Abstract
The perfectionism field has advanced considerably over the past 25 years, but researchers typically focus on substantive findings, and there has been comparatively little systematic emphasis on measurement issues. This special issue introduces new perfectionism measures and examines several important measurement topics. This special issue advances the theme that how constructs are conceptualized and measured has a direct impact on the findings that emerge in empirical research. We provide an overview of specific topics addressed in this special issue, including the importance of distinguishing between perfectionism versus conscientiousness and the role of assessment in documenting the heterogeneity that exists among people who all describe themselves as perfectionists. It is evident from the papers in this special issue that the complexities inherent in the perfectionism construct require an equally complex and sophisticated measurement approach. Further advances in the perfectionism field depend largely on implementing a programmatic approach to measurement and assessment.
To our knowledge, this special issue of the Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment (JPA) is the first special issue in the perfectionism field to focus specifically on assessment and measurement issues. The appropriateness of this journal for this topic is beyond question. Perfectionism is an achievement-based personality construct rooted in goal attainment and the reactions and responses when the person who so desperately strives for perfection almost inevitably falls short of this cherished goal.
Although the perfectionism field as a whole continues to expand exponentially, one glaring omission in the published literature is the lack of consistent focus on how perfectionism is assessed and measured. This is ironic in the sense that it is generally accepted that perfectionism research entered a remarkable new phase in the 1990s due largely to the simultaneous appearance of two new measures with the same name—the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (see Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991). We clearly remember the day in 1990 that Randy Frost telephoned us with the news that he had just developed a measure with the same name as the one we had created; clearly, timing is really everything because in this instance, it was too late to change the name of either instrument, so that they could be more easily distinguished by possible users. This sequence of events gave rise to perhaps the question asked most often among readers when there is a new article on multidimensional perfectionism (i.e., “So, what version of the MPS did they use?”).
As noted above, the perfectionism field continues to grow at an exponential rate. We have always taken the position that the primary reason that perfectionism research and theory has taken hold and has assumed its rightful place in the personality, clinical, and counseling fields is the puzzling nature of perfectionism itself and those people who are deemed to be perfectionists. Several questions about perfectionism and perfectionists still need to be answered. For instance, if it is generally agreed that no one is perfect, then why do so many people still try to be perfect? Why are these people so driven? Also, why is it that talented perfectionists with exceptional accomplishments never seem truly satisfied and never seem truly happy? Given that perfectionism is associated with a host of significant adjustment problems (e.g., anxiety, depression, and suicide) and it can represent a distinct form of personality disorder or dysfunction (see Ayearst, Flett, & Hewitt, 2012), why do so many people tell anybody who will listen that they are perfectionists? And if perfectionism has more costs than benefits associated with it, why do so many people encourage young people to be perfect? We have always contended that encouraging excellence is the way to go, and it is vital to never lose sight of the absolutely critical distinction between striving for excellence versus striving for perfection. This was demonstrated cogently by a previous investigation, showing that conscientious professors tended to publish more papers with higher impact but perfectionistic professors published fewer papers with lesser impact (see Sherry, Hewitt, Sherry, Flett, & Graham, 2010).
We continue to view perfectionism as a negative personality orientation due to the growing evidence of its destructiveness. For instance, perfectionism has been linked with increased risk of early mortality and health problems (Fry & DeBats, 2009), and there are indications that perfectionists who are feeling suicidal have an amplified risk level of suicide (Flett, Hewitt, & Heisel, 2014). We are especially troubled by the suicides of young perfectionists that occur seemingly without warning. Other authors such as Hofmann, Baumeister, Forster, and Vohs (2012) have suggested that perfectionists may lack self-regulation skills. The results of their study of temptations and self-control led them to conclude that perfectionists present not as
. . . simply misguided idealists but rather as highly motivated persons (a.k.a. tortured souls) who experience powerful impulses that frequently clash with other goals and values. They certainly seemed to lack the highly self-controlled person’s knack for avoiding problematic desires. (Hofmann et al., 2012, p. 1332)
Such conclusions underscore the need for timely assessments of dysfunctional perfectionism and preventive efforts and other interventions focused on limiting the damage that is attributable to perfectionism (for a discussion, see Flett & Hewitt, 2014).
Observations About the Special Issue
The order of the papers in this special issue is not random; indeed, it is quite symbolic. We are very pleased that this special issue begins with a timely article from Burgess, Frost, and DiBartolo that extends the initial developmental work conducted on the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale over 25 years ago. The Frost MPS is the most widely used perfectionism measure (see Flett & Hewitt, 2015). In the current special issue, Burgess, Frost, and DiBartolo formally introduce the brief Frost MPS. This economical short form has 2 four-item subscales that tap strivings and evaluative concern. The development of this useful brief measure is rooted in earlier evidence, showing that it is possible to construct shorter measures (Cox, Enns, & Clara, 2002) and in other evidence supporting a bidimensional model comprised of personal standards and evaluative concerns.
The next article in the special issue derives from our MPS and the critical distinction between personal and interpersonal perfectionism introduced by Hewitt and Flett (1990, 1991). We provide an extended description and analysis of the Child-Adolescent Perfectionism Scale (CAPS). The CAPS measures self-oriented perfectionism and socially prescribed perfectionism (i.e., expectations and demands to be perfect imposed on the self). The CAPS has been used in more than 50 published papers, but the scale development paper has not been published until now. The current manuscript summarizes and extends what is known thus far about this instrument. This work shows once again that socially prescribed perfectionism is a highly deleterious orientation. Other results indicate that self-oriented perfectionism is linked with substantial educational stress, and this dimension reflects an introjected internal pressure that is certainly not the epitome of self-determined and autonomous goal striving.
The next article by Hill, Appleton, and Mallinson describes an intriguing sport performance measure patterned after the Hewitt and Flett (1991) MPS. Their measure focuses on perfect performance due to its relevance in sports but distinguishes among perfect performance demanded by the self or others, or the tendency to demand perfect performance from others (e.g., teammates). When considering this measure, it is important to remember that self-oriented performance perfectionism is still focused on the self as assessed by items such as “I only think positively about myself when I perform perfectly.” This work by Hill and associates was conducted with adolescents but this innovative scale is clearly suitable for use with older participants. Moreover, as noted by these authors, this measure can be adapted easily and used in other performance contexts (e.g., work settings).
The next paper by Smith, Saklofske, Sherry, and Stoeber introduces the Big Three Perfectionism Scale (BTPS). This intriguing inventory measures three higher order global factors (rigid perfectionism, self-critical perfectionism, narcissistic perfectionism) and 10 lower order BTPS facets. A unique element of this work is the creation of subscales that should help distinguish narcissistic perfectionists from neurotic perfectionists. This is timely given growing recognition of the fact that some perfectionists have a very dark side (see Flett, Hewitt, & Sherry, 2016). While some readers may question the decision to incorporate narcissism as a theme in a perfectionism scale, this measure is needed to make key distinctions among various types of perfectionists. Pacht (1984) noted in his classic article Reflections on Perfection that he had one client who was “a brilliant professional” who believed that she was perfect. Indeed, it was her view that if she failed, it was only because this was her choice. This fusion of grandiose narcissism and perfectionism seems ideally assessed by the BTPS.
Collectively, the 10 BTPS facets reflect not only original MPS dimensions but also new dimensions (e.g., self-worth contingencies, hypercriticism, and grandiosity). We believe that the self-worth contingency component is a key BTPS facet because it taps a vital component of the construct emphasized by Burns (1980). He described perfectionists “. . . who strain compulsively and unremittingly toward impossible goals and who measure their own worth entirely in terms of productivity and accomplishment. For these people the drive to excel can only be self-defeating” (Burns, 1980, p. 34). The BTPS self-worth contingency facet has items such as “My value as a person depends on being perfect,” “My opinion of myself is tied to being perfect,” and “I could never respect myself if I stopped trying to achieve perfection.” This unique BTPS facet can be used to identify those people with the core sense of self and personal identity dominated by the need to be perfect. Smith and colleagues report new evidence showing that there is a strong association between this self-worth contingency and self-oriented perfectionism. These data serve as a cogent reminder of the vulnerability inherent in extreme self-oriented perfectionism; for such individuals, falling short of perfection is deeply personal.
The next article by Gaudreau, Franche, and Gareau makes three main contributions to this special issue. These authors evaluate Gaudreau’s 2 × 2 model and illustrate the need to always keep in mind the person-focused approach. In this instance, we should always try to envision how the various perfectionism dimensions combine within people. This theme is important to highlight for those readers who assess levels of perfectionism and combinations of perfectionism dimensions in individual students. Second, this work clearly shows the relevance of varying levels of perfectionism in levels of motivation and academic satisfaction. Finally, these authors have made an important statistical contribution by also developing unique Mplus syntax codes to estimate simple slopes and their statistical significance.
The final two papers illustrate the need to continually evaluate what is actually being measured by perfectionism inventories. Blasberg, Hewitt, Flett, Sherry, and Chen shine a light on the need to closely scrutinize how perfectionism items are worded. Their analysis of the High Standards subscale from Almost Perfect Scale–Revised (APS-R) revealed that many items that purport to tap self-oriented perfectionism actually assess a milder form of perfectionism, so there is an issue with content validity. They developed a revised version of the High Standards subscale by rewording the existing items to make them more extreme, similar to the distinction between striving for perfectionism versus conscientiously striving for excellence. Blasberg and colleagues show that this is not simply an exercise in semantics because perfectionism was linked with distress when scale items were worded in ways that focus on extreme perfectionism rather than a milder form of perfectionism.
Finally, Flett, Mara, Hewitt, Sirois, and Molnar reassess the influential APS-R Discrepancy subscale. The discrepancy dimension reflects the degree to which a person feels that he or she is falling short of perfection. It is shown uniquely across two samples that this seemingly unidimensional measure has two highly correlated but distinct factors—a discrepancy factor and a dissatisfaction factor. This dissatisfaction factor can be used to identify dissatisfied perfectionists. Most notably, this work ultimately yielded a brief five-item Discrepancy subscale with item content that does not overlap with dissatisfaction and other affective states. This Discrepancy subscale seems well suited for use as a brief pure measure of the degree to which someone feels imperfect.
Collectively, the papers in this special issue introduce several new measures based on conceptualizations that further highlight the complexities inherent in the perfectionism construct. While our focus is on measurement and assessment issues, we must never lose sight of the inextricable link between conceptualization and assessment. In their seminal paper, Cronbach and Meehl (1955) stated that there is a joint need to evaluate the validity of a construct as well as the validity of the tests assessing the construct. Similarly, Fiske (1973) observed that “the investigation of construct validity must study a construct-operation unit, not a construct and casually selected procedure for its measurement. The specific measure must be involved integrally in the total conceptual framework being subjected to the empirical test” (p. 89). The implication of these observations for the perfectionism field is clear—that is, our findings are always a by-product of our measures and the conceptualizations behind these measures.
It is our hope that this special issue will be appealing to readers on several levels. We have already noted that a number of potentially useful perfectionism measures are described, and several new insights into the nature of perfectionism have emerged from the work reported in this special issue. Our overarching hope is that this special issue will serve as a catalyst for an expanded focus on measurement issues in the perfectionism field. Basic and complex issues merit investigation as we work toward the goal of having perfectionism measures that are not perfect but are as good as they could be and should be. An improved approach to measurement and assessment will get us significantly closer to understanding the perfectionism construct as well as individual perfectionists.
Footnotes
Authors’ Note
Gordon Flett holds a Canada Research Chair in Personality and Health at York University.
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.