attract customers. At university, students who do everything they can to achieve very good grades can be seen as perfectionists. However, perfectionism can also be(come) problematic. Extreme perfectionists are compulsive in reaching perfection, they are rigid and inflexible in their thoughts, actions, and feelings. This might drive them to pursue perfection in situations in which being perfect is irrelevant, which becomes an indicator of personality dysfunction. Also, extreme perfectionists tend to demand perfection from others (Flett et al., 2016).

Research has shown significant correlations of perfectionism with several variables relevant to counseling, such as fatigue, emotional exhaustion, anxiety, and suicidal tendencies (e.g., Flaxman et al., 2012; Smith et al., 2017), which makes its reliable and valid measurement pivotal. In counseling psychology, reliable and valid measurement of perfectionism will help to provide a better understanding on the underlying mechanisms that link perfectionism to such variables. Specifically, perfectionism has a maladaptive side that may relate to an increase in psychopathologies (Curran & Hill, 2019), making people more vulnerable to depression, anxiety (Moroz & Dunkley, 2019), and an increased risk of suicide (Hamilton & Schweitzer, 2000).

Despite the relevance of perfectionism for mental health, there is little research on it in Brazil. Previously, the Sport-Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale-2 was validated in Brazil, allowing sport psychologists to better understand the phenomena amongst athletes (Nascimento Junior et al., 2015). In another study, perfectionism was associated with eating disorders in young women (Fortes et al., 2015). Also, perfectionism showed significant associations with psychiatric disorders. It showed higher scores in individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder and eating disorders than in nonclinical participants (Maia et al., 2009). Finally, the interaction between perfectionism and sensory phenomena distinguished participants with obsessive-compulsive disorder from control subjects (Lee et al., 2009). Despite these promising findings, more research is needed in Brazil to better understand perfectionism, its correlates, antecedents, and consequences. We speculate that this lack of research can also partly be attributed to the lack of a reliable and valid measurement of perfectionism in Brazil. Thus, in the present study, we close this gap in the literature by validating a perfectionism scale. This scale might also be useful for Brazilian counseling psychologists because it allows them, for example, to test the efficacy of interventions that can aim to reduce the maladaptive aspects of perfectionism and enhance the quality of a client’s life and well-being.

The present research aimed to test whether the Short Almost Perfect Scale (SAPS; K. G. Rice et al., 2014) is psychometrically suited in the Brazilian context. That is, we assessed whether the structure of the SAPS replicates in a non-Western country (Henrich et al., 2010), which is somewhat neglected in psychological research. Furthermore, the SAPS might help to reveal specific cross-cultural differences between Brazil and other countries. For instance, Curran and Hill (2019) suggested that many cultural aspects can influence the development of perfectionism, such as the emergence of neoliberalism and the idea of meritocracy. However, the previously mentioned authors considered, rich, industrialized, and developed countries in their analysis. In contrast, our research focused on Brazil, a developing country, with very unequal wealth distribution. Brazil occupies the 150th position in the world ranking of economic liberty (Index of Economic Freedom, 2019), the 105th in the world ranking of perception of corruption (Transparency International, 2018), and is the 10th most inequal country in the world (Index Mundi, n.d.).

In a corrupt and inequal environment, being perfect may not be enough to reach one’s goals. To achieve these goals, it might be more effective to use deceptive and transgressive behaviors, such as taking advantage of others (Miura et al., 2019). Indeed, these behaviours have been labelled jeitinho, which includes the use of corruption and norm breaking as problem-solving strategies (Ferreira et al., 2012). Another cultural aspect that makes it relevant to study perfectionism in Brazil is the performance of Brazilian students in the Program for International Student Assessment, a global research assessment that evaluates students’ skills (Organização para a Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Económico, 2015). Brazilian students score below average. Further, there are almost 13 million unemployed people in Brazil (Agência IBGE, 2019). Together, this suggests that being perfectionistic does not pay off to the same extent as in more egalitarian and successful countries. Instead, people might be more frequently incentivized to take “shortcuts” and cheat (cf. Ferreira et al., 2012) rather than work hard.

Types and Factors

Hamacheck (1978) distinguished two types of perfectionism, normal and neurotic. Normal perfectionism can be understood as positive: Individuals tend to pursue realistic objectives in a very efficient and effective way, allowing themselves to fail without compromising their well-being. In contrast, neurotic perfectionism is about setting unrealistic high standards, being driven by their fear of failure, and thinking that their own efforts are never enough to achieve personal goals. Stoeber and Otto (2006) argued that extensive research supports Hamacheck’s two types of perfectionism (e.g., Frost et al., 1993; Hill et al., 2004).

Following Hamacheck (1978), research has consistently found two factors of perfectionism (e.g., K. G. Rice et al., 2014; Slaney et al., 2001): standards and discrepancy. The standards factor represents high personal performance expectations, which arise in people who desire to achieve perfection and avoid failures; in other words, rigorous behaviors for themselves (K. G. Rice et al., 2014). On the other hand, the discrepancy factor represents the “perceived gap between personal standards and one’s evaluation of having met those standards” (K. G. Rice et al., 2014, p. 368); that is, the perceived failure in achieving desired levels of perfectionism. This discrepancy is associated with several pathologies such as depression, anxiety, and low satisfaction with life (e.g., Elion et al., 2012; Sherry et al., 2012). In addition, these studies have also proposed a third factor of perfectionism: order, which is related to the need to reach high standards—although it reflects more the preference for being organized. However, although order was initially a factor of the Almost Perfect Scale–Revised (APS-R), it was eventually dismissed. It showed acceptable psychometric indices (Stoeber & Otto, 2006), but no predictive validity. Also, order seemed more like a consequence of being perfectionistic, rather than a regular aspect of the construct itself. Thus, the authors disregarded this factor in the SAPS and only kept standards and discrepancies (K. G. Rice et al., 2014).

APS-R and SAPS

We first describe the widely used APS-R, before we discuss the SAPS. The APS-R originally consisted of 23 items covering three factors: standards, discrepancy, and order. The APS-R can assess different profiles of perfectionists, which allows for categorizing people depending on their responses (Ashby et al., 2008; K. G. Rice & Ashby, 2007). Individuals who score high in standards and low in discrepancy are classified as adaptive/healthy perfectionists (which can be seen as the normal type in Hamacheck’s classification). Individuals who score high on both factors are classified as maladaptive/unhealthy perfectionists, a type commonly associated with poor mental health (K. G. Rice et al., 2014). Individuals who score low on standards but high on discrepancy are classified as self-critical perfectionists (Arana & Furlan, 2016; Gaudreau, 2012). Finally, individuals who score low on both factors are labeled nonperfectionists.

The APS-R was developed and validated in the United States (Slaney et al., 2001), and found to be psychometrically suitable in several countries, including Argentina (Arana et al., 2017), Japan (Nakano, 2009), China (Wang et al., 2007), and South Korea (Park, 2009). Although psychometrically suited, its applicability was not consistent across all the countries. For instance, Wang et al. (2007) identified a new profile of perfectionists (high standards with higher discrepancy scores), emerged apparently because of cultural differences. Also, the seemingly orthogonal factors did not hold in Argentina (Arana et al., 2017) by not achieving measurement invariance for standard items, which raised concerns about the cross-national comparability of the measure. Nevertheless, the APS-R correlated to several constructs, such as perceived stress, drinking to cope (K. G. Rice & Arsdale, 2010), adult attachment, hopelessness, life satisfaction (Gnilka et al., 2013), and well-being (Wang et al., 2007).

Therefore, the APS-R contains some limitations, such as its length, an unnecessary third factor (order), ambiguity, and redundancy of some items (K. G. Rice et al., 2014). To address these limitations, a brief version of the APS-R was developed, the SAPS, which consists of eight items equally spread across two-factors: standards and discrepancy (K. G. Rice et al., 2014). The measure evaluates perfectionism through the patterns of efforts and concerns of individuals (K. G. Rice et al., 2014). Overall, the measure is psychometrically suitable with its two-factor structure (e.g., CFI = .96; RMSEA = .05), and is reliable (standards α = .85, discrepancy α = .87). The authors found that the APS-R is invariant across gender, which allows for comparison between women and men in a meaningful way (e.g., Davidov et al., 2014). Finally, K. G. Rice et al. (2014) found meaningful correlations between the Big-5 personality traits and perfectionism: standards was significantly and positively correlated with conscientiousness, while discrepancy was significantly correlated to neuroticism (negatively) and conscientiousness (positively).

Present Research

Since findings of psychological studies can differ within and across countries (e.g., Hanel & Vione, 2016; Henrich et al., 2010), replications are necessary to test whether the SAPS can be used in non-Western countries. In the present research, we tested the reliability and validity of the SAPS (K. G. Rice et al., 2014) in Brazil. This not only allowed us to test whether the factorial structure of SAPS replicates in a non-Western country, but also allowed us to extend previous research by correlating the SAPS dimensions with personality traits and human values. We expected that the two-factor structure would also replicate in Brazil.

To provide a powerful test of the psychometric properties of the SAPS, we used a range of analyses, which were only partly used by K. G. Rice et al. (2014) when they introduced the SAPS. Specifically, besides the usual techniques used in previous studies (e.g., exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis), we assessed the SAPS through item response theory, which is an important technique to explain the associations between the item and the underlying construct (Cappelleri, Jason Lundy, & Hays, 2014). Also, to provide more information regarding the transcultural aspects of the measure, participants from our sample (Brazil) were compared to U.S.-based participants whose responses were reported in one of the original validation studies (K. G. Rice et al., 2014), through measurement invariance, using multigroup confirmatory factor analysis.

Finally, based on previous studies (e.g., Ulu & Tezer, 2010), and characteristics that define standards (e.g., being competent, imaginative, and assertive) and discrepancy (e.g., anxiety, depression), we expected to find positive correlations between conscientiousness, openness to change, and extroversion with standards, while neuroticism was expected to correlate positively with discrepancy. No research has explored the relations between human values and perfectionism, to the best of our knowledge. Human values are guiding principles in people’s life and serve different motives and needs (Gouveia et al., 2014; Schwartz, 1992). For example, some of the values such as those related to promotion, power, or achievement, refer to self-enhancing motives. We expected that such self-enhancing values would be related to standards, because perfectionism can also serve self-enhancing motives and needs. This reasoning is in line with previous research that has found that perfectionism is related to narcissism (Sherry et al., 2014), which in turn, is related to power, prestige, and achievement (Kajonius et al., 2015). Further, self-enhancing values were positively associated with depression (Elion et al., 2012; Hanel & Wolfradt, 2016).

Method

Participants and Procedure

Participants were 421 Brazilians (women = 245, men = 176), with an age range from 14 to 67 years (M_age = 23.98, SD = 6.49). The majority of the participants aimed to obtain a university degree during the time of the data collection or had recently obtained one (n = 404). Most of the participants declared themselves as heterosexuals (n = 332; 78.9%), and Catholics (n = 161; 38.2%) or religiously unaffiliated (n = 155; 36.8%). The study was advertised on social networks (e.g., Facebook, Instagram) with a short description of the purpose of the study and a link to an online survey.

The researchers in the K. G. Rice et al. (2014) study kindly shared the descriptive data of their student sample (n = 340; M_age = 19.40, SD = 1.46; women = 264, men = 67, missing data = 9), which allowed us to test for measurement invariance. Five participants were removed from their sample, because they were outliers as defined by K. G. Rice et al. (2014). Their participants were recruited from undergraduate courses and received research credits for their participation.

Measures

Short Almost Perfect Scale (SAPS)

The SAPS (K. G. Rice et al., 2014) assesses perfectionism through individuals’ strivings and concerns. It consists of eight items, equally divided into two factors, standards (e.g., “I have high expectations for myself”) and discrepancy (e.g., “My performance rarely measures up to my standards”). Responses were given on a seven-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). For its translation (see full Brazilian-Portuguese version in the Appendix), the help of three bilingual collaborators was utilized; two made the translation into Brazilian-Portuguese and another conducted a back-translation. Subsequently, a pilot study was carried out with the participation of twenty undergraduate students. The sample was equally distributed in terms of gender, and the comprehension of items and instructions were verified. No changes were necessary.

Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI)

The TIPI (Gosling et al., 2003) measures the Big Five factors of personality, with two items per factor whose scores are averaged: openness to experiences (inter-item correlation, r = .28), conscientiousness (r = .30), extraversion (r = .51), agreeableness (r = .12), and emotional stability (r = .48). Participants reported to what extent 10 adjectives are characteristics for their personality, including “extraverted, enthusiastic” (extraversion), and “critical, quarrelsome” (neuroticism). Responses were given on a seven-point Likert-type scale 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly). It is important to note that Gosling et al.’s (2003) aim was to create a personality measure that optimized validity (e.g., content validity), instead of an instrument with high reliability levels. This explains the partly low inter-item correlations of this study but also of other studies. Despite the low inter-item correlations, the TIPI is a widely used measure (see Gosling, n.d.).

In addition, a subset of 338 participants completed the Basic Values Survey (Gouveia et al., 2008). The measure is composed of 18 items which are equally distributed among six subfunction of values: excitement (Cronbach’s alpha, α = .61, mean of inter-item correlations [Mr.] = .36), promotion (α = .62, Mr. = .35), suprapersonal (α = .51, Mr. = .28), existence (α = .50, Mr. = .25), interactive (α = .61, Mr. = .34), and normative (α = .70, Mr. = .47) values. Participants were instructed to rate how important they consider each of the values as a guiding principle in their lives. Example items include, “Pleasure (to live for the moment; to satisfy all your desires)” and “Emotion (to enjoy challenges or unknown situations; to look for adventure).” Responses were given on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (completely unimportant) to 7 (of the utmost importance). Considering that alpha is sensitive to the number of items, and low alphas are common to value measures (e.g., Gouveia et al., 2014; Schwartz, 2005), we decided to calculate the mean of inter-item correlations, providing additional evidence that indicate acceptable coefficients for research purposes.

Data Analysis

The “R” software was used (R Development Core Team, 2015) to perform all the analyses, using several packages. First, to assess the structure, the sample was divided for an exploratory factor analysis (EFA; n = 211) and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; n = 210). The EFA was used to identify the structure of SAPS in Brazil, using the Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) procedure with promax rotation. An EFA is necessary to assess the underlying theoretical structure of a set of items in a new context. That is, it allows us to check how the items are interrelated. Therefore, as the SAPS has not been previously used in Brazil, the EFA was an important first step. The Psych and nFactors statistical packages were used (Raiche et al., 2013; Revelle, 2013). Following Stevens’ (2012) recommendation for sample sizes of 200, we considered items with loadings higher than |.364| as relevant for a factor.

Next, we assessed the structure through CFA, using the maximum likelihood robust (MLR) method. To evaluate whether the fit indices were sufficient, we relied on the following cut-off values (Hair et al., 2015; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013): (a) chi-square (χ²), which is recommended to be nonsignificant; (b) comparative fit index (CFI) and (c) Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), which are required to be higher than .90; and (d) root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), which must be lower than .80.

For all further analysis, we used the full Brazilian sample. We then assessed the discrimination, difficulty, and informativeness of the items with the Multidimensional Item Response Theory (MIRT) package (Chalmers, 2012) in R software. Within the MIRT analysis, we used the graded response model, due to the polytomous nature (more than two answer categories) of the measure (Samejima, 1968).

To test whether the SAPS could be meaningfully compared across gender and countries, we performed a multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA; MLR Estimator). A MGCFA tests whether the different groups understand the measure in an equivalent way, allowing meaningful comparisons across the groups. In this case, a complete measurement invariance would indicate that the SAPS can be used for gender and cross-cultural comparisons. Specifically, we tested whether configural, metric, and scalar invariance can be established (Milfont & Fischer, 2010), which should present values of ΔCFI ≤ .01, and ΔRMSEA ≤ .015 (Chen, 2007; Cheung & Rensvold, 2002).

Finally, McDonald’s omega and Cronbach’s alpha were considered to assess the reliability of the measure. The reliability of the measures was investigated through the userfriendlyscience package (Peters, 2016). The convergent validity was assessed through correlations with personality traits and human values.

Results

Exploratory Factor Analysis

For the EFA and CFA, the sample was divided. An exploratory factor analysis was performed with 211 participants. First, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s test measured the sampling adequacy (Hair et al., 2015), with results supporting the performance of an EFA [KMO = .77 and the Bartlett sphericity test, χ² (28) = 497.3, p < .001]. All criteria used to determine the number of factors to extract (Kaiser, Cattel, Horn, Optimal Coordinates and Acceleration Factor), pointed to a two-factor structure of SAPS in Brazil. Next, a PAF showed good factorial loadings for all items (see Table 1). An alternative EFA was performed, using Maximum Likelihood, presenting similar results (see Supplemental Table 1 available online at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/0011000020949146).

Table 1.

Factorial Structure of the SAPS

Items	Loadings
Items	Discrepancy	Standards	h²
Item 8	.92*	−.16	.79
Item 6	.80*	−.14	.59
Item 4	.64*	.04	.42
Item 2	.50*	.18	.33
Item 1	−.22	.66*	.39
Item 7	−.07	.65*	.40
Item 5	.15	.63*	.47
Item 3	.25	.57*	.48
Number of items	4	4
Eigenvalues (rotated)	2.25	1.62
Explained variance (rotated)	28%	20%

Note. h² = communalities; * = loadings higher than .364.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

With the other half of the sample, we performed a CFA to confirm the two-factor structure. The following indicators were obtained using the MLR estimator: χ² (19) = 64.823, p < .001, CFI = .89, TLI = .84, and RMSEA = .11, 90% CI [.082, .134]. The fit improved when we allowed the errors from Items 6 and 8 to be correlated because of a high modification index (MI = 29.29): χ² (18) = 44.12, p < .001, CFI = .94, TLI = .90 and RMSEA = .08, 90% CI [.055, .112]. All the factorial weights (lambdas) were statistically different from zero (λ ≠ 0; z > 1.96, p < .05), varying between .51 (Item 1) and .81 (Item 7). The final structure can be seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Factorial structure of SAPS in brazil.

Item Response Theory

For all further analysis, we used the full Brazilian sample. Item response theory was used to assess the item discriminations, and difficulties were assessed. The parameter labelled a (Column 2) in Table 2 shows item discrimination, which represents the ability of the item to discriminate between individuals varying in the latent trait. According to Baker (2001), higher values indicate items with higher discrimination. Six items were very highly discriminative (a > 1.7), whereas one (Item 1) was highly discriminative (between 1.35 and 1.69), and a last item (Item 2) was moderately discriminative (between 0.65 and 1.34).

Table 2.

Item Parameters of the SAPS in Brazil

Item	a	b₁	b₂	b₃	b₄	b₅	b₆	b₁–b₆ (M)
Discrepancy
Item 2	1.279	−3.763	−2.212	−1.270	−0.721	0.209	1.232	−1.09
Item 4	1.769	−3.230	−1.938	−1.372	−0.904	−0.139	0.852	−1.12
Item 6	2.260	−2.509	−1.126	−0.512	−0.065	0.682	1.372	−0.36
Item 8	3.814	−2.056	−0.853	−0.381	−0.071	0.496	1.103	−0.29
Standards
Item 1	1.375	−4.501	−3.083	−2.521	−1.755	−0.703	0.743	−1.97
Item 3	1.859	−3.715	−2.269	−1.608	−0.925	−0.113	1.034	−1.27
Item 5	2.261	−3.147	−2.677	−2.085	−1.396	−0.487	0.731	−1.51
Item 7	2.576	−3.500	−2.467	−2.108	−1.382	−0.543	0.632	−1.56

Note. a = discrimination; b₁–b₆ = threshold.

Item difficulties are displayed as b₁–b₆ in Table 2. They estimate which level of the latent trait the individual needs to endorse to select the next higher response option. Items are recommended to neither be too easy, nor too difficult (e.g., recommended the means across b’s to be between 0 and +/− 1.5; Rauthmann, 2013). Results showed that five of the items were between the recommended values, while the three others were close.

Next, item information curves (IIC; Figure 2) and test information curves (TIC; Figure 3) were assessed. The IIC test how much information an item shares with the total information of the measure (Castro et al., 2010), with a higher I(θ) indicating higher informativeness. The TIC are based on the amount of information all items add to the total amount of information, and it is directly related to the reliability of the scale, with a total information of 10 being equivalent to a reliability of .90 (Cappelleri et al., 2014). Most of the items were reasonably informative, with Item 8 being the most informative and Item 2 the least informative (see Figure 2). For the test information curves, results suggest a reasonable spread of discrimination across the latent range of perfectionism.

Figure 2.

Item information curves of SAPS in brazil (left = standards items).

Figure 3.

Test information curves for the SAPS in brazil (dashed = standards items).

Measurement Invariance

We tested whether the SAPS is invariant across gender and countries, considering three models (configural, metric, scalar; Milfont & Fischer, 2010). Achieving measurement invariance indicates that women and men are answering the scale in an equivalent way. This allows meaningful comparisons between the groups (e.g., means comparisons, correlations), once it is established that they are answering to the measure in the same way. As seen in Table 3, results showed full invariance for gender. However, between the countries, scalar invariance was not achieved. Therefore, we unconstrained the intercepts of Items 1 and 5, reducing the ΔCFI to .008—below the recommended threshold of .01.

Table 3.

Measurement Equivalence of the SAPS Across Gender and Country

Models	CFI	RMSEA	ΔCFI	ΔRMSEA
Gender
Configural invariance	.909	.099	—	—
Metric invariance	.913	.090	.004	.009
Scalar invariance	.913	.084	.000	.006
Country
Configural invariance	.932	.091	—	—
Metric invariance	.929	.086	.003	.005
Scalar invariance	.913	.089	.016	.003
Partial Scalar^a	.921	.087	.008	.001

Note. Δ = differences between the current and the previous model.

The intercept of Items 1 and 5 were released to achieve scalar invariance.

Reliability

To test whether the two scales are sufficiently reliable, we computed McDonald’s Omega and Cronbach’s alpha. For both factors, discrepancy (ω = .80 and α = .79) and standards (ω = .76 and α = .75), the results were above the recommended thresholds of .70 (Kline, 2013), indicating satisfactory to good reliability. For the complete scale, omega was .78 and alpha .77.

Convergent Validity

As perfectionism is a personality trait, we decided to test its associations to the Big Five personality traits. Discrepancy was significantly and negatively correlated with conscientiousness, extraversion, openness to experience, and emotional stability, while standards was positively correlated with conscientiousness and openness to experiences. For the human values, discrepancy was positively correlated with suprapersonal values, while standards was correlated with suprapersonal, interactive, promotion, and existence. The full results can be seen in Table 4.

Table 4.

Correlations Between Perfectionism, Personality Traits and Human Values

	Discrepancy	Standards
Personality traits
Openness to experiences	−.045	.311**
Conscientiousness	−.127*	.313**
Extraversion	−.162**	.048
Agreeableness	−.124*	−.032
Emotional Stability	−.311**	.058
Human values
Excitement	.029	.037
Suprapersonal	.244**	.317**
Interactive	−.004	.139*
Promotion	.055	.283**
Existence	.085	.237**
Normative	−.078	.092

p < .05. **p < .01.

Discussion

This research aimed to provide psychometric evidence for the SAPS (K. G. Rice et al., 2014) in Brazil. Our research relied on analytical approaches (e.g., item response theory, cross-cultural measurement invariance) that enhance the psychometric findings of the measure and which have not been used in the original paper introducing the SAPS (K. G. Rice et al., 2014). In addition to convergent validity with personality traits, we investigated for the first-time, correlations between human values and perfectionism.

SAPS Structure, Reliability, and Item Parameters

First, we split the full sample to perform two types of analyses to assess the structure of the SAPS in Brazil. Through an exploratory factor analysis, the two-factor structure proposed by K. G. Rice et al. (2014) was supported using multiple criteria, with all items presenting high loadings (> |.40|) on their respective factor. To further confirm this structure through a more robust method, a confirmatory factor analysis was performed. Once again, results indicated a good model fit for the two-factor structure. Using the full sample, the reliability levels, operationalized through McDonald’s omega and Cronbach’s alpha (Kline, 2013), attested the psychometric quality of the measure for the Brazilian context. Besides the original research by K. G. Rice et al. (2014), our findings are in line with other validations of the SAPS that also replicated the two-factor structure (e.g., Loscalzo et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2016).

Results showed that all items from SAPS ranged from moderately to very highly discriminative (Baker, 2001), suggesting that the items differentiate individuals with different levels of perfectionism. Also, five of the eight items showed difficulty levels within the recommended levels, with the other three being close (Rauthmann, 2013). Difficult items tend to be endorsed only by individuals that present higher levels in the latent trait, while easier items tend to be endorsed by more individuals. Finally, we assessed the information levels of each item separately, estimating the amount of information that each of them provides for the measurement of the latent trait, which is an indicator of item quality (Vieira et al., 2019). In addition, we calculated the test information curve, which is a graphical representation of items’ contribution to the total information of each factor (Castro et al., 2010).

Measurement Invariance

To test whether the SAPS can be meaningfully compared across gender and countries, we performed two multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (Davidov et al., 2014). Establishing measurement invariance is important, otherwise one risks “compare[ing] chopsticks with forks” (Chen, 2008, p. 1005). That is, we ensured that men and women understood the items on average equivalently. Results confirmed that the measure is invariant across participants gender, thus allowing for analysis which compare men and womens’ differences regarding perfectionism. The comparisons between our data and the original U.S. data revealed a full metric invariance, which allowed meaningful comparisons across correlation coefficients. However, the scalar invariance was only partially achieved. Nevertheless, as the number of items that were variant was small (below 50%), meaningful comparisons were still possible across the measure (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000).

The lack of studies assessing invariance of the SAPS (Walton et al., 2020) prevent researchers from comparing whether perfectionism is endorsed differently by different groups (e.g., across countries). Studies like Wang et al.’s (2007) suggest that there might be some cultural influence on the way people express perfectionism, since the authors found a different factor structure for a Chinese sample in comparison to the ones reported in other countries (e.g., Japan, United States; Nakano, 2009; Slaney et al., 2001). Nevertheless, as invariance has not been substantially examined, it is hard to tell whether there are differences on the endorsement of perfectionism over different countries or whether this construct is understood in different ways by different groups. For instance, why is the factor structure of the SAPS different in China (Wang et al., 2007) and South Korea (Park, 2009), but relatively similar in Italy and the United States (Loscalzo et al., 2019)? We argue that more studies need to examine the invariance of the SAPS so we can better understand why partial invariance has been found for some studies (S. P. M. Rice et al., 2018), but different structures have been reported for others (e.g., Arana et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2007). In the present study, we contribute to this debate by presenting evidence of full metric and partial scalar invariance between an individualistic and developed country (the United States) and a collectivistic and developing country (Brazil).

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity was assessed by correlating both factors of the SAPS with personality traits and human values. In prior research (Ulu & Tezer, 2010), neuroticism (emotional stability) was the main predictor of discrepancy, a finding that we replicated. Individuals who score high on the discrepancy factor are highly emotionally instable, are commonly preoccupied, possess low tolerance to frustration, and are insecure (Schultz & Schultz, 2011; Stoeber & Otto, 2006). Also, in line with Ulu and Tezer’s (2010) findings, standards were positively correlated with openness to experience and conscientiousness. Those two traits represent characteristics seen in individuals that are related to competence (conscientiousness), and originality and imaginability (openness), for example. Our results are also consistent with K. G. Rice et al.’s (2014) original findings about the correlations between the SAPS factors with personality traits. The authors found that discrepancy was positively associated with neuroticism, while standards was positively linked to conscientiousness.

Both factors of perfectionism were correlated with suprapersonal values. This value’s subfunction represents the needs for aesthetics, cognition, and self-actualization (Gouveia et al., 2014). As perfectionists set high standards for themselves, it is natural that they endorse values that represent these types of needs, which would represent an improvement for themselves. Also, the standard factor was correlated with promotion, existence, and interactive values. Promotion values are characteristic for individuals who cherish self-enhancement and focus on personal goals (Gouveia et al., 2014), which can once again indicate someone who has high expectations for the self. The existence values express survival needs (Gouveia et al., 2014). Being thorough is an evolutionary advantage and increases survival chances; that can explain the relations between existence values and perfectionism (with perfectionism being an extreme version of being thorough). Finally, interactive values are important to establish and maintain interpersonal relations (Gouveia et al., 2014). Perfectionists are individuals that desire social approval and recognition, looking for interpersonal approval to establish harmonious relationships, which helps to understand the results. Some of them present negative interpersonal tendencies (Flett et al., 2016), while some are described as friendly and submissive (Slaney et al., 2006).

Limitations

We used a nonprobabilistic convenience sample, which restricts the generalizability of the findings. In addition, when responding to questionnaires, scales, or any other type of measure, individuals are influenced by factors external to the content being assessed, such as social desirability. This response bias is in fact a “masking” of the individual’s actual psychological functioning. Thus, we suggest that future studies about perfectionism in Brazil include a measure of social desirability, test the temporal stability (test–retest) of the SAPS, and acquire a more diversified sample of the participants (e.g., regarding age and education). Although the Ten-Item Personality Inventory was developed to measure the Big Five personality traits with high validity (e.g., content validity), it comes with its costs— lower reliability levels. Thus, future studies could benefit from using a more reliable measure of the Big Five personality traits.

One other limitation pertains to the average age difference of 5.5 years between the Brazilian and U.S. sample. This might have added a confound when we tested for measurement invariance across both countries. However, the link between perfectionism and age is typically small (e.g., Stoeber & Stoeber, 2009). We therefore do not assume that the age difference between both samples led to partial invariance. Instead, we attribute it to cross-cultural differences.

Implications for Practice, Advocacy, Education/Training, and Research

Our research has several implications for better understanding perfectionism. As stated above, research has shown significant relations of perfectionism with several variables that can affect our quality of life, such as anxiety and emotional exhaustion (Flaxman et al., 2012), perceived stress and drinking to cope (K. G. Rice & Arsdale, 2010), hopelessness and life satisfaction (Gnilka et al., 2013), and well-being (Wang et al., 2007). Therefore, the expansion of research on perfectionism and its underlying characteristics allow a more accurate understanding on how it affects our lives. And these understandings are vital when dealing with clients with perfectionisms, helping counseling psychologists to develop goal regulations, and diminishing the impact that they might have in their lives.

The SAPS can be useful to Brazilian psychologists in screening for perfectionism traits, using it as a semi-structured interview. That is, it allows for follow-up questions for each item. For example, if a client agreed with the item “Doing my best never seems to be enough,” it is possible to ask follow-up questions related to the antecedences and consequences of this belief. This in turn helps to plan interventions to reduce the maladaptive aspects of perfectionism. Counseling clients score higher on the discrepancy factor of the SAPS and evaluate themselves more critically compared to nonclients (K. G. Rice & Taber, 2019). This can lead to developing and maintaining psychological distress (Suh et al., 2019). The authors suggested that appropriate interventions reduce the maladaptive effects of perfectionism, and consequently improve mental health. In the absence of a psychometrically sound measure of perfectionism in Brazil, researching the effectiveness of interventions would be compromised.

Importantly, providing a powerful measure to evaluate perfectionism in Brazil is an advance to better understand perfectionism in different cultures, such as within academic environments. Hamilton and Schweitzer (2000) found that higher levels of perfectionism are associated with an increased vulnerability to suicide ideation. In another study, perfectionism significantly predicted academic stress, imposter syndrome, and communication anxiety (Cowie et al., 2018). Thus, assessing perfectionism in a reliable way allows for identification of students (e.g., through voluntary screening test) who may be more vulnerable, and offer help if necessary.

Finally, in academic research, our results show that the SAPS can be used in future studies to evaluate perfectionism in Brazil. Such studies could evaluate whether discrepancy is related to depression and anxiety, which is in line with self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987). Future studies could further investigate the role of perfectionism in an occupational or academic context. We expect that individuals high in discrepancy may delay the progress of their professional, social, and academic activities because they are focusing too strongly on specific aspects of their work. The same pattern could be found in academia, with maladaptive perfectionists presenting low satisfaction in class, as well as poor mental health.

Supplemental Material

Coelho_SupplTable_copyedited – Supplemental material for Psychometric Evidence of the Short Almost Perfect Scale (SAPS) in Brazil

Supplemental material, Coelho_SupplTable_copyedited for Psychometric Evidence of the Short Almost Perfect Scale (SAPS) in Brazil by Gabriel Lins de Holanda Coelho, Renan Pereira Monteiro, Roosevelt Vilar, Paul H. P. Hanel, Heloísa Bárbara Cunha Moizéis and Valdiney Veloso Gouveia in The Counseling Psychologist

Footnotes

Appendix

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Kenneth Rice for providing data from his original validation paper (K. G. Rice et al., 2014), which allowed us to test for measurement invariance across countries.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Gabriel Lins de Holanda Coelho

Author Biographies

Gabriel Lins de Holanda Coelho, PhD, is a postdoctoral researcher in psychology at University College Cork. His research interests involve human values, personality traits, interpersonal relationships, and psychological assessment.

Renan Pereira Monteiro, PhD, is a lecturer in the Psychology Department at Federal University of Mato Grosso. His research interests involve psychological assessment and human values.

Roosevelt Vilar, PhD, earned his degree in psychology at Massey University. His research interests involve human values, political participation, and psychological assessment.

Paul H. P. Hanel, PhD, is a lecturer in social and cross-cultural psychology at University of Essex. His research interests involve human values and scientific communication.

Heloísa Bárbara Cunha Moizéis is a MSc candidate in social psychology at Federal University of Paraíba. Her research interests involve human values and psychological assessment.

Valdiney Veloso Gouveia, PhD, is a full professor at Federal University of Paraíba. Author of the Functional Theory of Human Values, his research interests also involve attitudes, pro and antisocial behaviors, and personality traits.

References

Agência IBGE (2019). PNAD Contínua: Taxa de desocupação é de 12,4% e taxa de subutilização é de 24,6% no trimestre encerrado em fevereiro de 2019 [Continuous PNAD: Unemployment rate is 12.4% and underutilization rate is 24.6% in the quarter ended in February 2019]. Retrieved from https://agenciadenoticias.ibge.gov.br/agencia-sala-de-imprensa/2013-agencia-de-noticias/releases/24109-pnad-continua-taxa-de-desocupacao-e-de-12-4-e-taxa-de-subutilizacao-e-de-24-6-no-trimestre-encerrado-em-fevereiro-de-2019on09/09/2019

Arana

F. G.

Furlan

(2016). Groups of perfectionists, test anxiety, and pre-exam coping in Argentine students. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 169–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.001

Arana

F. G.

Rice

K. G.

Ashby

J. S.

(2017). Perfectionism in Argentina and the United States: Measurement structure, invariance, and implications for depression. Journal of Personality Assessment, 100(2), 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1296845

Ashby

J. S.

Rice

K. G.

Kutchins

C. B.

(2008). Matches and mismatches: Partners, perfectionism, and premarital adjustment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(1), 125–132. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.55.1.125

Baker

F. B.

(2001). The basics of item response theory. ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED458219.pdf

Cappelleri

J. C.

Jason Lundy

Hays

R. D.

(2014). Overview of classical test theory and item response theory for the quantitative assessment of items in developing patient-reported outcomes measures. Clinical Therapeutics, 36(5), 648–662. https://doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2014.04.006

Castro

S. M. D. J.

Trentini

C. M.

Riboldi

(2010). Teoria da resposta ao item aplicada ao Inventário de Depressão Beck [Item response theory applied to the Beck Depression Inventory]. Revista Brasileira de Epidemiologia, 13, 487–501. https://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?pid=S1415-790X2010000300012&script=sci_arttext&tlng=es

Chalmers

R. P.

(2012). MIRT: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(6), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i06

Chen

F. F.

(2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504. http://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834

10.

Chen

F. F.

(2008). What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of making inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1005–1018. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013193

11.

Cheung

G. W.

Rensvold

R. B.

(2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233–255. http://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

12.

Cowie

M. E.

Nealis

L. J.

Sherry

S. B.

Hewitt

P. L.

Flett

G. L.

(2018). Perfectionism and academic difficulties in graduate students: Testing incremental prediction and gender moderation. Personality and Individual Differences, 123, 223–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.027

13.

Curran

Hill

A. P.

(2019). Perfectionism is increasing over time: A meta-analysis of birth cohort differences from 1989 to 2016. Psychological Bulletin, 145(4), 410–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000138

14.

Davidov

Meuleman

Cieciuch

Schmidt

Billiet

(2014). Measurement equivalence in cross-national research. Annual Review of Sociology, 40(1), 55–75. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043137

15.

Elion

A. A.

Wang

K. T.

Slaney

R. B.

French

B. H.

(2012). Perfectionism in African American students: Relationship to racial identity, GPA, self-esteem, and depression. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18(2), 118–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026491

16.

Ferreira

M. C.

Fischer

Porto

J. B.

Pilati

Milfont

T. L.

(2012). Unraveling the mystery of Brazilian Jeitinho: A cultural exploration of social norms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(3), 331–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211427148

17.

Flaxman

P. E.

Ménard

Bond

F. W.

Kinman

(2012). Academics’ experiences of a respite from work: Effects of self-critical perfectionism and perseverative cognition on postrespite well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 854–865. doi:10.1037/a0028055

18.

Flett

G. L.

Hewitt

P. L.

Sherry

S. B.

(2016). Deep, dark, and dysfunctional: The destructiveness of interpersonal perfectionism. In Ziegler-Hill

Marcus

D. K.

(Eds.), The dark side of personality (pp. 211–229). American Psychological Association.

19.

Fortes

Meireles

J. F. F.

Neves

C. M.

Almeida

S. S.

Ferreira

M. E. C.

(2015). Comportamento de risco para transtorno alimentar, insatisfação corporal, perfeccionismo e estado de humor em adolescentes do sexo feminino [Disordered eating, body dissatisfaction, perfectionism, and mood state in female adolescents]. Revista de Nutrição, 28(4), 371–383. https://doi.org/10.1590/1415-52732015000400004

20.

Frost

R. O.

Heimberg

R. G.

Holt

C. S.

Mattia

J. I.

Neubauer

A. L.

(1993). A comparison of two measures of perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 14(1), 119–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(93)90181-2

21.

Frost

R. O.

Marten

Lahart

Rosenblate

(1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14(5), 449–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01172967

22.

Gaudreau

(2012). A methodological note on the interactive and main effects of dualistic personality dimensions: An example using the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(1), 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.08.022

23.

Gnilka

P. B.

Ashby

J. S.

Noble

C. M.

(2013). Adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism as mediators of adult attachment styles and depression, hopelessness, and life satisfaction. Journal of Counseling & Development, 91(1), 78–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00074.x

24.

Gosling

S. D.

(n.d.). Ten Item Personality Measure (TIPI). Goz Lab. https://gosling.psy.utexas.edu/scales-weve-developed/ten-item-personality-measure-tipi/

25.

Gosling

S. D.

Rentfrow

P. J.

Swann

W. B.

(2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1

26.

Gouveia

V. V.

Milfont

T. L.

Fischer

Santos

W. S.

(2008). Teoria funcionalista dos valores humanos [Functionalist theory of human values]. In Teixeira

M. L. M.

(Ed.), Valores humanos e gestão: Novas perspectivas (pp. 47–80). Editora Senac.

27.

Gouveia

V. V.

Milfont

T. L.

Guerra

V. M.

(2014). Functional theory of human values: Testing its content and structure hypotheses. Personality and Individual Differences, 60, 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.12.012

28.

Hair

J. F. J.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2015). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th edition). Prentice Hall.

29.

Hamacheck

D. E.

(1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 15(1), 27–33.

30.

Hamilton

T. K.

Schweitzer

R. D.

(2000). The cost of being perfect: Perfectionism and suicide ideation in university students. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 34(5), 829–835. https://doi.org/10.1080/j.1440-1614.2000.00801.x

31.

Hanel

P. H. P.

Vione

K. C.

(2016). Do student samples provide an accurate estimate of the general public? PLOS ONE, 11(12), e0168354. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168354

32.

Hanel

P. H. P.

Wolfradt

(2016). The “dark side” of personal values: Relations to clinical constructs and their implications. Personality and Individual Differences, 97, 140–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.045

33.

Henrich

Heine

S. J.

Norenzayan

(2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

34.

Hewitt

P. L.

Flett

G. L.

(2004). Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS): Technical manual. Multi-Health Systems.

35.

Higgins

E. T.

(1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.319

36.

Hill

R. W.

Huelsman

T. J.

Furr

R. M.

Kibler

Vicente

B. B.

Kennedy

(2004). A new measure of perfectionism: The Perfectionism Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82(1), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8201_13

37.

Index Mundi (n.d.). GINI index (World Bank estimate)-country ranking. https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SI.POV.GINI/rankingson09/09/2019.

38.

Index of Economic Freedom (2019). Country rankings. https://www.heritage.org/index/rankingon09/09/2019.

39.

Kajonius

P. J.

Persson

B. N.

Jonason

P. K.

(2015). Hedonism, achievement, and power: Universal values that characterize the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 77, 173–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.055

40.

Kline

(2013). Handbook of Psychological Testing. Routledge.

41.

Lee

J. C.

Prado

H. S.

Diniz

J. B.

Borcato

da Silva

C. B.

Hounie

A. G.

Miguel

E. C.

Leckman

J. F.

do Rosário

M. C.

(2009). Perfectionism and sensory phenomena: Phenotypic components of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 50(5), 431–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2008.11.007

42.

Loscalzo

Rice

S. P. M.

Giannini

Rice

K. G.

(2019). Perfectionism and academic performance in Italian college students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 37(7) 911–919. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282918800748

43.

Maia

B. R.

Soares

M. J.

Gomes

Marques

Pereira

A. T.

Cabral

Valente

Bos

S. C.

Pato

Pocinho

Azevedo

M. H.

Macedo

(2009). Perfectionism in obsessive-compulsive and eating disorders. Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry, 31(4), 322–327. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-44462009005000004

44.

Milfont

T. L.

Fischer

(2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 111–130. http://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.857

45.

Miura

M. A.

Pilati

Milfont

T. L.

Ferreira

M. C.

Fischer

(2019). Between simpatia and malandragem: Brazilian jeitinho as an individual difference variable. PLoS ONE, 14(4) e0214929. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214929

46.

Moroz

Dunkley

D. M.

(2019). Self-critical perfectionism, experiential avoidance, and depressive and anxious symptoms over two years: A three-wave longitudinal study. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 112, 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2018.11.006

47.

Nakano

(2009). Perfectionism, self-efficacy, and depression: Preliminary analysis of the Japanese version of the almost perfect scale–revised. Psychological Reports, 104(3), 896–898. https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.104.3.896-908

48.

Nascimento Junior

J. R. A.

Vissoci

J. R. N.

Lavallee

Vieira

L. F

. (2015). Adaptation and validation of the Sport Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale-2 (SMPS-2) for the Brazilian sport context. Motriz: Revista de Educação Física, 21(2), 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1980-65742015000200003

49.

Organização para a Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Económico (2015). Programme for international students assessment (PISA): Results from Pisa 2015. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA-2015-Brazil-PRT.pdfon09/09/2019.

50.

Park

(2009). Validation of the Almost Perfect Scale-Revised. The Korean Journal of Counseling and Psychotherapy, 21(1), 131–149.

51.

Peters

G. J.

(2016). Quantitative analysis made accessible. https://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/userfriendlyscience/userfriendlyscience.pdf

52.

R Development Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/fullrefman.pdf

53.

Raiche

Walls

T. A.

Magis

Riopel

Blais

J.-G.

(2013). Non-graphical solutions for Cattell’s scree test. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 9(1), 23–29. http://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000051

54.

Rauthmann

J. F.

(2013). Investigating the MACH-IV with item response theory and proposing the trimmed MACH*. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(4), 388–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.742905

55.

Revelle

(2013). Psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research. https://personality-project.org/r/psych.manual.pdf

56.

Rice

K. G.

Arsdale

A. C. V.

(2010). Perfectionism, perceived stress, drinking to cope, and alcohol-related problems among college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(4), 439–450. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020221

57.

Rice

K. G.

Ashby

J. S.

(2007). An efficient method for classifying perfectionists. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(1), 72–85. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.54.1.72

58.

Rice

K. G.

Richardson

C. M. E.

Tueller

(2014). The short form of the revised Almost Perfect Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96(3), 368–379. http://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.838172

59.

Rice

S. P. M.

Loscalzo

Giannini

Rice

K. G.

(2018). Perfectionism in Italy and the USA: Measurement invariance and implications for cross-cultural assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 36, 207–211. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000476

60.

Samejima

(1968). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores1. ETS Research Bulletin Series, 1968(1), i–169. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.1968.tb00153.x

61.

Schultz

S. E.

Schultz

D. P.

(2011). Teorias da personalidade [Personality theories] (9ª ed.). Cengage Learning.

62.

Schwartz

S. H.

(1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6

63.

Schwartz

S. H.

(2005). Robustness and fruitfulness of a theory of universals in individual human values. In Tamayo

Porto

J. B.

(Eds.), Valores e comportamentos nas organizações [Values and behavior in organizations] (pp. 21–55). Vozes.

64.

Sherry

S. B.

Gralnick

T. M.

Hewitt

P. L.

Sherry

D. L.

Flett

G. L.

(2014). Perfectionism and narcissism: testing unique relationships and gender differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 61–62, 52–56. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.007

65.

Sherry

S. B.

Mackinnon

S. P.

Macneil

M. A.

Fitzpatrick

(2012). Discrepancies confer vulnerability to depressive symptoms: A three-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(1), 112–126. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0030439

66.

Slaney

R. B.

Pincus

A. L.

Uliaszek

A. A.

Wang

K. T.

(2006). Conceptions of perfectionism and interpersonal problems: Evaluating groups using the structural summary method for circumplex data. Assessment, 13(2), 138–153. http://doi.org/10.1177/1073191105284878

67.

Slaney

R. B.

Rice

K. G.

Mobley

Trippi

Ashby

J. S.

(2001). The revised almost perfect scale. Measurement and evaluation in counseling and development, 34(3), 130–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2002.12069030

68.

Smith

M. M.

Sherry

S. B.

Chen

Saklofske

D. H.

Mushquash

Flett

G. L.

Hewitt

P. L.

(2017). The perniciousness of perfectionism: A meta-analytic review of the perfectionism-suicide relationship. Journal of Personality. 83(3), 522–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12333

69.

Stevens

J. P.

(2012). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. Routledge.

70.

Stoeber

Otto

(2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches, evidence, challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 295–319. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_2

71.

Stoeber

F. S.

(2009). Domains of perfectionism: Prevalence and relationships with perfectionism, gender, age, and satisfaction with life. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(4), 530–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.12.006

72.

Suh

Sohn

Kim

Lee

D.-G.

(2019). A review and meta-analysis of perfectionism interventions: Comparing face-to-face with online modalities. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 66(4), 473–486. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000355

73.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

74.

Transparency International (2018). Corruption perceptions index 2018. https://www.transparency.org/files/content/pages/2018_CPI_Executive_Summary.pdfon09/09/2019.

75.

Ulu

I. P.

Tezer

(2010). Adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism, adult attachment, and big five personality traits. The Journal of Psychology, 144(4), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223981003784032

76.

Vandenberg

R. J.

Lance

C. E.

(2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002

77.

Vieira

K. M.

Moreira Junior

F. D. J.

Potrich

A. C. G.

(2019). Financial education indicator: Proposal of an instrument from the Item Response Theory. Educação & Sociedade, 40, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1590/es0101-73302018182568

78.

Walton

G. E.

Hibbard

D. R.

Coughlin

Coyl-Shepherd

D. D.

(2020). Parenting, personality, and culture as predictors of perfectionism. Current Psychology, 39 681–693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9793-y

79.

Wang

K. T.

Permyakova

T. M.

Sheveleva

M. S.

(2016). Assessing perfectionism in Russia: Classifying perfectionists with the Short Almost Perfect Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 92, 174–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.044

80.

Wang

K. T.

Slaney

R. B.

Rice

K. G.

(2007). Perfectionism in Chinese university students from Taiwan: A study of psychological well-being and achievement motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(7), 1279–1290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.10.006

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB