Psychological Assessment © 2015 American Psychological Association

2015, Vol. 27, No. 4, 1471–1483 1040-3590/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pas0000137

A Combined Analysis of the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale

(FMPS), Child and Adolescent Perfectionism Scale (CAPS), and Almost
Perfect Scale—Revised (APS-R): Different Perfectionist Profiles in
Adolescent High School Students
Amanda Sironic and Robert A. Reeve
University of Melbourne

To investigate differences and similarities in the dimensional constructs of the Frost Multidimensional
Perfectionism Scale (FMPS; Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990), Child and Adolescent Perfectionism
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Scale (CAPS; Flett, Hewitt, Boucher, Davidson, & Munro, 2000), and Almost Perfect Scale—Revised
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

(APS-R; Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, & Ashby, 2001), 938 high school students completed the 3 perfec-
tionism questionnaires, as well as the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995).
Preliminary analyses revealed commonly observed factor structures for each perfectionism questionnaire.
Exploratory factor analysis of item responses from the questionnaires (combined) yielded a 4-factor solution
(factors were labeled High Personal Standards, Concerns, Doubts and Discrepancy, Externally Motivated
Perfectionism, and Organization and Order). A latent class analysis of individuals’ mean ratings on each of
the 4 factors yielded a 6-class solution. Three of the 6 classes represented perfectionist subgroups (labeled
adaptive perfectionist, externally motivated maladaptive perfectionist, and mixed maladaptive perfectionist),
and 3 represented nonperfectionist subgroups (labeled nonperfectionist A, nonperfectionist B, and order and
organization nonperfectionist). Each of the 6 subgroups was meaningfully associated with the DASS. Findings
showed that 3 out of 10 students were classified as maladaptive perfectionists, and maladaptive perfectionists
were more prevalent than adaptive perfectionists. In sum, it is evident that combined ratings from the FMPS,
CAPS, and APS-R offer a meaningful characterization of perfectionism.

Keywords: perfectionism, perfectionist, adolescence, subgroup, depression, anxiety, stress

Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pas0000137.supp

Perfectionism is widely regarded as a multidimensional con-
struct—a claim reflected in the structure of contemporary perfec-
tionism questionnaires, which include two or more dimensions in
their design. An issue of some importance is the degree to which
within and across questionnaire dimensions represent unique or
similar constructs. This issue is particularly salient because a
growing number of researchers are using combinations of ques-
tionnaire dimensions to identify different perfectionist subgroups
that, in turn, are hypothesized to be associated with differences in
psychopathology (Gaudreau & Thompson, 2010; Rice & Ashby,
2007; Rice, Ashby, & Gilman, 2011; Sironic & Reeve, 2012). In
the current study, we examine the uniqueness and similarity of
dimensions from three frequently used perfectionism question-
naires (i.e., the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale
[FMPS], Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990; the Hewitt
Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale [HMPS], Hewitt & Flett,
19911; and the Almost Perfect Scale—Revised [APS-R], Slaney,
Rice, Mobley, Trippi, & Ashby, 2001). A more integrated concep-
This article was published Online First May 18, 2015.
Amanda Sironic and Robert A. Reeve, Melbourne School of Psycho-
logical Sciences, University of Melbourne.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Amanda
Sironic or Robert A. Reeve, Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences,
University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia. E-mail: amandasironic@
gmail.com or r.reeve@unimelb.edu.au
tualization of perfectionism may emerge by (a) subjecting items
from the three perfectionism questionnaires to factor analysis to
identify higher-order perfectionism dimensions, (b) establishing
meaningful perfectionist profiles from combinations of higher-
order perfectionism dimensions, and (c) examining how emergent
perfectionist profiles are associated with differences in psychopa-
thology.
Perfectionism Questionnaires and Their Dimensions:
Similarities and Differences
The FMPS, HMPS, and APS-R are commonly used perfection-
ism questionnaires. Frost et al.’s (1990) FMPS closely aligns to
characteristics ascribed to perfectionism in school students (Hawk-
ins, Watt, & Sinclair, 2006) and comprises six dimensions: Per-
sonal Standards (setting self-determined high standards for per-
sonal performance), Concern Over Mistakes (a tendency to be
overly critical of one’s performance), Doubts About Actions (a
tendency to have doubts about the quality of one’s performance),
Organization (placing an emphasis on order and precision), Paren-
tal Expectations (placing considerable value on parents’ expecta-
tions), and Parental Criticism (placing considerable value on par-
1
The child and adolescent version of the HMPS, the Child and Adoles-
cent Perfectionism Scale (CAPS; Flett, Hewitt, Boucher, Davidson, &
Munro, 2000), was used in this study because research was conducted on
an adolescent sample.

1471
 1472 SIRONIC AND REEVE
ents’ disapproval and criticism). Hewitt and Flett (1991) share
Frost et al.’s intra- and interpersonal conceptualization of perfec-
tionism. Unlike Frost et al., however, Hewitt and Flett argue that
perfectionism is best conceptualized as either internally and/or
externally motivated. The HMPS comprises three dimensions:
Self-Oriented Perfectionism (holding high standards that originate
from the self), Socially Prescribed Perfectionism (adopting high
standards perceived as coming from others), and Other-Oriented
Perfectionism (expecting others to hold high standards and be
perfect). Finally, Slaney et al.’s (2001) APS-R was developed from
a counseling perspective and, unlike the FMPS and HMPS, is a
strictly intrapersonal measure of perfectionism (i.e., it does not
assess perfectionism as an externally motivated construct). The
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
APS-R comprises three dimensions: High Standards (setting self-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
determined high standards), Order (striving for order and organi-
zation), and Discrepancy (experiencing inconsistency between
one’s self-determined standards and one’s actual performance).
Investigations into perfectionism questionnaire dimensions have
largely focused on distinguishing between positive and negative
forms of perfectionism and variable-centered analyses. For in-
stance, Frost, Heimberg, Holt, Mattia, and Neubauer (1993) ad-
ministered the FMPS and HMPS to 553 undergraduate psychology
students and subjected questionnaire item responses to factor anal-
ysis to yield two factors: Positive Striving (HMPS Self-Oriented
Perfectionism, HMPS Other-Oriented Perfectionism, FMPS Per-
sonal Standards, and FMPS Organization) and Maladaptive Eval-
uative Concerns (HMPS Socially Prescribed Perfectionism, FMPS
Concern Over Mistakes, FMPS Doubts About Actions, FMPS
Parental Expectations, and FMPS Parental Criticism). Maladaptive
Evaluation Concerns was related to high levels of negative affect
and depression and low levels of self-esteem (and unrelated to
positive affect), while Positive Striving was related to high levels
of positive affect (and unrelated to negative affect, depression, and
self-esteem). Frost et al.’s findings support the view that perfec-
tionism is best represented by a positive and a negative dimension;
a pattern of findings that has since been replicated by other
researchers (see Stoeber & Otto, 2006, for a review).
To date, only two studies have jointly analyzed the HMPS,
FMPS, and APS-R (Rice, Lopez, & Vergara, 2005; Suddarth &
Slaney, 2001). Suddarth and Slaney administered the FMPS,
HMPS, and APS-R to 196 undergraduate students (151 women, 45
men) and subjected mean responses from the 12 subscales to
exploratory factor analysis (EFA). A three-factor solution emerged
from a principal-components analysis. The first factor was labeled
Maladaptive Perfectionism (FMPS Doubts About Actions, FMPS
Concern Over Mistakes, FMPS Parental Criticism, FMPS Parental
Expectations, HMPS Socially Prescribed Perfectionism, and
APS-R Discrepancy) and accounted for 35.5% of the variance. The
second factor was labeled Adaptive Perfectionism (FMPS Per-
sonal Standards, HMPS Self-Oriented Perfectionism, HMPS
Other-Oriented Perfectionism, and APS-R High Standards) and
accounted for 21.8% of the variance. The third factor was
labeled Order/Organization (FMPS Organization and APS-R
Order) and accounted for 10.6% of the variance. Suddarth and
Slaney found the three factors were differentially associated
with locus of control, anxiety, and psychological distress. Mal-
adaptive Perfectionism predicted an external locus of control,
anxiety, and psychological distress; Adaptive Perfectionism
predicted an internal locus of control; and there were no sig-
nificant predictions with the Order/Organization factor.
Rice et al. (2005) conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
on 241 undergraduate students’ responses on the FMPS, HMPS,
and APS-R subscales: a four-factor model yielded a superior fit to
a three-factor model (Comparative Fit Index [CFI] ⫽ 0.88 and
0.67, respectively). Rice et al. labeled the four factors Adaptive
Perfectionism (FMPS Personal Standards, HMPS Self-Oriented
Perfectionism, and APS-R High Standards), Maladaptive Perfec-
tionism (FMPS Doubts About Actions, FMPS Concern Over Mis-
takes, and APS-R Discrepancy), Parental/Social Influences (FMPS
Parental Criticism, FMPS Parental Expectations, and HMPS So-
cially Prescribed Perfectionism), and Organization/Order (HMPS
Organization and APS-R Order). Rice et al.’s findings suggest that
parental and social performance expectations are significant pre-
dictors of adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism. However, they
argue that although parental and/or social forces may influence
perfectionism, they should not be regarded as an index of perfec-
tionism per se. Shafran and Mansell (2001) agree with this claim,
arguing that socially prescribed beliefs (e.g., beliefs assessed by
HMPS Socially Prescribed Perfectionism) are not integral to the
“classical concept of perfectionism” (p. 886). Moreover, they
suggest that the parental dimensions of the FMPS are retrospective
and provide no indication of whether an individual is currently a
perfectionist. While these claims may be relevant to adults, social
influences are paramount in adolescence (Flett, Hewitt, Oliver, &
Macdonald, 2002). In fact, the expectations of significant others
are often considered more important than self-expectation in the
adolescent developmental period (Muuss, 2006). Arguably, exter-
nally motivated perfectionism may be important in conceptualiz-
ing adolescent perfectionism.
Using Perfectionism Dimensions to Develop
Perfectionist Profiles
While factor analyses have revealed positive and negative di-
mensions of perfectionism, a growing body of research has used
combinations of perfectionism dimensions to identify or create
different subgroups of perfectionists. The focus on a person-
centered approach (compared with a variable-centered approach)
has various advantages. For instance, a person-centered approach
makes sense of the fact that ratings on one dimension may have a
different overall meaning depending on how they relate to ratings
on other dimensions. Moreover, the ability to view patterns and
individual differences provides useful information relevant to clin-
ical and counseling presentations, and assists in the development
of more specific and targeted treatment plans.
Lundh, Saboonchi, and Wangby (2008) provide support for a
person-centered approach (over a variable-centered approach) in
their study examining clinically significant perfectionism. On the
basis of cluster analysis of FMPS item responses, Lundh et al.
identified 11 subgroups that differentiated clinical and nonclinical
samples. In particular, they identified three clinically significant
perfectionist subgroups (characterized by high ratings on Concern
Over Mistakes, Doubts About Actions, Personal Standards, and
Organization dimensions) and one adaptive perfectionist subgroup
(characterized by high ratings on the Personal Standards dimen-
sion, although lower than in the three clinically significant clusters,
high ratings on the Organization dimension, and low ratings on the
 PERFECTIONIST PROFILES IN ADOLESCENTS
remaining FMPS dimensions). Lundh et al. suggest that their three
clinically significant subgroups provide evidence against using a
variable-centered approach, in which perfectionists are represented
in terms of ratings on isolated higher-order perfectionism dimen-
sions (e.g., Frost et al., 1993—Adaptive Perfectionism and Mal-
adaptive Perfectionism dimensions). They argue that if isolated
perfectionism dimensions actually represent adaptive or maladap-
tive dimensions, “adaptive perfectionism” (as measured by the
Personal Standards and Organization dimensions) should counter-
act or “buffer” the negative effects of “maladaptive perfectionism”
(as measured by the Concern Over Mistakes and Doubts About
Actions dimensions). This buffering hypothesis was not supported
by Lundh et al.’s clinically significant perfectionist subgroup pro-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
files. Instead, their findings show that high ratings on the Personal
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Standards dimension are adaptive when combined with the accep-
tance of nonperfection (i.e., low ratings on Concern Over Mistakes
and Doubts About Actions dimensions), but maladaptive when
combined with an inability to accept mistakes and shortcomings
(i.e., high ratings on Concern Over Mistakes and Doubts About
Actions dimensions). Overall, it is important that ratings on one
dimension are examined in relation to ratings on other dimensions
to understand their overall meaning.
Perfectionism questionnaire dimensions have been combined in
different ways and using different methodological procedures to
investigate the significance of categories. For instance, Gaudreau
and Thompson (2010) used responses from shortened versions of
the FMPS and HMPS to argue for a four-subgroup model of
perfectionism. On the basis of an EFA, they identified two higher-
order dimensions: Evaulative Concerns Perfectionism (ECP;
FMPS Concern Over Mistakes, FMPS Doubts About Actions,
FMPS Parental Pressure, and HMPS Socially Prescribed Perfec-
tionism) and Personal Standards Perfectionism (PSP; FMPS Per-
sonal Standards and HMPS Self-Oriented Perfectionism). Gaud-
reau and Thompson proposed a 2 ⫻ 2 model of perfectionism by
crossing high and low ECP and PSP scores. Perfectionist sub-
groups were based on standardized low (⫺1 SD) and high (⫹1 SD)
ECP and PSP means, resulting in nonperfectionism (low ECP/low
PSP), pure personal standards perfectionism (low ECP/high PSP),
pure evaluative concerns perfectionism (high ECP/low PSP), and
mixed perfectionism (high ECP/high PSP) subgroups. They found
that the four subgroups were differentially associated with inter-
nalization (academic self-determination) and adjustment (positive
and negative affect and academic satisfaction). The pure personal
standards perfectionism subgroup was associated with the most
positive outcomes and the pure evaluative concerns perfectionism
subgroup the most negative.
Some researchers have analyzed the APS-R dimensions to iden-
tify different subgroups of perfectionists. Using cluster analysis,
Rice and colleagues (Rice & Ashby, 2007; Rice et al., 2011)
argued for three subgroups on the basis of the Discrepancy (Disc)
and High Standards (HS) subscales of the APS-R. Rice and col-
leagues distinguished between adaptive perfectionists (high HS/
low Disc), maladaptive perfectionists (high HS/high Disc), and
nonperfectionists (low HS/low Disc). Rice et al. (2011)’s maladap-
tive perfectionists rated themselves as experiencing higher levels
of depression, anxiety, and social stress, and lower levels of
self-adequacy, self-esteem, and satisfaction with life, compared
with adaptive perfectionists and nonperfectionists. It is worth
noting that Rice et al. (2011) also found a four-cluster solution,
1473
which they rejected in favor of a three-cluster solution primarily
because the latter was more consistent with extant conceptualiza-
tions of perfectionism.
Other researchers have supported a fourth APS-R perfectionist
subgroup (Sironic & Reeve, 2012; Wang, Slaney, & Rice, 2007).
Sironic and Reeve suggested that individuals who exhibit low
HS/high Disc profiles (i.e., rate themselves as having low stan-
dards but as experiencing high discrepancy) are perfectionists,
arguing that they may lack insight into their perfectionism. They
identified four subgroups from a cluster analysis of 17-year-old
high school students’ APS-R ratings: adaptive perfectionists (high
HS/low Disc), high standards maladaptive perfectionists (high
HS/high Disc), low standards maladaptive perfectionists (low HS/
high Disc) and nonperfectionists (low HS/low Disc). The high
standards maladaptive perfectionists and low standards maladap-
tive perfectionists subgroups exhibited higher depression ratings
than the adaptive perfectionists subgroup, and the low standards
maladaptive perfectionist subgroup claimed to use self-regulation
learning strategies less often than the adaptive perfectionist and
high standards maladaptive perfectionist subgroups. Sironic and
Reeve interpreted these findings as suggesting that the low stan-
dards maladaptive perfectionist subgroup’s poor self-regulatory
abilities reflect a lack of insight.
Wang et al. (2007) also identified four APS-R subgroups from
a cluster analysis of Taiwanese university students’ APS-R ratings.
They suggested that their fourth subgroup (i.e., a low HS/high Disc
subgroup) makes sense in a collectivist culture, claiming that
individuals may not set high standards for themselves, but are
perfectionists because they strive to meet the expectations of
significant others (e.g., parents, teachers, peers). Wang et al.’s low
HS/high Disc subgroup exhibited lower ratings on trait anxiety,
individual-oriented achievement orientation and depression com-
pared with the high HS/high Disc subgroup, and the low HS/high
Disc subgroup had significantly higher scores on trait anxiety, state
anxiety and depression, and lower scores on self-esteem, compared
with the high HS/low Disc subgroup. Wang et al.’s interpretation
implicates external and/or cultural factors in perfectionism. How-
ever, they did not measure external factors—the APS-R is an
intrapersonal measure of perfectionism and the Discrepancy di-
mension does not assess the expectations of others. It is possible
that an external index of perfectionism (e.g., the interpersonal
dimensions of the FMPS or HMPS) may provide a more direct
assessment of externally motivated perfectionism.
The Present Study
In the current study, 938 14- to 18-year-olds completed the
FMPS, Child and Adolescent Perfectionism Scale (CAPS; Flett,
Hewitt, Boucher, Davidson, & Munro, 2000), APS-R, and the
Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS; Lovibond & Lovibond,
1995). The aim was to determine whether we could identify
different perfectionist subgroups in a sample of Australian adoles-
cents and to establish how these subgroups are associated with
self-reported depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms. We fo-
cused on adolescent students for three reasons. First, perfectionism
and its sequelae tend to be manifest in the mid- to late-adolescent
period, possibly because of stress associated with high school
(Herman, Wang, Trotter, Reinke, & Ialongo, 2013; Moshman,
2005). Second, many psychopathologies emerge in the adolescent
 1474 SIRONIC AND REEVE
period and, if untreated, persist throughout the life span. Third,
given perfectionism is linked to some adolescent psychopatholo-
gies, a more complete understanding of perfectionism may provide
greater insight into adolescent mental health. It is also worth noting
that relatively little research has investigated perfectionism in
Australian children and adolescents (however, see Einstein, Lovi-
bond, & Gaston, 2000; Hawkins et al., 2006; Huggins, Davis,
Rooney, & Kane, 2008; Kornblum & Ainley, 2005; Mitchell,
Broeren, Newall, & Hudson, 2013; Sironic & Reeve, 2012). It
would seem important to identify similarities and differences in
perfectionism across cultures, especially given the transcultural
use of common perfectionism measures.
We (1) analyze the factor structure of each of the three perfec-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tionism questionnaires to establish test score validity in our sam-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ple, (2) conduct EFA and CFA on the three perfectionism tests
(combined) to uncover higher-order perfectionism dimensions, (3)
use latent class analysis (LCA) to identify different perfectionist
subgroups based on individuals’ mean ratings of higher-order
perfectionism dimensions, and (4) analyze the relationship be-
tween subgroup membership and psychopathology via self-
reported DASS ratings.
Insofar as we are able to replicate the factor structures of the
three perfectionist inventories, we expect to identify at least adap-
tive and maladaptive perfectionist subgroups, as well as a nonper-
fectionist subgroup. In addition, because we include the FMPS,
CAPS, and APS-R, we expect to identify a purely externally
motivated subgroup of maladaptive perfectionists. Also of interest
is whether different perfectionist profiles differ across different
grade and gender groups.
Method
Participants
Nine hundred thirty-eight high school students attending four
high schools in middle-class suburbs of a large Australian city
participated. The sample comprised Grade 9 (18 male, 137
female: M ⫽ 14.79 years, SD ⫽ 0.33), Grade 10 (93 male, 159
female: M ⫽ 15.67 years, SD ⫽ 1.04), Grade 11 (102 male,
147 female: M ⫽ 16.73 years, SD ⫽ 0.34), and Grade 12 (final
year of high school; 142 male, 140 female: M ⫽ 17.83 years,
SD ⫽ 0.43) students. Of those students invited to participate,
approximately 70% did so.
Procedure
Ethical approval to conduct the research was obtained from the
authors’ university’s human research ethics committee and the
high schools’ research ethics authorities. Invitations for schools to
participate in the study were sent to the head of school manage-
ment, who nominated a senior staff member to liaise between the
school and research group. Separate student and guardian research
description statements and consent forms were distributed. Stu-
dents were advised that participation was voluntary, and that
should they wish to withdraw at any stage, or to withdraw any
unprocessed data, this would happen without prejudice. Students
were also advised that information collected was confidential and
only accessible to researchers, subject to legal limitations.
The procedure for data collection was the same for each school.
A member of the research team distributed the four questionnaires
to small groups of students. Students were seated so they could not
confer with each other; they completed the questionnaires in
approximately half an hour.
Measures
FMPS. The FMPS (Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate,
1990) is a 35-item self-report questionnaire that comprises six
subscales: Concern Over Mistakes (nine items), Personal Stan-
dards (seven items), Parental Criticism (four items), Parental Ex-
pectations (five items), Doubts About Actions (four items), and
Organization (six items).2 Items are rated on a five-point scale
(1 ⫽ disagree strongly and 5 ⫽ agree strongly). FMPS question-
naire item scores report good internal reliability with Cronbach
alphas ranging from 0.70 to 0.93 (Frost et al., 1990; Rice, Ashby,
& Slaney, 1998; Rice & Mirzadeh, 2000) and good test–retest
reliability across a 10-week period, ranging from 0.63 to 0.88
(Rice & Dellwo, 2002). The subscales and higher-order dimen-
sions also relate in expected directions to other measures (Frost et
al., 1993; Rice et al., 1998).
CAPS. The CAPS (Flett, Hewitt, Boucher, Davidson, & Mu-
nro, 2000) is a 22-item self-report measure, which is closely
patterned after its adult equivalent, the HMPS (Hewitt & Flett,
1991). Unlike its adult equivalent, the CAPS does not include the
Other-Oriented Perfectionism dimension, which assesses the inter-
nally motivated belief that it is important for others to strive for
perfection and be perfect. The CAPS comprises two dimensions:
Self-Oriented Perfectionism (12 items), and Socially Prescribed
Perfectionism (10 items). Three items require reversing (items 3, 9,
and 18). Participants respond to the items using a five-point scale
(where 1 ⫽ false—not at all true of me, and 5 ⫽ very true of me),
and higher scores reflect greater perfectionism. The CAPS ques-
tionnaire scores demonstrate good internal reliability, reporting
Cronbach’s alpha levels of 0.85 and 0.86 for Self-Oriented and
Socially Prescribed Perfectionism, respectively (Hewitt et al.,
2002).
APS-R. The APS-R (Slaney et al., 2001) is a 23-item self-
report questionnaire designed to measure internally motivated per-
fectionism. Participants respond to questions on a seven-point
scale (1 ⫽ strongly disagree and 7 ⫽ strongly agree). The APS–R
has three subscales: High Standards (seven items), Order (four
items), and Discrepancy (12 items). Principal components factor
analysis supports the three subscales (Slaney et al., 2001). The
reliability and validity of the APS–R questionnaire scores is ac-
ceptable. Internal consistency coefficients range from 0.85 to 0.92
(Slaney et al., 2001). Concurrent validity has been demonstrated
through significant correlations with other perfectionism measures
and theoretically related constructs (Ashby & Rice, 2002; Slaney
et al., 2001). Factor intercorrelations are appropriately small. The
correlation between High Standards and Order was 0.42, the
correlation between High Standards and Discrepancy was 0.12,
2
It should be noted that DiBartolo, Frost, Chang, LaSota, and Grills
(2004) suggest that two items from the FMPS Personal Standards dimen-
sion relate to self-worth (items 4 and 6) and should be removed; we
retained the full set of items, however.
 PERFECTIONIST PROFILES IN ADOLESCENTS
and the correlation between Order and Discrepancy was 0.03
(Slaney et al., 2001).
DASS. The DASS (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995) is a 32-item
self-report questionnaire that comprises three scales: Depression,
Anxiety, and Stress. Each scale contains 14 items. Participants are
asked to use four-point severity/frequency scales to rate the extent
to which they have experienced each emotional state over the past
week (where 0 ⫽ did not apply to me at all and 3 ⫽ applied to me
very much, or most of the time). Factor analysis supports the
three-factor structure of the DASS (Antony, Bieling, Cox, Enns, &
Swinson, 1998). Internal consistency for the DASS questionnaire
scores is excellent, with Cronbach’s alphas of 0.97, 0.92, and 0.95
for the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress subscales, respectively
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
(Antony et al., 1998). Concurrent validity of test scores with other
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
measures of anxiety and depression are moderate to high (Antony
et al., 1998).
Statistical Analyses
Dimensions of perfectionism. A combination of exploratory
and confirmatory procedures was employed to identify latent di-
mensions of perfectionism from the (combined) FMPS, CAPS, and
APS-R perfectionist questionnaires. An EFA was first conducted
and model fit statistics were used to help ascertain the best factor
structure (i.e., the best representative number of factors or dimen-
sions). A delta parameterization and robust adjusted weighted least
square estimator were applied to a matrix of polychoric correla-
tions; polychoric correlations were used to account for the ordinal
nature of the observed variables. We chose to use an oblique
rotation (Geomin) because we anticipated factors would be corre-
lated. Subsequently, a CFA was conducted with items retained
from the best EFA factor solution.
For the factor analytic models, model fit was determined by the
chi-square difference test, the CFI, the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI)
and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). While
the chi-square difference test is commonly used, some question
whether this index should be used given its sensitivity to trivial
deviations of fit and large sample sizes (Cheung & Rensvold,
2002). For the CFI and TLI, values greater than 0.95 are preferred,
but values close to 0.90 are considered acceptable. Cheung and
Rensvold suggest looking at changes in the CFI, where changes of
0.01 or less suggest the invariance hypothesis should not be
rejected, changes between 0.01 and 0.02 suggest differences may
exist, and changes greater than 0.02 represent definite differences
between models. For the RMSEA, values of below 0.05 are pre-
ferred and values below 0.08 are considered acceptable.
Latent classes of perfectionists. LCA was used to determine
whether profiles of perfectionists could be identified based on
factors identified via exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic
techniques. LCA is a person-centered approach that groups indi-
viduals into categories (latent classes) according to patterns of
responses. We examined patterns of responses based on factor
scores. Latent classes comprise individuals who are similar to each
other but who differ from individuals in other classes. Researchers
can examine models (i.e., different numbers of latent classes) and
compare model fit statistics. The aim is to identify the smallest
number of latent classes that best describe associations among
observed variables. The LCA process starts with a one-class model
1475
and incrementally increases the number of latent classes until there
is no further improvement in the model fit.
For latent class models, model fit is determined by fit indices
such as the log likelihood ratio (LL), the Akaike information
criterion (AIC), the Bayesian information criterion (BIC), and the
sample-size adjusted BIC (aBIC). The smaller the value of the fit
index, the better the model fit. Entropy values are also important
indicators of relative fit. A model’s entropy value describes the
level of classification uncertainty. Entropy values can range from
0 to 1.0 and entropy values greater than 0.8 represent better fitting
models—that is, models with more certainty of correct classifica-
tion.
Results
Descriptive data analyses were conducted using SPSS Version
21.0 (2012) and subsequent analyses conducted using MPlus Ver-
sion 7 (2012). Subscale scores were examined for outliers and
issues with univariate normality. There were 77 extreme ratings (z
score ⬎3.29) identified from a possible 114,436 ratings, and 62 of
these extreme ratings were from the same two subscale items (i.e.,
DASS Anxiety subscale items 23 and 36). As a consequence,
univariate outliers were not removed from the data set. Values for
skewness (range ⫽ ⫺0.54 to 1.36) and kurtosis (range ⫽ ⫺0.44 to
1.47) for all subscales were within acceptable ranges, as recom-
mended by West, Finch, and Curran (1995). Multivariate normal-
ity was examined following procedures described by Tabachnick
and Fidell (2007). Based on Mahalanobis’ distance, 15 cases were
identified as multivariate outliers (p ⬍ .001) and removed from the
sample. Descriptive statistics are reported in Table 1. Internal
consistency coefficients were good to excellent for all subscales
(i.e., Cronbach’s alpha range ⫽ 0.82 to 0.94), except for the FMPS
Doubts About Actions subscale, which showed relatively low test
score reliability (Cronbach’s alpha ⫽ .68). Correlations between
all measures are reported in Table 2. (Please note that gender-
specific descriptive statistics and correlations are available online
in the supplemental material.)
Correlations between dimensions provided evidence for concur-
rent and divergent validity of test scores for the three perfectionism
questionnaires. For instance, very strong correlations emerged
between the FMPS Personal Standards dimension, and the CAPS
Self-Oriented Perfectionism and APS-R High Standards dimen-
sions (r ⫽ .75 and r ⫽ .82, respectively), suggesting that these
dimensions share overlapping variance. Similarly strong correla-
tions emerged between the APS-R Discrepancy dimension, and the
FMPS Concern Over Mistakes and FMPS Doubts About Actions
dimensions (r ⫽ .70 and r ⫽ .70, respectively). In contrast,
generally lower correlations emerged between internally motivated
high standards dimensions such as the APS-R High Standards
dimension, and performance concerns dimensions such as the
FMPS Concern Over Mistakes, FMPS Doubts About Actions, and
APS-R Discrepancy dimensions (r ⫽ .46, r ⫽ .26, and r ⫽ .37,
respectively).
EFA was conducted on each perfectionism questionnaire indi-
vidually to assess for test score validity in our Australian adoles-
cent sample. Findings support a four-factor solution for the FMPS,
a two-factor solution for the CAPS, and a three-factor solution for
the APS-R in our 14- to 17-year-old high school students (see
 1476 SIRONIC AND REEVE

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for All Measures

Measure Minimum Maximum M SD Cronbach ␣

FMPS
Personal Standards 7.00 36.00 21.62 5.59 0.85
Concern Over Mistakes 9.00 43.00 19.32 6.87 0.88
Doubts About Actions 4.00 20.00 11.16 3.14 0.68
Parental Expectations 5.00 25.00 13.96 4.59 0.85
Parental Criticism 3.00 20.00 8.30 3.65 0.82
Organization 6.00 32.00 21.10 5.52 0.93
CAPS
Self-Oriented Perfectionism 12.00 60.00 36.45 8.16 0.87
Socially Prescribed Perfectionism 10.00 49.00 26.05 7.39 0.86
APS-R
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

High Standards 10.00 49.00 35.20 8.03 0.88

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Discrepancy 12.00 84.00 44.21 14.50 0.92

Order 4.00 28.00 18.21 4.99 0.83
DASS
Depression 0.00 42.00 9.05 9.71 0.94
Anxiety 0.00 42.00 8.66 8.15 0.90
Stress 0.00 42.00 12.73 9.66 0.93
Note. FMPS ⫽ Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale; CAPS ⫽ Child and Adolescent Perfectionism
Scale; APS-R ⫽ Almost Perfect Scale—Revised; DASS ⫽ Depression Anxiety Stress Scales.

online supplemental material for details and discussion regarding
factor analysis for each individual perfectionism questionnaire).
Factor Analytic Models of Perfectionism
EFA. Items from the three perfectionism inventories were
subjected to a joint EFA. To interpret the EFA, we first examined
eigenvalues and found that 11 were greater than one: 23.88, 10.10,
4.53, 4.32, 1.99, 1.61, 1.46, 1.25, 1.18, 1.14, and 1.10. The scree-
test indicated that four factors should be retained. Parallel analysis
indicated a seven-factor solution because the eighth eigenvalue
(1.25) was lower than the 95th percentile of the eighth random
eigenvalue (1.43). We tested models ranging from three- to eight-
factor solutions. While increasing the number of factors continued
to improve goodness-of-fit indices, solutions with greater than four
factors were difficult to interpret and inconsistent with findings
reported in the perfectionism literature. The four-factor solution
was consistent with previous findings (e.g., Rice et al., 2005) and
provided an acceptable fit of the data (CFI ⫽ 0.92, TLI ⫽ .92,
RMSEA ⫽ 0.05; see online supplemental material for model fit
statistics for alternative EFA factor solutions).
Factor loadings for the four-factor solution are presented in the
online supplemental material. Factor 1 (labeled High Personal
Standards) comprised items from the FMPS Personal Standards,
CAPS Self-Oriented Perfectionism, and the APS-R High Stan-
dards dimensions. Factor 2 (labeled Concerns, Doubts, and Dis-
crepancy) comprised items from the FMPS Doubts About Actions,

Table 2
Bivariate Correlations Between Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS), Child and Adolescent Perfectionism Scale
(CAPS), Almost Perfect Scale—Revised (APS-R), and Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) Subscales

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1. FMPS-PS —
2. FMPS-CM .56ⴱ —
3. FMPS-DA .34ⴱ .59ⴱ —
4. FMPS-PE .43ⴱ .49ⴱ .30ⴱ —
5. FMPS-PC .21ⴱ .49ⴱ .40ⴱ .71ⴱ —
6. FMPS-O .35ⴱ .10ⴱ .10ⴱ .05 ⫺.03 —
7. CAPS-SOP .75ⴱ .65ⴱ .39ⴱ .42ⴱ .26ⴱ .35ⴱ —
8. CAPS-SPP .40ⴱ .56ⴱ .40ⴱ .71ⴱ .64ⴱ .06 .46ⴱ —
9. APS-R-HS .82ⴱ .46ⴱ .26ⴱ .38ⴱ .13ⴱ .35ⴱ .73ⴱ .31ⴱ —
10. APS-R-Disc .38ⴱ .70ⴱ .70ⴱ .40ⴱ .52ⴱ .05 .48ⴱ .49ⴱ .37ⴱ —
11. APS-R-Ord .43ⴱ .18ⴱ .17ⴱ .12ⴱ .02 .86ⴱ .42ⴱ .12ⴱ .48ⴱ .14ⴱ —
12. DASS-D .12ⴱ .47ⴱ .45ⴱ .23ⴱ .36ⴱ ⫺.08ⴱ .19ⴱ .32ⴱ .08ⴱ .55ⴱ ⫺.04 —
13. DASS-A .15ⴱ .41ⴱ .44ⴱ .18ⴱ .31ⴱ .00 .21ⴱ .31ⴱ .10ⴱ .46ⴱ .03 .73ⴱ —
14. DASS-S .22ⴱ .47ⴱ .48ⴱ .22ⴱ .31ⴱ .01 .28ⴱ .34ⴱ .18ⴱ .53ⴱ .05 .79ⴱ .82ⴱ —
Note. PS ⫽ Personal Standards; CM ⫽ Concern Over Mistakes; DA ⫽ Doubts About Actions; PE ⫽ Parental Expectations; PC ⫽ Parental Criticism;
O ⫽ Organization; SOP ⫽ Self-Oriented Perfectionism; SPP ⫽ Socially Prescribed Perfectionism; HS ⫽ High Standards; Disc ⫽ Discrepancy; Ord ⫽
Order; D ⫽ Depression; A ⫽ Anxiety; S ⫽ Stress.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .01.
 PERFECTIONIST PROFILES IN ADOLESCENTS
FMPS Concern Over Mistakes, and APS-R Discrepancy dimen-
sions. Factor 3 (labeled Externally Motivated Perfectionism) com-
prised items from the FMPS Parental Criticism, FMPS Parental
Expectations, and CAPS Socially Prescribed Perfectionism dimen-
sions. Finally, Factor 4 (labeled Organization and Order) com-
prised items from FMPS Organization and APS-R Order dimen-
sions. All items showed factor loadings greater than 0.32 and were
retained, as recommended by Costello and Osborne (2005).
It should be noted that two items loaded most strongly onto
unexpected factors. Item FMPS-18 (“I hate being less than the best
at things”) from the FMPS Concern Over Mistakes subscale, and
item CAPS-19 (“I am always expected to do better than others”)
from the CAPS Socially Prescribed Perfectionism subscale, loaded
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
most strongly onto the High Personal Standards factor. Given the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
differences in cross loadings between actual and expected factors
were small (i.e., 0.12 and 0.02, respectively), these items were
specified to load onto their expected factors in the subsequent
CFA.
Examination of individual items revealed a further anomaly—
10 items (CAPS 10, CAPS 15, CAPS 19, CAPS 22, FMPS 13,
FMPS 14, FMPS 18, FMPS 22, FMPS 35, and APS-R 15) exhib-
ited cross loadings of 0.50 or higher. Costello and Osborne (2005)
suggest that items with cross-loadings of 0.50 or higher should be
dropped from analyses. This recommendation was explored in the
CFA models (i.e., Model 2 and Model 4, as discussed below).
It should also be noted that not all FMPS Concern Over Mis-
takes items are internally motivated—items 21, 25, and 34 make
reference to other people’s expectations and reactions to mistakes.
While FMPS items 21, 25, and 34 loaded onto the expected
Concerns, Doubts, and Discrepancy higher-order dimension, this
observation explains why the three items also showed high sec-
ondary loadings on the Externally Motivated Perfectionism dimen-
sion (0.48, 0.47, and 0.46, respectively).
CFA. CFA of the best-fitting EFA model (i.e., the four-factor
model) was conducted. In Model 1, all items were specified to load
on their respective factors and correlations between factors were
estimated freely. Three alternative four-factor models were also
investigated. Model 2 followed recommendations made by
Costello and Osborne (2005) in which items with cross-loadings
greater than or equal to 0.50 were dropped. Model 3 took into
account correlations between factors in Model 1 (see online sup-
plemental material for correlations). Results suggest that Factor 4
(Organization and Order) correlates relatively poorly with Factor 2
(Concerns, Doubts, and Discrepancy) and Factor 3 (Externally
Motivated Perfectionism; r ⫽ .09 and r ⫽ .06, respectively). These
poor correlations were specified in Model 3— correlations were set
Table 3
Four Proposed Four-Factor Confirmatory Factor Analysis Models: Model Fit Indices Using Weighted Least Square Estimation
Applied to Polychoric Correlations
Four-factor models
Model 1 (baseline model)
Model 2 with 10 deleted items
Model 3 with two factor correlations set to zero
Model 4 with 10 deleted items and two factor correlations set to zero
Note. ␹2 ⫽ chi-square difference test; df ⫽ degrees of freedom; CFI ⫽ Comparative Fit Index; TLI ⫽ Tucker-Lewis Index; RMSEA ⫽ root mean square
error of approximation.
1477
to zero. Finally, Model 4 combined adjustments made in Model 2
and Model 3. Table 3 presents model fit indices for the four
four-factor models. Model 4 showed the best fit to the data (CFI ⫽
0.90, TLI ⫽ .90, RMSEA ⫽ 0.06), and changes in the CFI suggest
that there are differences between Model 4 and Models 1, 2 and 3
(⌬CFI ⫽ 0.07, 0.03, and 0.03, respectively). In Model 4, there
were no modification indices to suggest that error covariance
between items should be freed.
LCA and Perfectionist Profiles
To examine whether perfectionists could be classified into sub-
groups, LCA was employed using factor means from the best
four-factor model, Model 4. Table 4 includes fit information (log
likelihood ratio, BIC, AIC, aBIC, and entropy values) for LCA
models with two through to eight classes. While the AIC and aBIC
model fit indices continued to reduce with increasing classes, the
smallest BIC value was observed for the six-class model. Given
our focus was on a parsimonious and clinically meaningful model,
and the reductions in aBIC and AIC values after the six-class
model were relatively small, we retained the six-class solution.
Moreover, the six-class solution yielded adequately sized classes
with good probabilities of class membership (see online supple-
mental material for details).
The six subgroups were differentiated according to mean factor
scores on each of the four higher-order perfectionism dimensions
(see Table 5 for subgroup profiles). Factor scores are not standard-
ized and should be interpreted relative to each other rather than
compared with a mean endorsement of each factor, as with stan-
dardized scores. The six subgroups are labeled herein as:
1. Adaptive Perfectionist (AP; n ⫽ 208; 93 male, 115
female): Students in this subgroup strive for perfection
and set high standards for themselves, but accept results
that are not perfect. This subgroup do not report external
criticism or external pressures to perform and rate them-
selves as valuing order and organization.
2. Externally Motivated Maladaptive Perfectionist (EMMP;
n ⫽ 218; 110 male, 108 female): Students in this sub-
group do not set high standards for themselves; rather,
they report experiencing perfectionism prescribed by sig-
nificant others. In addition, they are dissatisfied with their
efforts and experience concern and doubts about their
performance. This subgroup is not concerned about order
or organization.
␹2 df CFI ⌬CFI TLI RMSEA
16,924.67 3,074 0.83 — 0.83 0.07
12,019.87 2,339 0.87 0.04 0.86 0.07
13,438.14 3,076 0.87 0.00 0.87 0.06
9,480.08 2,341 0.90 0.03 0.90 0.06
 1478 SIRONIC AND REEVE

Table 4
Summary of Fit Indices for Latent Class Models

Number of classes LL AIC BIC aBIC npar Entropy

2 ⫺4,183.32 8,392.64 8,455.40 8,414.12 13 0.66

3 ⫺4,078.01 8,192.02 8,278.92 8,221.75 18 0.73
4 ⫺4,040.22 8,126.45 8,237.48 8,164.44 23 0.70
5 ⫺3,980.95 8,017.90 8,153.07 8,064.15 28 0.71
6 ⫺3,960.29 7,986.57 8,145.89 8,041.09 33 0.72
7 ⫺3,945.75 7,967.50 8,150.95 8,030.26 38 0.70
8 ⫺3,931.83 7,949.67 8,157.25 8,020.69 43 0.71
Note. LL ⫽ log likelihood ratio; AIC ⫽ Akaike information criterion; BIC ⫽ Bayesian information criterion; aBIC ⫽ sample-size adjusted BIC; npar ⫽
number of parameters.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

3. Mixed Maladaptive Perfectionist (MMP; n ⫽ 61; 26
male, 35 female): Students in this subgroup endorse
the highest ratings on all four factors compared with
other subgroups. Mixed maladaptive perfectionists are
motivated by a mixture of their own high standards and
the expectations of others. They also experience
doubts and concerns about their performance and feel
distressed when expectations are not met. This sub-
group also expressed a strong desire for order and
organization.
4. Order and Organization Nonperfectionist (OONP; n ⫽
27; 2 male, 25 female): Students in this subgroup do
not set high standards for themselves, nor do they feel
that others impose high standards on them; they are
not dissatisfied with their efforts or concerned about
their performance. However, students in this group
rate themselves as strongly valuing order and organi-
zation.
5. Nonperfectionist A (NPA; n ⫽ 352; 108 male, 244
female): Students in this subgroup exhibit low ratings
on each of the four factors. They do not set high
standards for themselves or feel that others impose
high standards on them, and they are not concerned
about their performance or dissatisfied with their ef-
forts. They also rate themselves as being unconcerned
by order and organization.
6. Nonperfectionist B (NPB; n ⫽ 57; 10 male, 47 fe-
male): Students in this subgroup have a very similar
profile to NPA. Their ratings are significantly lower
than ratings made by the NPA subgroup, however.
(We also include means and standard deviations for each subgroup
on the original FMPS, CAPS, and APS-R perfectionism dimen-
sions in the online supplemental material).
Grade and Gender as Predictors of Class Membership
We used a multinomial logistical regression analyses with latent
variables to investigate whether grade and gender predicted class
membership. We utilized the three-step modeling procedure (As-
parouhov & Muthén, 2013; Feingold, Tiberio, & Capaldi, 2014;
Vermunt, 2010). The three-step procedure first conducts LCA
without adding covariates. In the second step, it proceeds to
identify the most likely class memberships from posterior proba-
bilities of the LCA and classification uncertainty rates. In the third
step, the most likely class membership variables are analyzed
together with auxiliary variables (grade or gender in this case)
while accounting for the measurement error in classification. As
with all forms of multinomial logistical regression analyses, one
group is designated the reference group. The analysis then
compares the probability of an observation belonging to each
nonreference group (compared with the reference group; e.g.,
six latent classes; AP subgroup as the reference group vs. five
other subgroups as the nonreference groups) across levels of the
independent variable (e.g., gender; male reference group vs.
female nonreference group). Analyses yield regression coeffi-
cients and odds ratios, which are used to establish predictor
effects.
A complete set of multinomial logistical regression analyses
was conducted to examine whether grade predicted subgroup
membership. There were no significant predictor effects (p ⬍
.05) for grade across all levels of grade. We also examined
whether gender predicted latent class membership. A summary
of these analyses is presented in Table 6. Findings suggest that

Table 5
Factor Score Means and Standard Deviations for the Four Factors in the Six-Class Solution

High Personal Concerns, Doubts, Externally Motivated

Variable Standards and Discrepancy Perfectionism Order and Organization

Adaptive perfectionist 0.45 (0.09) ⫺0.03 (0.08) 0.03 (0.07) 0.64 (0.12)
Externally motivated maladaptive perfectionist 0.32 (0.09) 0.67 (0.08) 0.64 (0.07) ⫺0.30 (0.08)
Mixed maladaptive perfectionist 1.42 (0.11) 0.99 (0.12) 0.95 (0.11) 1.06 (0.18)
Order and organization nonperfectionist 0.17 (0.35) ⫺1.02 (0.24) ⫺.088 (0.14) 0.99 (0.38)
Nonperfectionist A ⫺0.50 (0.08) ⫺0.26 (0.08) ⫺0.30 (0.08) ⫺0.36 (0.08)
Nonperfectionist B ⫺1.47 (0.12) ⫺1.23 (0.18) ⫺1.12 (0.12) ⫺0.79 (0.15)
 PERFECTIONIST PROFILES IN ADOLESCENTS 1479

Table 6
Gender (Males as Reference Group) as a Predictor of Membership in the Six Latent Classes With Each Class as a Reference Group
(Featuring Regression Coefficients and Odds Ratios With Significant Predictor Effects [p ⬍ .05] Only)

Externally motivated
Gender (males as Adaptive maladaptive Mixed maladaptive Order and organization Nonperfectionist Nonperfectionist
reference group) perfectionist perfectionist perfectionist Nonperfectionist A B

Regression coefficient Reference group ns ns 15.54 0.77 1.66

Odds ratio 5.61 ⫻ 107 2.16 5.26
Regression coefficient Reference group ns 15.80 1.03 1.92
Odds ratio 7.28 ⫻ 107 2.80 6.82
Regression coefficient Reference group 15.28 ns 1.40
Odds ratio 4.33 ⫻ 107 4.06
Regression coefficient Reference group ⫺14.77 ⫺13.88
Odds ratio 3.85 ⫻ 10–7 9.38 ⫻ 10–7
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Regression coefficient Reference group ns

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Odds ratio
Regression coefficient Reference group
Odds ratio
Note. ns ⫽ gender is a nonsignificant predictor of class membership for the specified reference group.

females were more likely (compared with males) to be in the
OONP and NPB subgroups compared with the AP, EMMP, or
MMP subgroups. Females were also more likely (compared
with males) to be in the NPA subgroup compared with the AP
or EMMP subgroups, but less likely (compared with males) to
be in the NPA or NPB subgroups compared with the OONP
subgroup.
Differences in Psychopathology
To determine whether the perfectionist subgroups differed in
depression, anxiety and stress ratings on the DASS, we used the
auxiliary analysis option in MPlus to predict subgroup member-
ship. This analytic procedure involves a series of pairwise Wald
tests to assess the equality of means (or otherwise) across latent
classes (subgroups) based on posterior probabilities (Asparouhov,
2007). This is a conservative approach to analyzing multiple
predictors in mixture models. Table 7 presents means and standard
deviations for the DASS for each of the six subgroups, including
pairwise contrasts (p ⬍ .05). The same pattern of findings was
found for ratings on depression, anxiety, and stress across the six
subgroups, namely, MMP ⬎ EMMP ⬎ AP ⬎ NPA ⬎ NPB ⬎
OONP.
When examining differences (p ⬍ .05), the MMP and EMMP
subgroups consistently reported significantly higher levels of de-
pression, anxiety, and stress than the AP and three nonperfectionist
subgroups, providing support for their “maladaptive” label. While
the MMP and EMMP subgroups did not significantly differ in their
depression and anxiety ratings, students in the MMP subgroup did
rate themselves as experiencing significantly higher levels of stress
compared with students in the EMMP subgroup. The AP and NPA
subgroups had significantly higher ratings on depression, anxiety
and stress than both the NPB and OONP subgroups. No difference
was observed between the AP and NPA subgroups in their depres-
sion, anxiety and stress ratings.
Discussion
The aim of the present study was to determine whether mean-
ingfully different perfectionism subgroups could be identified on
the basis of a joint analysis of the FMPS, CAPS, and APS-R
perfectionism questionnaires. Six findings are of note. First, factor
analyses revealed commonly observed factor structures for each
perfectionism questionnaire in a large adolescent sample (n ⫽
923). Second, when items from all questionnaires were included in
a single EFA, four factors emerged: High Personal Standards;

Table 7
Means and Standard Errors on the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) for the Six-Class Solution, Including Pairwise Contrasts
(p ⬍ .05)

Externally
motivated Mixed Order and
Adaptive maladaptive maladaptive organization
perfectionist perfectionist perfectionist nonperfectionist Nonperfectionist Nonperfectionist
(N ⫽ 208) (N ⫽ 218) (N ⫽ 61) (N ⫽ 27) A (N ⫽ 352) B (N ⫽ 57)
DASS M SE M SE M SE M SE M SE M SE

Depression 6.93a 0.61 14.51b 0.85 15.74b 1.65 2.80c 1.04 7.09a 0.50 4.42c 0.81
Anxiety 7.64a 0.56 12.26b 0.70 13.87b 1.38 4.07c 1.17 7.13a 0.44 5.03c 0.71
Stress 11.60a 0.67 17.31b 0.77 21.29c 1.46 7.34d 1.42 10.37a 0.52 7.45d 1.07
Note. Means that were significantly different (p ⬍ .05) are based on a series of pairwise Wald tests are indicated by different lettered subscripts.
 1480 SIRONIC AND REEVE
Concerns, Doubts, and Discrepancy; Externally Motivated Perfec-
tionism; and Order and Organization. Third, CFA identified the
best fitting four-factor solution. This four-factor solution is inter-
esting because it supports a more differentiated view of maladap-
tive perfectionism. Our findings suggest that Externally Motivated
Perfectionism is an important factor in its own right, and not an
aspect of a broader “Maladaptive Evaluative Concerns” factor.
Fourth, LCA of participants’ mean factor scores on the four
higher-order perfectionism dimensions identified a six-class solu-
tion, representing three perfectionist profiles and three nonperfec-
tionist profiles. We labeled the six subgroups: (1) AP, (2) EMMP,
(3) MMP, (4) OONP, (5) NPA, and (6) NPB. Fifth, the six
subgroups were related to self-reported depression, anxiety, and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
stress symptoms in expected ways. Sixth, perfectionist subgroups
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
did not vary as a function of grade, but did vary as a function of
gender. The findings suggest that females were more likely (than
males) to belong to the OONP and NPB subgroups compared with
the three perfectionist subgroups; females were also more likely
(than males) to be in the NPA subgroup compared with the AP and
EMMP subgroups but less likely (than males) to be in the NPA and
NPB subgroups compared with the OONP subgroup. In sum, it is
evident that meaningful perfectionist subgroups can be identified
from combinations of higher-order perfectionism dimensions de-
rived from the FMPS, CAPS, and APS-R.
The AP profile has been identified previously (Boone, Soenens,
Braet, & Goossens, 2010; Rice & Ashby, 2007; Rice et al., 2011;
Sironic & Reeve, 2012; Wang et al., 2007). Students in the AP
subgroup set high standards for themselves and are mostly satis-
fied by their efforts. As expected, the AP subgroup reported lower
levels of depression, anxiety and stress, compared with the two
other perfectionist subgroups (Rice et al., 2011; Sironic & Reeve,
2012; Wang et al., 2007). Moreover, there were no self-reported
depression, anxiety, or stress symptom differences between the AP
and NPA subgroups.
The EMMP profile is characterized by individuals who do not
set high standards for themselves, but still experience high levels
of discrepancy between their expectations and performance. This
perfectionist profile is somewhat controversial. Some researchers
who have analyzed the APS-R have questioned whether a low
Personal Standards/high Discrepancy profile represents a perfec-
tionist subgroup per se because its members do not describe
themselves as possessing high standards (Rice & Ashby, 2007;
Rice et al., 2011). However, other researchers have argued that
these individuals may lack insight into their perfectionism (Sironic
& Reeve, 2012) or experience externally motivated high standards
(Wang et al., 2007). By including measures of externally moti-
vated perfectionism from the FMPS and the CAPS, we were able
to examine the relationship between APS-R perfectionist profiles
(e.g., low Personal Standards/high Discrepancy) and externally
motivated perfectionism. Our findings support the claim that the
APS-R low Personal Standards/high Discrepancy subgroup is an
externally motivated perfectionist subgroup (represented in this
study by the EMMP subgroup)—they do not set high standards for
themselves but likely adopt the standards of parents, teachers, and
significant others, and experience concerns, doubts, and discrep-
ancy based on the standards set by others. It should be noted,
however, that students in the EMMP subgroup do not endorse
greater levels of externally motivated perfectionism than students
in the MMP subgroup.
The MMP subgroup has been identified previously (Boone et
al., 2010; Rice & Ashby, 2007; Rice et al., 2011; Sironic & Reeve,
2012; Wang et al., 2007). Individuals in the MMP subgroup
experience both internally and externally motivated perfection-
ism—they set high standards for themselves and adopt high stan-
dards that they perceive as imposed by others. They also experi-
ence a discrepancy between the standards they set and achieved
outcomes, show concerns and doubts about their performance, and
value order and organization.
The MMP and EMMP subgroups report significantly higher
levels of self-reported depression, anxiety, and stress compared
with the AP and nonperfectionist subgroups. It is interesting that
while the MMP and EMMP subgroups did not differ in their
depression and anxiety ratings, the MMP subgroup reported sig-
nificantly greater levels of stress than the EMMP subgroup. This
finding has implications for the MMP subgroup’s need for stress
counseling and appears fitting given diathesis-stress models of
perfectionism, which maintain that perfectionists exposed to stress
are vulnerable to psychological distress (Chang & Rand, 2000;
Cheng, 2001; Enns, Cox, & Clara, 2005; Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein,
& Mosher, 1995; O’Connor, Rasmussen, & Hawton, 2010).
Although some may argue that the MMP subgroup experience a
more extreme form of perfectionism simply because of their higher
ratings on the High Personal Standards factor, it is important to
consider that students in the MMP subgroup rated themselves higher
not only on the High Personal Standards factor but on all four
perfectionism factors, compared with other perfectionist subgroups. A
person-centered approach suggests that ratings on one dimension may
have a different overall meaning depending on how they relate to
ratings on other dimensions. Indeed, students in the EMMP subgroup
rated themselves as experiencing the same levels of depression and
anxiety as students in the MMP subgroup, despite having lower
self-ratings on each of the four higher order perfectionism dimen-
sions. We suggest that it is the particular overlap of (or pattern of
scores on) higher-order perfectionism dimensions that make maladap-
tive perfectionists “maladaptive” in nature and more likely to expe-
rience psychopathology, compared with the AP and nonperfectionist
perfectionist subgroups. While ratings on individual perfectionism
dimensions are important, they may be misleading (in understanding
perfectionists) when viewed in isolation. This is not to suggest that
research following a variable-centered approach, which examines
perfectionism dimensions in isolation, is not important. Indeed, we
acknowledge that perfectionism dimensions are important in their
own right and helpful in understanding adaptive and maladaptive
forms of perfectionism (see Mitchell et al., 2013; Nobel, Manassis, &
Wilansky-Trainor, 2012). Nevertheless, a definition of perfectionists
contingent on high ratings on one dimension (e.g., High Personal
Standards) is inconsistent with a person-centered conceptualization.
Our findings support the work of Lundh et al. (2008). Lundh et
al. supported a person-centered approach (compared with a
variable-centered approach) by identifying three clinically signif-
icant perfectionist subgroups, which were characterized by high
ratings on the FMPS Concern Over Mistakes, Doubts About Ac-
tions, Personal Standards, and Organization dimensions. These
three groups are similar to our MMP subgroup in that they show
high internally motivated standards and experience concerns and
doubts about their performance. It is interesting that two of Lundh
et al.’s three clinically significant subgroups showed elevated
ratings on the FMPS Parental Criticism and Parental Expectations
 PERFECTIONIST PROFILES IN ADOLESCENTS
dimensions, while the remaining third subgroup did not. The two
subgroups with higher ratings on the Parental Criticism and Pa-
rental Expectations dimensions reported greater depression than
the subgroup that rated themselves as low on Parental Criticism
and Parental Expectations dimensions. This supports our claim that
externally motivated perfectionism may be important in under-
standing perfectionism-related psychopathology. It should also be
noted that Lundh et al. briefly refer to a fourth possible maladap-
tive perfectionist subgroup, which they deemed as clinically sig-
nificant. Individuals in this subgroup rated themselves as high on
the Parental Criticism and Parental Expectations dimensions, mod-
erate on the Concern Over Mistakes dimension, and relatively low
on the Personal Standards dimension, compared with the other
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
clinically significant perfectionist subgroups. Lundh et al. did not
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
consider this subgroup to be a perfectionist subgroup because its
members showed no evidence of elevated self-motivated personal
standards. We suggest that this fourth subgroup is similar to our
EMMP subgroup, in which perfectionism is externally motivated.
The data show that approximately 50% of adolescents are clas-
sified as perfectionists. While adaptive and maladaptive perfec-
tionists are both highly prevalent, our findings show that adoles-
cents appear more likely to possess a maladaptive form of
perfectionism and be at an increased risk of experiencing psycho-
pathology. Recent research, for example, suggests that maladap-
tive perfectionists may be more at risk of self-harm or suicide
(Hewitt, Caelian, Chen, & Flett, 2014). It is evident that more
research is needed to understand the health and wellbeing of
adolescents with maladaptive perfectionism. In addition, given the
known risk factors associated with perfectionisms per se, early
intervention programs that identify and treat adolescent perfection-
ism would seem critical. It should be noted that the EMMP
subgroup (n ⫽ 218) is much larger than the MMP subgroup (n ⫽
61) that experiences both internally- and externally motivated
perfectionism. We suggest that this pattern of findings is evidence
for the importance of significant others (e.g., parents, teachers,
peers) in the life of adolescents. The finding has implications for
understanding how negative forms of perfectionism are manifest.
From a clinical or a counseling perspective, maladaptive perfec-
tionism in the adolescent period may require a broad based inter-
vention that involves not only students, but also parents, teachers,
and significant others.
The NPA and NPB subgroups exhibited low ratings on each of
the four perfectionism dimensions and, the NPB subgroup, with
the OONP subgroup, reported the lowest ratings of psychopathol-
ogy. Individuals with an OONP profile score high on Organization
and Order and low on remaining higher-order dimensions. It is
interesting to note that the OONP and MMP profiles were com-
parable in their scores on the Organization and Order dimension.
While some consider order and organization central to perfection-
ism, others disagree (Frost et al., 1990; Rice & Asbhy, 2007;
Stoeber & Otto, 2006). Indeed, some researchers do not include the
APS-R Order and FMPS Organization dimensions in their analy-
ses of perfectionism (Egan, Wade, & Shafran, 2011; Rice &
Ashby, 2007), arguing that it does not form a core dimension of
perfectionism. We included all dimensions from the FMPS, CAPS,
and APS-R in our analyses, which show that the Order and
Organization factor is significantly correlated with the High Per-
sonal Standards and Concerns, Doubts, and Discrepancy factors. It
seems likely that the way in which perfectionists tackle their
1481
day-to-day tasks of meeting and evaluating standards may relate to
how they value order and organization. Moreover, the Order and
Organization higher-order dimension helps differentiate between
the three perfectionist subgroups. Students in the MMP subgroup
rate themselves highest on the Order and Organization dimension
followed by students in the AP and then EMMP subgroups. These
findings suggest that organization and order dimensions in perfec-
tionism may warrant further consideration.
Furthermore, some suggest that interpersonal dimensions of
perfectionism (e.g., FMPS Parental Criticism, FMPS Parental Ex-
pectations, HMPS Socially Prescribed Perfectionism) may be bet-
ter conceptualized as developmental antecedents or correlates of
perfectionism and should not be included in perfectionism-related
analyses (Rice et al., 2005; Stoeber & Otto, 2006). However, it
would seem unwise to disregard measures of interpersonal influ-
ence that may be associated with the development of perfection-
ism, especially in adolescence. Moreover, our findings suggest that
there is a group of perfectionists that is mostly externally moti-
vated (i.e., individuals who experience relatively little internally
motivated perfectionism). This group may be unique to an adoles-
cent sample, given the attention adolescents pay to parents and
significant others at this developmental stage.
While our findings suggest that perfectionism subgroups remain
stable across the high school years, caution should be exercised in
drawing applied inferences about these subgroups from our cross-
sectional data. Adolescence is a unique developmental period
affected by multiple influences, and longitudinal research is re-
quired to understand the stability and/or change in subgroup mem-
bership over time. It is worth noting that several studies have
assessed perfectionism longitudinally and suggest that it is rela-
tively stable (Nilsson, Sundbom, & Hägglöf, 2008; O’Connor et
al., 2009; Rice & Aldea, 2006). Nevertheless, a better understand-
ing of the stability (or otherwise) of “externally motivated mal-
adaptive” adolescent perfectionists as they become adults may
clarify the status of this particular perfectionist subgroup.
It is also worth noting that perfectionist profiles similar to those
identified in the present study occur across cultures (Boone et al.,
2010; Rice et al., 2011; Sironic & Reeve, 2012; Wang et al., 2007).
The latter point is particularly relevant in light of Wang et al.’s
suggestion that “externally motivated maladaptive perfectionists”
might be unique to collectivist cultures, such as Taiwan. On the basis
of our findings it seems likely that the EMMP profile is common in
Australia, Belgium, the United States, and Taiwan, at least.
In the present study, we used self-ratings to assess perfectionism
and psychopathology. Even though self-reports are commonly
used in perfectionism and clinical/counseling research, the relative
absence of more direct observational measures is worrying (Her-
man et al., 2013). In particular, it would seem important to inves-
tigate the degree to which perceptions of externally motivated
perfectionists actually reflect the behavior/pressures of significant
others. Multiple informant report methods (e.g., parent-report,
teacher-report, clinical interview) would be helpful in this regard.
We also note that even though different psychopathologies (i.e.,
depression, anxiety, and stress) are associated with different sub-
groups, this does not imply a causal link between perfectionist
subgroup membership and different psychopathologies. In addi-
tion, we acknowledge that while perfectionism questionnaires
were designed to identify perfectionism, other psychological fac-
 1482 SIRONIC AND REEVE
tors or pathologies may, of course, be at play and assessed by
questionnaire items. We understand there are no “pure” test items.
The three nonperfectionist subgroups, including the relatively small
OONP subgroup (comprising only 27 individuals), may also be con-
sidered a limitation of the current study. We believe it is important to
retain these three nonperfectionist subgroups because they emerged
from our analysis, and an individual in any one of these groups is
deemed to have a different pattern of scores (across the four higher
order perfectionism dimensions) compared with an individual from
any of the other (five) subgroups. We were reluctant to collapse
subgroups. Moreover, there were differences between nonperfection-
ist subgroups. The NPA subgroup showed higher levels of depression,
anxiety, and stress than the NPB and OONP subgroups (and similar
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
levels of depression, anxiety, and stress when compared with the AP
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
subgroup). From a research information perspective, we suggest that
is possible that similar subgroups will emerge in other research and
our findings will provide comparison information. Moreover, model
fit statistics suggest that our six-subgroup model is acceptable. We do
not, however, claim that our model cannot be improved. We encour-
age future research to adopt a person-centered approach and identify
improved models of perfectionists using various perfectionism dimen-
sions.
Future research with adults may also choose to include the
HMPS Other-Oriented Perfectionism dimension, which is not part
of the child and adolescent version of the HMPS (i.e., the CAPS).
Recent research suggests that Other-Oriented Perfectionism is an
important form of perfectionism associated with antisocial and
narcissistic personality characteristics (Sherry, Gralnick, Hewitt,
Sherry, & Flett, 2014; Stoeber, 2014). The inclusion on this
perfectionism dimension in future person-centered perfectionism
research may lead to the identification of another perfectionist
subgroup, in which members expect others to be perfect, and are
highly critical of those who fail to meet their expectations.
Conclusion
In the present study, we analyzed differences and similarities in
the dimensional constructs of three widely used perfectionism
questionnaires to provide a broader understanding of perfection-
ism. Consistent with previous research, we identified three perfec-
tionist subgroups (i.e., AP, EMMP, and MMP subgroups), and
subgroup membership was meaningfully related to self-reported
depression, anxiety, and stress. The finding of two maladaptive
perfectionist subgroups experiencing externally motivated perfec-
tionism (30% of our entire sample, and 56% of all perfectionists)
suggests that externally motivated perfectionism is common in
adolescence and may require treatment regimens that involve not
only students, but also parents, teachers, and significant others.
Whether these students remain externally motivated perfectionists,
or indeed perfectionists, over time, is a matter for further research.
References
Antony, M. M., Bieling, P. J., Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Swinson, R. P.
(1998). Psychometric properties of the 42-item and 21-item versions of
the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) in clinical groups and a
community sample. Psychological Assessment, 10, 176 –181. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.10.2.176
Ashby, J. S., & Rice, K. G. (2002). Perfectionism, dysfunctional attitudes,
and self-esteem: A structural equations analysis. Journal of Counseling
& Development, 80, 197–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678
.2002.tb00183.x
Asparouhov, T. (2007). Wald test of mean equality for potential latent class
predictors in mixture modeling. Technical appendix. In Mplus user’s
guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. Retrieved from
https://www.statmodel.com/download/usersguide/Mplus%20Users%
20Guide%20v6.pdf
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2013). Auxiliary variables in mixture
modeling: A 3-step approach using Mplus (Mplus Web Notes: No. 15,
Version 6). Retrieved from http://statmodel.com/examples/webnotes/
AuxMixture_submitted_corrected_webnote
Boone, L., Soenens, B., Braet, C., & Goossens, L. (2010). An empirical
typology of perfectionism in early-to-mid adolescents and its relation
with eating disorder symptoms. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48,
686 – 691. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2010.03.022
Chang, E. C., & Rand, K. L. (2000). Perfectionism as a predictor of
subsequent adjustment: Evidence for a specific diathesis–stress mecha-
nism among college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47,
129 –137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.47.1.129
Cheng, S. K. (2001). Life stress, problem solving, perfectionism, and
depressive symptoms in Chinese. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25,
303–310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1010788513083
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit
indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Mod-
eling, 9, 233–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory
factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your
analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10, 1–9.
DiBartolo, P. M., Frost, R. O., Chang, P., LaSota, M., & Grills, A. E.
(2004). Shedding light on the relationship between personal standards
and psychopathology: The case for contingent self-worth. Journal of
Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 22, 241–254.
Egan, S. J., Wade, T. D., & Shafran, R. (2011). Perfectionism as a
transdiagnostic process: A clinical review. Clinical Psychology Review,
31, 203–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.04.009
Einstein, D. A., Lovibond, P. F., & Gaston, J. E. (2000). Relationship
between perfectionism and emotional symptoms in an adolescent sam-
ple. Australian Journal of Psychology, 52, 89 –93. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/00049530008255373
Enns, M. W., Cox, B. J., & Clara, I. P. (2005). Perfectionism and neurot-
icism: A longitudinal study of specific vulnerability and diathesis-stress
models. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 29, 463– 482. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1007/s10608-005-2843-04
Feingold, A., Tiberio, S. S., & Capaldi, D. M. (2014). New approaches for
examining associations with latent categorical variables: Applications to
substance abuse and aggression. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 28,
257–267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031487
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Mosher, S. W. (1995).
Perfectionism, life events, and depressive symptoms: A test of a
diathesis-stress model. Current Psychology, 14, 112–137. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1007/BF02686885
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Boucher, D. J., Davidson, L. A., & Munro, Y.
(2000). The Child–Adolescent Perfectionism Scale: Development, vali-
dation, and association with adjustment. Unpublished manuscript, York
University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Oliver, J. M., & Macdonald, S. (2002). Perfec-
tionism in children and their parents: A developmental analysis. In G. L.
Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research and treat-
ment (pp. 89 –132). Washington, DC: American Psychological Associ-
ation. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10458-004
Frost, R. O., Heimberg, R. G., Holt, J. I., Mattia, J. I., & Neubauer, A. L.
(1993). A comparison of two measures of perfectionism. Personality
and Individual Differences, 14, 119 –126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
0191-8869(93)90181-2
 PERFECTIONIST PROFILES IN ADOLESCENTS
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimen-
sions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449 – 468.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01172967
Gaudreau, P., & Thompson, A. (2010). Testing a 2 ⫻ 2 model of dispo-
sitional perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 532–
537. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.031
Hawkins, C. C., Watt, H. M. G., & Sinclair, K. E. (2006). Psychometric
properties of the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale with Aus-
tralian adolescent girls: Clarification of multidimensionality and perfec-
tionist typology. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66,
1001–1022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164405285909
Herman, K. C., Wang, K., Trotter, R., Reinke, W. M., & Ialongo, N.
(2013). Developmental trajectories of maladaptive perfectionism among
African American adolescents. Child Development, 84, 1633–1650.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12078
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Hewitt, P. L., Caelian, C. F., Chen, C., & Flett, G. L. (2014). Perfectionism,
stress, daily hassles, hopelessness, and suicide potential in depressed
psychiatric adolescents. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral
Assessment, 36, 663– 674. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10862-014-9427-0
Hewitt, P. L., Caelian, C. F., Flett, G. L., Sherry, S. B., Collins, L., &
Flynn, C. A. (2002). Perfectionism in children: Associations with de-
pression, anxiety and anger. Personality and Individual Differences, 32,
1049 –1061. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00109-X
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social
contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psycho-
pathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456 – 470.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.456
Huggins, L., Davis, M. C., Rooney, R., & Kane, R. (2008). Socially
prescribed and self-oriented perfectionism as predictors of depressive
diagnosis in preadolescents. Australian Journal of Guidance and Coun-
selling, 18, 182–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1375/ajgc.18.2.182
Kornblum, M., & Ainley, M. (2005). Perfectionism and the gifted: A study
of an Australian school sample. International Education Journal, 6,
232–239.
Lovibond, S. H., & Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manual for the Depression
Anxiety Stress Scales. Sydney, Australia: Psychology Foundation.
Lundh, L.-G., Saboonchi, F., & Wangby, M. (2008). The role of personal
standards in clinically significant perfectionism. A person-oriented ap-
proach to the study of patterns of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 32, 333–350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10608-006-9109-7
Mitchell, J. H., Broeren, S., Newall, C., & Hudson, J. L. (2013). An
experimental manipulation of maternal perfectionistic anxious rearing
behaviors with anxious and non-anxious children. Journal of Experi-
mental Child Psychology, 116, 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp
.2012.12.006
Moshman, D. (2005). Adolescent psychological development: Rationality,
morality, and identity (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Muuss, R. E. (2006). Theories of adolescence (6th ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill Publishers.
Nilsson, K., Sundbom, E., & Hägglöf, B. (2008). A longitudinal study of
perfectionism in adolescent onset anorexia nervosa-restricting type. Eu-
ropean Eating Disorders Review, 16, 386 –394. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/erv.850
Nobel, R., Manassis, K., & Wilansky-Traynor, P. (2012). The role of
perfectionism in relation to an intervention to reduce anxious and de-
pressive symptoms in children. Journal of Rational-Emotive &
Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 30, 77–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10942-011-0133-5
O’Connor, R. C., Rasmussen, S., & Hawton, K. (2010). Predicting depres-
sion, anxiety and self-harm in adolescents: The role of perfectionism and
acute life stress. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48, 52–59. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2009.09.008
1483
Rice, K. G., & Aldea, M. A. (2006). State dependence and trait stability of
perfectionism: A short-term longitudinal study. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 53, 205–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.2.205
Rice, K. G., & Ashby, J. S. (2007). An efficient method for classifying
perfectionists. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 72– 85. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.54.1.72
Rice, K. G., Ashby, J. S., & Gilman, R. (2011). Classifying adolescent
perfectionists. Psychological Assessment, 23, 563–577. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0022482
Rice, K. G., Ashby, J. S., & Slaney, R. B. (1998). Self-esteem as a mediator
between perfectionism and depression: A structural equations analysis.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 304 –314. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0022-0167.45.3.304
Rice, K. G., & Dellwo, J. P. (2002). Perfectionism and self-development:
Implications for college adjustment. Journal of Counseling & Develop-
ment, 80, 188 –196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2002
.tb00182.x
Rice, K. G., Lopez, F. G., & Vergara, D. (2005). Parental/social influences
on perfectionism and adult attachment orientations. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology, 24, 580 – 605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp
.2005.24.4.580
Rice, K. G., & Mirzadeh, S. A. (2000). Perfectionism, attachment, and
adjustment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 238 –250. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.47.2.238
Shafran, R., & Mansell, W. (2001). Perfectionism and psychopathology: A
review of research and treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 21,
879 –906. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(00)00072-6
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, 52–56.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.007
Sironic, A., & Reeve, R. A. (2012). More evidence for four perfectionism
subgroups. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 437– 442. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.04.003
Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., Mobley, M., Trippi, J., & Ashby, J. S. (2001).
The Revised Almost Perfect Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in
Counseling and Development, 34, 130 –145.
Stoeber, J. (2014). How other-oriented perfectionism differs from self-
oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism. Journal of Psychopathol-
ogy and Behavioral Assessment, 36, 329 –338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10862-013-9397-7
Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism:
Approaches, evidence, challenges. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 10, 295–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_2
Suddarth, B. H., & Slaney, R. B. (2001). An investigation of the dimen-
sions of perfectionism in college students. Measurement and Evaluation
in Counseling and Development, 34, 157–165.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th
ed.). New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.
Vermunt, J. K. (2010). Latent class modeling with covariates: Two im-
proved three-step approaches. Political Analysis, 18, 450 – 469. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpq025
Wang, T. W., 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 Dif-
ferences, 42, 1279 –1290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.10.006
West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models
with non-normal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. Hoyle (Ed.),
Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp.
56 –75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Received November 4, 2013
Revision received March 10, 2015
Accepted March 11, 2015 䡲