Australian Journal of Psychology 2017

doi: 10.1111/ajpy.12192

Rasch analysis of the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale

Kate Mitchell-Parker ,1 Oleg N. Medvedev ,2 Christian U. Krägeloh ,1 and Richard J. Siegert1

1
Department of Psychology, Auckland University of Technology and 2Centre for Medical and Health Science Education,
School of Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Abstract

Objective: The Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS) is widely used to measure the construct of perfectionism.
Previous studies evaluating the factor structure of the FMPS have reported inconsistent findings. The study objective was to
examine the psychometric properties of proposed four, five, and six factor solutions of the FMPS using Rasch analysis. Method:
Using the responses from a sample of New Zealand athletes and exercisers (n = 425) from a variety of sports, we subjected the
dataset to Rasch analysis. The overall and individual item fit, unidimensionality, local independence, and person separation
reliability were evaluated by treating factors of each model as subtests. Results: After disordered thresholds were uniformly
rescored, the factor Organisation displayed significant misfit to the model across all three solutions tested. Removal of Organisa-
tion and combining two parental facets into one resulted in adequate model fit and good item discrimination ability for all three
solutions. The modified six-factor model was the best in terms of reliability, with no differential item functioning and the high-
est person separation index. Conclusion: The present results support the psychometric properties and internal structural validity
of the rescored FMPS with the parental factors combined and without the Organisation facet. Psychometric properties of the
instrument can be further enhanced by using the ordinal-to-interval conversion table presented here, which does not require
modification of the original response format. These findings will be of interest in different areas where accurate assessment of
the overall perfectionism trait is important and open new avenues for perfectionism research.

Key words: Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale, item response theory, measurement, perfectionism, psychometrics, Rasch
analysis

What is already known about this topic
• Perfectionism has been associated with high achieve-
ment but also psychological problems.
• Psychometric evaluations of the FMPS have been
unable to establish a stable factor structure.
• Methodological issues have affected the research to
date, limiting the ability of researchers to resolve the
debate around the factor structure of the FMPS.
Interest in the personality trait of perfectionism has
increased markedly in recent years. Perfectionism was origi-
nally conceptualised as a unidimensional concept, with the
prominent characteristic being the setting of excessively
high standards accompanied by overly critical self-
evaluation (Burns, 1980). Frost, Marten, Lahart, and
Correspondence: Oleg N. Medvedev, Centre for Medical and Health
Science Education, School of Medicine, Faculty of Medical and
Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland 1142,
New Zealand. Email: o.medvedev@auckland.ac.nz
Received 12 January 2017. Accepted for publication 21
November 2017.
© 2017 The Australian Psychological Society
What this topic adds
• Rasch analysis provided a unique and powerful
method for evaluating psychometric properties and in
particular internal construct validity of the FMPS.
• The current Rasch analysis suggests that Organisation
may not be psychometrically integrated with the con-
struct of perfectionism and two parental factors reflect
a single factor of Parental Influence.
• The psychometric properties of the FMPS are
enhanced by using the ordinal-to-interval conversion
table generated by this study, which does not require
modification of the original response format of the
scale.
Rosenblate (1990) proposed that perfectionism is multidi-
mensional with the overarching latent perfectionism trait,
which was supported empirically, but its basic components
remain debated (Anshel, Weatherby, Kang, & Watson,
2009). Early research has linked perfectionism with a num-
ber of psychological conditions such as the development
and maintenance of eating disorders (Bardone-Cone et al.,
2007), depression (Hewitt, Flett, & Ediger, 1996), anxiety
(Flett, Greene, & Hewitt, 2004), and obsessive compulsive
2 K. Mitchell-Parker et al.
disorders (Martinelli, Chasson, Wetterneck, Hart, & Björg-
vinsson, 2014). Perfectionism has also been related to anger
and rumination (Besharat & Shahidi, 2010), low self-esteem
(Gotwals, Dunn, & Wayment, 2003), and suicidal ideation
(Flett, Hewitt, & Heisel, 2014).
CONCEPTUALISATION OF PERFECTIONISM
At the heart of the current perfectionism debate lies a dis-
agreement over the concept of perfectionism—what exactly
is meant by the word ‘perfectionism’. Early clinical descrip-
tions of perfectionism by Burns (1980), Hamachek (1978),
Hollander (1965), Pacht (1984), and Reed (1985) emphasise
excessively high self-imposed personal standards as being
central to perfectionism. Accompanying self-evaluation is
characterised by a tendency to be overly critical of one’s
behaviour or performance. Perfectionists are also proposed
to place a high value on their parents’ expectations and
evaluations of them. Failure to perform to the highest levels
of perfectionism will potentially result in a loss of parental
love and approval (Frost et al., 1990). Burns (1980), Hama-
chek (1978), and Reed (1985) identified a self-evaluative
tendency to experience uncertainty or doubt regarding the
quality of one’s performance. A desire for order and neat-
ness was described as a feature ‘sometimes’ used to charac-
terise perfectionists (Hollander, 1965).
Hamachek (1978) argued that some aspects of perfection-
ism might be adaptive since they foster excellence and striv-
ing to meet important goals. Hamachek termed this more
adaptive form of perfectionism ‘normal perfectionism’,
while an individual who sets high standards but allows little
to no room for error was termed ‘neurotic perfectionist’.
Almost 40 years on from Hamachek’s original article, a
large body of research supports the idea that two basic
forms of perfectionism can be distinguished, widely known
as perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns
(Stoeber, 2017).
An important question regards whether the various
hypothesised dimensions of perfectionism are core elements
or causes of perfectionism. The four major contributors to
the original perfectionism literature (Burns, Hamachek,
Hollander and Pacht) identified parents’ expectations and
evaluations as a cause of perfectionism. As Shafran, Cooper,
and Fairburn (2002) suggest, the impact of not meeting
your parents’ expectations (resulting in a negative self-eval-
uation) is the feature which is relevant to the construct of
perfectionism, rather than the parental approval or disap-
proval itself. A similar debate is raised for the element of
Organisation, which is not believed to be related to setting
high standards or self-evaluation. Rather, Organisation is a
way in which individuals go about achieving personal stan-
dards (to reach high personal standards one must be orga-
nised) (Hollander, 1965). Of note, neither Organisation nor
the parental factors have been shown to fit consistently
within the perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic con-
cerns framework (Stoeber & Otto, 2006).
THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL PERFECTIONISM SCALE
Drawing on the original descriptions of perfectionism, a
multidimensional scale was developed by Frost et al. (1990)
to measure five hypothesised dimensions of this construct.
Existing measures of perfectionism, all of which were sub-
scales of larger scales, were examined and relevant items
from these subscales were included in the initial item pool
of the FMPS. Frost et al. (1990) used exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) and reliability analysis with a sample of
232 female undergraduate students to conclude that perfec-
tionism consists of six factors: Personal Standards, Concern
over Mistakes, Doubts about Actions, Parental Criticism,
Parental Expectations, and Organisation. The factor Personal
Standards can be defined as the setting of high standards for
evaluation of one’s own behaviour. Concern over Mistakes
is described as perceived failure to comply with set stan-
dards, reflecting a negative reaction to errors. Doubts about
Actions refers to uncertainty about the quality of one’s per-
formance. Parental Criticism refers to a perception that
one’s parents are or were overly critical, and Parental
Expectations is a perception that one’s parents set extremely
high standards. Lastly, Organisation refers to the need for
order and neatness. Of the 35 items, some address current
beliefs (e.g., ‘People will think less of me if I make a mis-
take’), whereas others refer to past situations (e.g., ‘My par-
ents wanted me to be the best at everything’). Using the
FMPS, a total perfectionism score is calculated by adding
the responses from all of the factors except for Organisation,
which Frost et al. (1990) did not include in the calculation
of an overall perfectionism score. All items are in the form
of a statement, and responses are made by way of a 5-point
Likert-type scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to
‘strongly agree’. The data obtained from the FMPS is ordinal
in nature with potential scores ranging from 35 (lowest) to
175 (highest).
This six-factor measure of perfectionism as proposed by
Frost et al. (1990) has been critiqued by a number of
researchers including Rhéaume, Freeston, Dugas, Letarte,
and Ladouceur (1995), Shafran et al. (2002), and Stöber
(1998). Initial problems were identified with the construc-
tion of the FMPS. When attempting to replicate the initial
EFA results with a second sample of participants (Frost
et al., 1990), the second EFA produced the same six-factor
solution but several of the 36 items from the initial solution
loaded higher on a different factor than what was observed
for the initial sample. The final assignment of items to the
subscales was based on the desire for conceptual integrity of
the subscales and to maximise reliability. This resulted in
© 2017 The Australian Psychological Society

the replacement of two items and elimination of a third
item to attain the final 35-item version; however, several
items from the Parental Expectations scale were still cross-
loading on the Parental Criticism factor.
The second issue with the FMPS lies in the pattern of low
correlations with some subscales of the instrument when
compared with other measures of perfectionism (Frost
et al., 1990). The Organisation subscale was excluded from
calculation of the total score because of its minimal or non-
significant correlations with other measures of perfection-
ism (Frost et al., 1990). The factor Concern over Mistakes
appears most central to the Frost concept of perfectionism,
given that this subscale has stronger correlations with
related constructs and contributes the most variance (25%)
to the FMPS. The other subscales have been proposed as
being correlates of perfectionism, such as being doubtful
about actions, or personality traits, such as being highly
organised (Shafran et al., 2002). It has therefore been sug-
gested that current multidimensional measures—including
the FMPS—do not assess perfectionism per se, but assess
related constructs (Shafran & Mansell, 2001).
Despite the reservations noted above, the FMPS was
adopted by researchers in personality and clinical psychol-
ogy. The widespread use of the FMPS has led to the accep-
tance of perfectionism as a multidimensional construct.
Shafran et al. (2002) suggest that this acceptance has
resulted in the concept of perfectionism being too readily
equated with its method of measurement. Rather than
being an independent theoretical construct, ‘perfectionism’
is now usually equated with the score on the multidimen-
sional self-report instrument designed to assess it. The major
difficulty with this regards whether the measurement tool is
actually measuring the concept of perfectionism accurately.
Empirical investigations into the factor structure may thus
help advance this debate.
FACTOR STRUCTURE OF THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL
PERFECTIONISM SCALE
Studies reporting on the factor structure of the FMPS have
produced inconsistent results. Stallman and Hurst (2011),
using both EFA and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA),
provided evidence that a five-factor model of the FMPS pro-
vides a stable factor structure. Using a similar methodology,
a three-factor model has been proposed (Purdon, Antony, &
Swinson, 1999), along with a four-factor model (Hawkins,
Watt, & Sinclair, 2006; Stöber, 1998), a five-factor model
(Cox, Enns, & Clara, 2002; Stallman & Hurst, 2011), and a
six-factor model (Frost et al., 1990). Only a few studies
were able to support some of these proposed factor struc-
tures of the FMPS using CFA. Stallman and Hurst (2011)
reduced the number of items to 29 due to low factor load-
ings (less than 0.45) and identified five factors including
© 2017 The Australian Psychological Society
Rasch analysis of the FMPS 3
Concern over Mistakes, High Standards, Organisation, Par-
enting, and Doubts about Actions using both EFA and CFA.
Hawkins et al. (2006) also used both EFA and CFA to pro-
pose a four-factor 33-item solution (items 16 and
18 excluded due to cross-loadings identified), with an ade-
quate model fit. The final four-factor 33-item solution con-
sisted of Organisation, Parental Expectations and Criticism,
Concern over Mistakes and Doubts, and Personal Standards.
With increasing use of the FMPS to assess perfectionism
for research and clinical purposes, a close inspection of psy-
chometric properties is imperative. Because the FMPS is a
multidimensional measure, its factorial structure is espe-
cially relevant. Evaluation of the current models of perfec-
tionism will advance theoretical understanding of ‘what’
perfectionism is, as measured by the FMPS. Moving closer
towards agreement on what components make up perfec-
tionism will have important consequences for perfectionism
research and treatment approaches. If the FMPS is not sup-
ported as being stable with six factors, yet the six-factor
FMPS is still widely used for research purposes, then there
is a need to consider revising the original FMPS and encour-
aging researchers to use the modified FMPS instead. Theo-
retical and practical implications of revising the FMPS
would include (1) new understandings of the perfectionism
construct as measured by the FMPS, and (2) scale refine-
ment which may result in the FMPS demonstrating ade-
quate psychometric properties for research purposes.
Removal of factors which are not core components of per-
fectionism would have further implications for our under-
standing of how perfectionism relates to psychopathologies,
individual performance (e.g., in sports, musical, and aca-
demic contexts), and other constructs of interest.
RASCH ANALYSIS
To date, no reports are available investigating the psycho-
metric properties of the FMPS using modern item response
theory (IRT); specifically the Rasch model (Rasch, 1960).
Rasch analysis can be useful for investigating psychometric
properties of an instrument, given its advantages over
approaches of classical test theory (CTT) such as EFA and
CFA, as documented below. The current study selected
three best supported models to be subjected to Rasch
analysis by treating factors as subtests based on Lundgren-
Nilsson, Jonsdottir, Ahlborg, and Tennant (2013) approach.
The six-factor model of Frost et al. (1990) was chosen as it
is the original model of perfectionism, and the original
FMPS continues to be widely used in research (Flett &
Hewitt, 2015). The five-factor 29-item model of Stallman
and Hurst (2011), and the four-factor 33-item model pro-
posed by Hawkins et al. (2006) were chosen for analysis as
both research teams used a combination of EFA and CFA to
support their relevant factor structures.
4 K. Mitchell-Parker et al.
The Rasch model is an advanced measurement approach,
which is able to overcome some limitations of CTT such as a
lack of control over the difficulty level of scale items and
appropriate ordering of ordinal response categories. For
instance, in CTT an overall score is calculated as a sum of all
the scale items but individual items explain different
amount of information about the construct, and therefore
cannot be treated as equal contributors to the total score
(Stucki, Daltroy, Katz, Johannesson, & Liang, 1996). This
fact is also reflected by CTT where individual items have dif-
ferent loadings on their respective factor and hence contrib-
ute different values to a latent trait; however, CTT does not
account for this when estimating a total score. In Rasch
analysis, both the item and person parameters are placed
along the same log-odds interval scale, which displays the
spread of item thresholds. Unlike CTT, Rasch analysis pro-
vides a person-item-threshold map, which can be presented
graphically to illustrate how well the range of item difficul-
ties covers the abilities or qualities of a study sample
(Tennant & Conaghan, 2007). An additional benefit of
Rasch analysis is the identification of item bias, or Differen-
tial Item Functioning (DIF). DIF is observed if participants
with the same level on the latent trait (i.e., perfectionism),
but from different groups (e.g., male vs female) respond dif-
ferently to an item. This bias can be consistent across a trait
(uniform) or not consistent across a trait (non-uniform).
Rasch analysis can correct for uniform bias, but generally
items with a non-uniform bias should be removed from the
scale (Kersten & Kayes, 2011). Furthermore, while the psy-
chometric properties of the FMPS are generally acknowl-
edged to be acceptable, the use of CTT may not discriminate
accurately between individual perfectionism levels. Rasch
analysis enables precise measurement of individuals at
extremes of the scale range (Hobart & Cano, 2009).
Increased measurement precision is relevant to a construct
such as perfectionism, where researchers are interested in
extreme scores at the top and bottom ends of the scale.
A notable advantage of Rasch analysis over CTT is the
ability of Rasch to transform ordinal scores into interval-
level data that increase precision of measurement, which
has been demonstrated empirically (Norquist, Fitzpatrick,
Dawson, & Jenkinson, 2004).
The original FMPS is ordinal in nature, with the measure
providing a ‘manifest score’ of perfectionism. Also as a result
of the FMPS being ordinal, arithmetic calculations such as
addition and subtraction are impracticable (Stucki et al.,1996).
The FMPS should not be used with parametric statistics such
as analysis of variance without violating fundamental statisti-
cal assumptions of these tests. Validity of comparisons with
neurophysiological data (e.g., skin conductance, heart rate) is
compromised. This is an important consideration as
researchers are more frequently correlating the FMPS with
physiological data as interest in perfectionism grows (Ioannou,
Furuya, & Altenmüller, 2016; Wirtz, Ehlert, Kottwitz, La
Marca, & Semmer, 2013). The present study enables
researchers to analyse FMPS data using parametric statistics
and to make valid comparisons with physiological data, as
ordinal-to-interval conversion tables have been produced.
Rasch analysis examines several parameters such as local
independence assumptions, item bias, unidimensionality,
and the ordering of item and response options in polyto-
mous items (Kersten & Kayes, 2011). When fit to the Rasch
model is achieved, these parameters satisfy the model
requirements and the participants can be ordered according
to their level of ability on a scale measuring the latent trait
(e.g., perfectionism), and the items ordered by the level of
difficulty (e.g., the level of perfectionism assessed by an
item). The overall global perfectionism score suggested by
Frost et al. (1990) implies that there is an overarching latent
trait of perfectionism. Therefore, the structure representing
this latent trait should satisfy expectations of the unidimen-
sional Rasch model if individual factors are treated as
subtests, as was demonstrated by Lundgren-Nilsson
et al. (2013).
Theory and research on perfectionism continues to
evolve (Stoeber, 2017). Given that perfectionism is evi-
denced to play an important role in the aetiology, main-
tenance, and course of certain psychopathological states,
it is vital to advance knowledge around which dimen-
sions underpin this phenomenon. Comparing three previ-
ously proposed models using a new technique—namely
Rasch analysis—will contribute unique evidence to the
ongoing debate of which factors should be included in
the FMPS.
METHOD
Participants
The target population for this study was athletes and people
who exercise regularly (at least two times per week). We
expected that these individuals will have higher levels of
perfectionism than non-exercising people (Gill & Dzewal-
towski, 1988; Picard, 1999). Participants numbered
425 (129 male, 296 female) individuals who were either
regular exercisers or competitive athletes dwelling in
New Zealand. The following age groups were created based
on age distribution for the purpose of DIF testing:
16–25 years (n = 111), 26–30 years (n = 92), 31–39 years
(n = 108), 40+ years (n = 114). In terms of their current
level of competitive sport involvement, 169 participants did
not compete in a sport but exercised regularly; 132 com-
peted at a local level; 36 competed at a regional level; 50 at
a national level; and 38 competed at an international level.
The current sample size is above the recommended sample
size estimates for Rasch analysis (Linacre, 1994).
© 2017 The Australian Psychological Society

Measures
The FMPS (Frost et al., 1990) is a 35-item self-report ques-
tionnaire that contains six subscales: Concern over Mis-
takes, Doubts about Actions, Personal Standards, Parental
Expectations, Parental Criticism, and Organisation. Partici-
pants respond to a 5-point Likert type scale with anchors of
‘Strongly disagree’ (1), ‘Disagree’ (2), ‘Neither agree nor dis-
agree’ (3), ‘Agree’ (4), and ‘Strongly agree’ (5). The internal
consistency of the subscales range from 0.77 to 0.93, and is
0.90 for the total perfectionism score. Participants also com-
pleted a demographic questionnaire which collected data on
gender, age, exercise frequency (during a typical week),
and current level of competitive sport involvement (non-
competitive, local, regional, national, or international).
Procedure
An email was sent to local New Zealand sports clubs and fit-
ness facilities inviting interested members to participate in
an online survey assessing perfectionism in exercisers and
athletes. The sports clubs were selected as a convenience
sample based on the researcher’s contacts. Inclusion criteria
was age (16 years and over) and exercise habits (must usu-
ally exercise at least once per week). Participating individ-
uals were directed, via an email from their sports club or
fitness facility, to click on a URL hyperlink to access the
online survey. The participant information sheet appeared
on the computer screen before the questionnaire com-
menced. All questionnaires were administered online. All
instructions and items in the questionnaires were in
English. Ethical clearance was received by the authors’ uni-
versity ethics committee.
Statistical analysis
Rasch analysis was conducted using the software
RUMM2030 produced in RUMM Laboratory in Perth,
Australia (Andrich, Sheridan, & Luo, 2009). Generally, the
Rasch analysis followed sequential steps, as has been
described by Siegert, Tennant, and Turner-Stokes (2010).
This included investigation of the performance of individual
items through DIF analysis or threshold ordering, but also
the structure of the scale through testing for
unidimensionality.
In Rasch analysis, a number of fit indices are considered
to decide whether the data show acceptable fit to the model.
The item-trait interaction, which is represented by an over-
all and individual item chi-square fit statistic, should not be
statistically significant (p > .05, Bonferroni adjusted). A sta-
tistically significant result on the chi-square fit statistic indi-
cates that scale/items work differently at different levels of
the latent trait, which violates the assumption of the Rasch
measurement model. In the case of an excellent model fit,
© 2017 The Australian Psychological Society
Rasch analysis of the FMPS 5
the overall person and item fit residuals should have a
mean close to 0.00 and a standard deviation (SD) close to
1.00. Individual items should have fit residuals within the
range of −2.50 and +2.50. All items are required to be
locally independent, which can be tested by examining the
residual correlations between items. A residual correlation
with a magnitude more than 0.20 compared to the mean of
all residual correlations is a sign of local dependency
(Christensen, Makransky, & Horton, 2016; Marais &
Andrich, 2008). The items which are locally dependent are
combined into a subtest (Wainer & Kiely, 1987), and the
overall model fit is re-tested. Checks are made to ensure
that there is no significant DIF for age, gender, and other
personal factors. If any of the examined items shows signifi-
cant DIF for a specific personal factor, that item can be split
into relevant categories, without the need to remove the
item in question (Wainer & Kiely, 1987). This is then fol-
lowed by re-testing of the overall model fit.
RUMM2030 software has inbuilt function to test dimen-
sionality based on the method developed by Smith (2002).
The person locations for two groups of items with the high-
est positive and the highest negative loadings on the first
principal component are compared using an independent
samples t-test, after a latent trait factor is removed. The per-
centage of significant t-tests will be computed together with
the 95% binominal confidence interval (CI) by consider-
ing a sample size. If the number of significant t-tests is less
than 5% or the lower bound of the binominal CI calculated
for this percentage of significant t-tests is less than 5%
(e.g., 4%), then unidimensionality is supported.
Reliability of the scale is assessed by the person separation
index (PSI), the Rasch numerical equivalent of Cronbach’s
α. The PSI indicates how well the scale (represented by item
thresholds) can discriminate among different trait levels in a
sample. Ordinal data are converted to interval-level data
using the software RUMM2030 (Andrich et al., 2009).
RESULTS
Likelihood ratio test was conducted and confirmed suitabil-
ity of the data for the Partial Credit model
(χ 2(101) = 329.07, p = .001). Table 1 summarises the over-
all Rasch model fit statistics for the initial and modified ana-
lyses of tested models. Initial analysis of the full FMPS scale
showed an overall poor fit with significant item-trait inter-
action (χ 2(210) = 652.72, p = .001) and multidimensional-
ity (33% of significant t-tests), but overall reliability of the
scale was good as indexed by a PSI of 0.92 (Table 1).
Table S1, Supporting Information, provides the individual
item fit statistics for the initial analysis. At the individual
item level, 3 of the 6 Organisation items (items 7, 27, and
31) were misfitting, which was the highest ratio (50%)
compared to the other factors of perfectionism. The factor
6 K. Mitchell-Parker et al.

Table 1 Summary of fit statistics for the initial and the modified Rasch analyses of the FMPS models
Independent t-test
Item fit residual Person fit residual Goodness of fit
Analyses Value/SD Value/SD χ (df )
2
p PSI ST < 5% %LB
Full scale −0.11 2.05 −0.46 1.89 652.72 (210) <.001 .92 32.71 >5
Frost model
Initial −0.42 2.60 −0.43 1.13 154.87 (54) <.001 .75 9.88 >5
Modified −0.25 2.81 −0.44 1.07 39.91 (36) .30 .78 4.71 2.63
Stallman model
Initial −0.67 2.91 −0.44 1.02 85.79 (45) <.001 .64 10.82 >5
Modified −0.47 3.04 −0.42 0.98 8.45 (16) .93 .73 4.24 2.16
Hawkins model
Initial −0.97 3.22 −0.50 1.04 74.63 (36) <.001 .67 10.82 >5
Modified −0.29 2.67 −0.49 1.07 21.44 (27) .77 .76 3.30 1.22
Note. LB, lower bound of the 95% confidence interval; ST, significant t-tests in %.

Concern over Mistakes had 3 misfitting items (items 9, 21,
and 25). Parental Expectations had 1 misfitting item (item
15), as did Personal Standards (item 16) and Doubts about
Actions (item 33). Also, 27 of 35 items displayed disordered
thresholds around the middle category (neither agree nor
disagree), and the remaining 8 items had only marginally
ordered thresholds. Table S1 provides the individual item fit
statistics for the initial analysis before rescoring. Visual
examination of response probability curves revealed that
the thresholds of the middle category are consistently
located close to the ‘slightly disagree’ category, which is
illustrated in Fig. 1a (upper panel, initial) and representative
for the majority of items. Therefore, it was decided to
rescore all items uniformly by combining the category
‘slightly disagree’ with ‘neither agree nor disagree’. Please
note that the Rasch software, RUMM2030, converts Likert-
scale responses to a format where the lowest response
option is scored as 0. Fig. 1 thus shows 5-point Likert-scale
responses ranging from 0 to 4 instead of from 1 to 5.
After uniform rescoring, none of the items displayed disor-
dered thresholds, which is illustrated by Fig. 1b (bottom panel,
modified). A slight improvement of the overall model fit was
observed but it did not satisfy the model expectations
(χ 2(210) = 553.29, p = .001). At this stage the residual correla-
tion matrix was examined and showed patterns of local depen-
dency between six groups of items, which were generally
consistent with the six-factor Frost model (Frost et al., 1990).
Original six-factor Frost model
The original six-factor Frost model (Frost et al., 1990) was
tested by combining the items of each factor into six sub-
tests (Lundgren-Nilsson et al., 2013). The overall fit
improved substantially but it was still unsatisfactory
(χ 2(54) = 154.87, p = .001), and the unidimensionality
assumption was violated (Table 1, Frost model initial). At
the individual item (subtest) level, subtest six
(Organisation) displayed misfit with an item fit residual of
3.58 and significant chi square (χ 2(9) = 79.66, p < .001).
The misfitting subtest six (Organisation) was deleted, which
further improved the overall model fit, but the chi square
was still significant (χ 2(54) = 62.74, p = .04). At this stage
the residual correlation matrix was examined, and a strong
residual correlation that exceeded the 0.20 cut-off point
above the mean of all residual correlations (Christensen
et al., 2016) was found between subtests 3 (Parental Expec-
tations) and 4 (Parental Criticism), indicating local depen-
dency between these subtests. Therefore, these subtests
were combined into one subtest to solve local dependency
issue, and the best model fit was achieved (χ 2(36) = 39.91,
p = .30). The scale also showed acceptable reliability and
was strictly unidimensional (Table 1, Frost model modified).
No DIF was identified for personal factors age, gender, or
level of sports performance. The modified Rasch solution
based on the Frost et al. (1990) model consisted of four fac-
tors: Concern over Mistakes, Personal Standards, Doubts
about Actions, and Parental Influences.
Hawkins, Watt and Sinclair four-factor model
The four-factor model of Hawkins et al. (2006) was fitted to
the Rasch model with factor items combined into subtests
and the two excluded items deleted. The overall model fit
for the four-factor solution was not satisfactory. The chi
square was significant (χ 2(36) = 74.63, p = .001), and unidi-
mensionality was not confirmed (Table 1, Hawkins model
initial). Reliability was low with a PSI of 0.67. At the indi-
vidual item level, subtest 2 (Organisation) displayed signifi-
cant model misfit with item fit residual of 3.37 and chi
square of 48.04 (df = 9) and was removed from the scale.
After removing the Organisation subtest, the best overall
and individual item model fit was attained with non-
significant chi square (χ 2(27) = 21.44, p = .77), better reli-
ability (PSI = .76) and strict unidimensionality (Table 1,
Hawkins model modified). No DIF was identified for per-
sonal factors. The modified Rasch solution for the Hawkins
et al. (2006) model consisted of three factors: Concern over
Mistakes and Doubts, Personal Standards, and Parental
Influences.
© 2017 The Australian Psychological Society
 Rasch analysis of the FMPS 7

Figure 1 (a) Initial. Item cate-

gory probability curves illustrat-
ing disordered thresholds for
FMPS item 2, which is represen-
tative for the majority of the
items. Response options are
labelled here from 0 = ‘Strongly
disagree’ to 4 = ‘Strongly agree’.
(b) Final. Item category proba-
bility curves illustrating rescored
(lower panel) thresholds for
FMPS item 2. All items have
been uniformly rescored by
combining ‘Disagree’ with ‘Nei-
ther agree nor disagree’.
‘Strongly disagree’ is thus scored
as 0, both ‘Disagree’ and ‘Nei-
ther agree nor disagree’ as
1, ‘Agree’ as 2, and ‘Strongly
agree’ as 3.

Stallman and Hurst five-factor model Model comparison

The 5-factor model of Stallman and Hurst (2011) was
tested with the Rasch model. In the same way, subtests
were created after the six excluded items were deleted,
and uniform rescoring was conducted to accommodate the
proposed five-factor structure. The overall model fit for the
five-factor solution was not satisfactory. The reliability was
low with a PSI of 0.64, and the overall fit was poor
(χ 2(45) = 85.79, p = .001) (Table 1, Stallman model ini-
tial). Unidimensionality was also not confirmed, and subt-
est 2 (Organisation) displayed significant misfit to the
Rasch model with a chi square of 46.89 (df = 9), p = .001.
Therefore the Organisation subtest was deleted, which pro-
duced a better model fit (χ 2(16) = 8.45, p = .93), PSI =
0.73. No DIF was identified for personal factors. The mod-
ified Rasch solution for the Stallman and Hurst (2011)
model is comprised of four factors, which are the same fac-
tors as the modified Frost et al. (1990) model: Concern
over Mistakes, Personal Standards, Doubts about Actions,
and Parental Influences.
Fig. 2 shows the person-item threshold distributions for all
three modified solutions of the analysis. It shows that the
sample abilities are well covered by the item thresholds in
all solutions, with no signs of ceiling or floor effects. For all
solutions the distribution of person thresholds was close to
normal. The modified Frost et al. four-factor model dis-
played good item coverage, which is reflected by good dis-
criminability (PSI = 0.78). When Organisation is removed
from both the Hawkins et al. (2006) and Stallman and
Hurst (2011) models, the modified three-factor model of
Hawkins et al. (2006) appears slightly better than the modi-
fied four-factor Stallman and Hurst (2011) model because
there are no gaps between individual item thresholds. The
modified Stallman and Hurst (2011) four-factor model
shows large gaps between item thresholds on the high and
low ends of the scale and consequently shows a lower PSI
(0.73). For all solutions the mean of person item thresholds
is slightly below the item mean, suggesting that difficult
items might be over-represented in this scale.

© 2017 The Australian Psychological Society

8 K. Mitchell-Parker et al.

Figure 2 Person-item threshold distribution for the three modified factor models of the FMPS.

© 2017 The Australian Psychological Society


All solutions appeared adequate in measuring perfection-
ism without the Organisation subtest. However, the modi-
fied four-factor Frost solution had the highest reliability
(PSI = 0.78), which justified the use of this model to gener-
ate an ordinal-to-interval conversion table.
Ordinal-to-interval scale conversion table
Table S2 includes conversion scores from an ordinal-to-
interval level scale for the modified FMPS, with the modi-
fied model presenting as four factors (Concern over Mis-
takes, Personal Standards, Parental Influences, and Doubts
about Actions) and 29 items. Similar to Frost et al. (1990),
Organisation items (items 2, 7, 8, 27, 29, and 31) should
not be included in the calculation of a final score. Table S2
includes conversion algorithms that allow users to increase
the precision of the FPMS questionnaire without needing to
adjust the original response format of the scale.
DISCUSSION
The current study reported on Rasch analysis conducted to
advance the psychometric properties of the FMPS, a widely
used multidimensional measure of perfectionism. We dem-
onstrated that the modified FMPS has good internal struc-
tural validity once all items are rescored, the parental
factors are combined, and the Organisation factor is
removed. Precision of the FMPS can be further enhanced by
using the proposed ordinal-to-interval conversion table pre-
sented here, without the need to modify the original
response format. Our results support the psychometric
properties and internal structural validity of the modified
FMPS without the Organisation facet, which did not satisfy
the Rasch model expectations across all three tested models.
The best model fit was achieved when disordered thresholds
were uniformly rescored and the two parental facets were
combined into one subtest, which suggest a single factor we
have called Parental Influences. The modified Rasch model
of the best fit suggests a four-factor solution for the FMPS,
comprising of Concern over Mistakes, Parental Influences,
Personal Standards, and Doubts about Actions. The results
of this analysis demonstrated that the overarching perfec-
tionism trait can be measured with high precision using the
ordinal-to-interval conversion table generated by this Rasch
analysis.
The Rasch analysis confirmed the unidimensionality of all
three models tested once Organisation was excluded, mean-
ing that a psychometrically supported total perfectionism
score can now be calculated for the modified scale. This
finding is in line with the scoring instructions for the total
FMPS score proposed by the Frost et al. (1990), which also
excludes Organisation items. Therefore, researchers can
now use the conversion algorithms from Table S2 to trans-
form ordinal responses into interval-level data, in order to
© 2017 The Australian Psychological Society
Rasch analysis of the FMPS 9
obtain a precise perfectionism score when using the FMPS.
After accounting for the disordered thresholds, the modified
four factor solution based on the Frost model had the high-
est reliability (PSI = 0.78), although notably all three
models showed acceptable reliability levels at PSI of 0.73
and above. The item thresholds for the modified Frost
model are well spread along the measurement continuum
of the perfectionism construct, and well-targeted levels of
perfectionism experienced by the study participants. Com-
bining the factors Parental Expectations and Parental Criti-
cism into one factor is consistent with findings from other
researchers (Stallman & Hurst, 2011; Stöber, 1998). The
exclusion of Organisation as a factor is also consistent with
findings and recommendations from Frost et al. (1990) and
Stoeber and Otto (2006). Evidence shows that a person
may be a perfectionist in some areas of his or her life, but
may not uphold the same perfectionist tendencies in other
areas of life (Slaney & Ashby, 1996). In a study with inter-
collegiate varsity athletes (Dunn, Gotwals, & Dunn, 2005),
participants completed two domain-specific (i.e., sport and
school) versions of Hewitt and Flett’s (1991) Multidimen-
sional Perfectionism Scale (HF-MPS), as well as one mea-
suring perfectionist tendencies in general. The results
indicated that athletes were significantly more perfectionists
in their sport than in their studies, and significantly more
perfectionists in their studies than in general. Although the
idea of domain-specific perfectionism is in contrast with
Flett and Hewitt’s (2002) claim that extreme perfectionists
want to be perfect in all aspects of their lives, it is plausible
that athletes, for example, feel that having a neat and
orderly house is of less importance compared to setting high
standards for performance and striving to avoid mistakes
and failure. Further research is needed in this area to
advance knowledge on how the different factors of perfec-
tionism are related to different domains of perfectionism. It
is also possible that Organisation is more relevant to a dif-
ferent, but related, construct such as conscientiousness
(MacCann, Duckworth, & Roberts, 2009).
The uniform rescoring of all items was conducted by com-
bining the category ‘slightly disagree’ with ‘neither agree nor
disagree’ to correct the disordered thresholds. This decision
was made on the basis that the thresholds of the middle cate-
gory were consistently located close to the slightly disagree
category. Issues with a ‘neutral’ category when conducting
Rasch analysis are not uncommon, and the tendency to pre-
fer a middle response category has been found in a number
of self-report questionnaires (Wetzel, Lüdtke, Zettler, &
Böhnke, 2015). We followed the recommendation by Ker-
sten and Kayes (2011) and combined the category options
(‘neither agree nor disagree’ and ‘slightly disagree’) that were
associated with the disordered thresholds.
The modified four-factor 29-item model supported by
Rasch analysis was comprised of the factors Concern over
Mistakes, Doubts about Actions, Parental Influences, and
10 K. Mitchell-Parker et al.
Personal Standards. Other researchers have also found evi-
dence for a four-factor model using CTT methods (Hawkins
et al., 2006; Stöber, 1998); however, this is the first study
that used Rasch analysis to demonstrate that Organisation is
not psychometrically fitting within the construct of perfec-
tionism as defined by the FMPS. The two parental factors
have frequently been combined in the previous investiga-
tions of the FMPS factor structure (Stallman & Hurst, 2011;
Stöber, 1998), suggesting that the Parental Expectation and
Parental Concern items are better treated as one factor. Fur-
ther research is needed to determine whether parental
influences are a core component of perfectionism or a pre-
dictor of perfectionism. From a psychometric viewpoint, the
Parental Influence factor was supported as fitting within a
four-factor perfectionism model. Based on the current
Rasch analysis findings, the authors recommend to consider
Organisation as potential predictor rather that an integrated
component of the perfectionism trait. The recommendation
from this study is the use of a four-factor 29-item FMPS,
with the scores converted from ordinal to interval level for
greater measurement precision. The results of this study
also have important theoretical and clinical implications for
understanding perfectionism, especially in athletes and peo-
ple who exercise. Given that much of our understanding of
the construct of perfectionism derives from the FMPS, it is
vital that the measure is supported as having adequate psy-
chometric properties for the sporting population, which had
not previously been achieved. Removal of the Organisation
subscale and combining of the two Parenting subscales
would render the modified FMPS as being suitable for use
with this population, as supported by our findings.
The following limitations should be noted. The three
models were tested with a sample of athletes and exercisers,
which limits the generalisability of our findings to these
populations. Replication with more diverse samples includ-
ing clinical samples, general population, and a variety of
ethnic and cultural groups could be beneficial. Additionally,
for all solutions tested the SD for the item fit residual is
above the expectations of Rasch model. This can be
explained by over-representation of difficult items in the
scale. Given that much of our understanding of perfection-
ism is derived from this measure, replication of these find-
ings with different samples using both CTT and IRT
methods is needed to provide more robust support for the
structure of the FMPS.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the
online version of this article at the publisher’s web-site:
Table S1 Individual item fit statistics for initial analysis of
the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale including
item locations, fit residuals and chi-square.
Table S2 Converting from ordinal-to-interval-level scores
for the modified Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism scale
(Frost et al., 1990).
REFERENCES
Andrich, D., Sheridan, B., & Luo, G. (2009). RUMM 2030. Perth:
RUMM Laboratory.
Anshel, M. H., Weatherby, N. L., Kang, M., & Watson, T. (2009).
Rasch calibration of a unidimensional perfectionism inventory
for sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(1), 210–216. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2008.07.006
Bardone-Cone, A. M., Wonderlich, S. A., Frost, R. O., Bulik, C. M.,
Mitchell, J. E., Uppala, S., & Simonich, H. (2007). Perfectionism
and eating disorders: Current status and future directions. Clinical
Psychology Review, 27(3), 384–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.
2006.12.005
Besharat, M. A., & Shahidi, S. (2010). Perfectionism, anger, and
anger rumination. International Journal of Psychology, 45(6),
427–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2010.501336
Burns, D. D. (1980). The perfectionist’s script for self-defeat. Psychol-
ogy Today, 14(6), 34–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-
9329-3
Christensen, K. B., Makransky, G., & Horton, M. (2016). Critical
values for Yen’s Q 3: Identification of local dependence in the Rasch
model using residual correlations. Applied Psychological Measurement,
41(3), 178–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621616677520
Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Clara, I. P. (2002). The multidimensional
structure of perfectionism in clinically distressed and college stu-
dent samples. Psychological Assessment, 15(3), 365–373. https://doi.
org/10.1037//1040-3590.14.3.365
Dunn, J. G., Gotwals, J. K., & Dunn, J. C. (2005). An examination
of the domain specificity of perfectionism among intercollegiate
student-athletes. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(6),
1439–1448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.09.009
Flett, G. L., Greene, A., & Hewitt, P. L. (2004). Dimensions of per-
fectionism and anxiety sensitivity. Journal of Rational-Emotive &
Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 22(1), 39–57. https://doi.org/10.1023/
b:jore.0000011576.18538.8e
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2002). Perfectionism: Theory, research, and
treatment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2015). Measures of perfectionism. In
Measures of personality and social psychological constructs.
(pp. 595–618). London: Academic Press.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Heisel, M. J. (2014). The destructiveness
of perfectionism revisited: Implications for the assessment of sui-
cide risk and the prevention of suicide. Review of General Psychol-
ogy, 18(3), 156–172. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000011
Frost, R., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The
dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research,
14(5), 449–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01172967
Gill, D. L., & Dzewaltowski, D. A. (1988). Competitive orientations
among intercollegiate athletes: Is winning the only thing? The
Sport Psychologist, 2(3), 212–221. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2.
3.212
Gotwals, J. K., Dunn, J. G. H., & Wayment, H. A. (2003). An exam-
ination of perfectionism and self-esteem in intercollegiate ath-
letes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 26(1), 17–38. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.paid.2004.09.009
Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic
perfectionism. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior,
15(1), 27–33.
Hawkins, C. C., Watt, H. M. G., & Sinclair, K. E. (2006). Psychomet-
ric properties of the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale
© 2017 The Australian Psychological Society

with Australian adolescent girls: Clarification of multidimension-
ality and perfectionist typology. Educational and Psychological Mea-
surement, 66(6), 1001–1022. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0013164405285909
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and
social contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and association
with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
60(3), 456–470. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.456
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Ediger, E. (1996). Perfectionism and
depression: Longitudinal assessment of a specific vulnerability
hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 276–280. https://
doi.org/10.1037//0021-843x.105.2.276
Hobart, J., & Cano, S. (2009). Improving the evaluation of thera-
peutic interventions in multiple sclerosis: the role of new psycho-
metric methods. Health Technology Assessment, 13(12), 1–200.
Hollander, M. H. (1965). Perfectionism. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 6,
94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-440x(65)80016-5
Ioannou, C. I., Furuya, S., & Altenmüller, E. (2016). The impact of
stress on motor performance in skilled musicians suffering from
focal dystonia: Physiological and psychological characteristics.
Neuropsychologia, 85, 226–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
neuropsychologia.2016.03.029
Kersten, P., & Kayes, N. M. (2011). Outcome measurement and the
use of Rasch analysis, a statistics-free introduction. New Zealand
Journal of Physiotherapy, 39(2), 92–99.
Linacre, J. M. (1994). Sample size and item calibration stability.
Rasch Measurement Transactions, 7(4), 328 www.rasch.org/rmt/
rmt74m.htm
Lundgren-Nilsson, Å., Jonsdottir, I. H., Ahlborg, G., & Tennant, A.
(2013). Construct validity of the psychological general well being
index (PGWBI) in a sample of patients undergoing treatment for
stress-related exhaustion: A Rasch analysis. Health and Quality of
Life Outcomes, 11(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-2
MacCann, C., Duckworth, A. L., & Roberts, R. D. (2009). Empirical
identification of the major facets of conscientiousness. Learning
and Individual Differences, 19(4), 451–458. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.lindif.2009.03.007
Marais, I., & Andrich, D. (2008). Effects of varying magnitude and
patterns of response dependence in the unidimensional Rasch
model. Journal of Applied Measurement, 9(2), 105–124. http://
scseec.edu.au/
Martinelli, M., Chasson, G. S., Wetterneck, C. T., Hart, J. M., &
Björgvinsson, T. (2014). Perfectionism dimensions as predictors
of symptom dimensions of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Bulle-
tin of the Menninger Clinic, 78(2), 140–159. https://doi.org/10.
1521/bumc.2014.78.2.140
Norquist, J. M., Fitzpatrick, R., Dawson, J., & Jenkinson, C. (2004).
Comparing alternative Rasch-based methods vs raw scores in
measuring change in health. Medical Care, 42(1), I–25. https://
doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000103530.13056.88
Pacht, A. R. (1984). Reflections on perfection. American Psychologist,
39(4), 386–390. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.39.4.386
Picard, C. L. (1999). The level of competition as a factor for the
development of eating disorders in female collegiate athletes.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28(5), 583–594. https://doi.org/
10.1023/A:1021606710398
Purdon, C., Antony, M. M., & Swinson, R. P. (1999). Psychometric
properties of the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale in a
clinical anxiety disorders sample. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
55(10), 1271–1286. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-4679
(199910)55:10<1271::aid-jclp8>3.0.co;2-a
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attain-
ment test. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Educational
Research.
© 2017 The Australian Psychological Society
Rasch analysis of the FMPS 11
Reed, G. F. (1985). Obsessional experience and compulsive behaviour: A
cognitive-structural approach. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Rhéaume, J., Freeston, M. H., Dugas, M. J., Letarte, H., &
Ladouceur, R. (1995). Perfectionism, responsibility and
obsessive-compulsive symptoms. Behaviour Research and Therapy,
33(7), 785–794. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(95)00017-r
Shafran, R., Cooper, Z., & Fairburn, C. G. (2002). Clinical perfec-
tionism: A cognitive-behavioural analysis. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 40(7), 773–791. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0005-7967
(01)00059-6
Shafran, R., & Mansell, W. (2001). Perfectionism and psychopathol-
ogy: A review of research and treatment. Clinical Psychology
Review, 21(6), 879–906. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-7358(00)
00072-6
Siegert, R. J., Tennant, A., & Turner-Stokes, L. (2010). Rasch analy-
sis of the Beck Depression Inventory-II in a neurological rehabili-
tation sample. Disability and Rehabilitation, 32(1), 8–17. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09638280902971398
Slaney, R. B., & Ashby, J. S. (1996). Perfectionists: Study of a crite-
rion group. Journal of Counseling and Development, 74(4), 393–398.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1996.tb01885.x
Smith, E. V. (2002). Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidi-
mensionality using item fit statistics and principal component
analysis of residuals. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3, 205–231.
Stallman, H. M., & Hurst, C. P. (2011). The factor structure of the
Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale in university stu-
dents. Australian Psychologist, 46(4), 229–236. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1742-9544.2010.00010.x
Stöber, J. (1998). The Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale
revisited: More perfect with four (instead of six) dimensions. Per-
sonality and Individual Differences, 24(4), 481–491. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00207-9
Stoeber, J. (2017). The psychology of perfectionism: Critical issues,
open questions, and future directions. In J. Stoeber (Ed.), The
psychology of perfectionism: Theory, research, applications. London:
Routledge.
Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism:
Approaches, evidence, challenges. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 10(4), 295–319. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327957pspr1004_2
Stucki, G., Daltroy, L., Katz, J. N., Johannesson, M., & Liang, M. H.
(1996). Interpretation of change scores in ordinal clinical scales
and health status measures: The whole may not equal the sum
of the parts. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49(7), 711–717.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(96)00016-9
Tennant, A., & Conaghan, P. G. (2007). The Rasch measurement
model in rheumatology: What is it and why use it? When should
it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper?
Arthritis and Rheumatism, 57(8), 1358–1362. https://doi.org/10.
1002/art.23108
Wainer, H., & Kiely, G. (1987). Item clusters and computerized
adaptive testing: A case for testlets. Journal of Educational Measure-
ment, 24(3), 185–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1987.
tb00274.x
Wetzel, E., Lüdtke, O., Zettler, I., & Böhnke, J. R. (2015). The sta-
bility of extreme response style and acquiescence over 8 years.
Assessment, 23(3), 279–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1073191115583714
Wirtz, P. H., Ehlert, U., Kottwitz, M. U., La Marca, R., &
Semmer, N. K. (2013). Occupational role stress is associated with
higher cortisol reactivity to acute stress. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 18(2), 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0031802