Sunteți pe pagina 1din 11

879834

research-article2019
JPAXXX10.1177/0734282919879834Journal of Psychoeducational AssessmentBento et al.

Further Advances in the Assessment of Perfectionism


Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment
1­–11
Development and Validation © The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
of a Short Form of the Child– sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0734282919879834
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282919879834
Adolescent Perfectionism Scale journals.sagepub.com/home/jpa

C. Bento1 , A. T. Pereira1, J. Azevedo1,


J. Saraiva1, G. Flett2, P. L. Hewitt3, and A. Macedo1

Abstract
The objective of the present study was to develop and assess the validity of a short form
of the Child–Adolescent Perfectionism Scale (CAPS). Two Portuguese samples composed
of 756 adolescents were used to cross-validate the factorial structure of a nine-item Child–
Adolescent Perfectionism Scale—Short Form (CAPS–SF). The CAPS–SF consists of a four-item
self-oriented perfectionism subscale and a five-item socially prescribed perfectionism subscale.
Both subscales demonstrated adequate internal consistency. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
of the CAPS–SF supported the same two-factor structure and represented a very good fit to
the data for both groups. Other analyses found that the brief measure of socially prescribed
perfectionism was associated with measures of distress and forms of self-criticism. The CAPS–
SF appears to represent a reliable and valid alternative to the original CAPS. Overall, the CAPS-
SF is considerably briefer than the original CAPS and it offers an economical and valid alternative
when measuring perfectionism in children and adolescents.

Keywords
perfectionism, adolescents, scale development, short form

Perfectionism can be conceptualized as a personality trait leading individuals to develop certain


cognitive processes, action tendencies, and behaviors such as the setting of unrealistically high
standards for performance accompanied by tendencies for overly critical self-evaluations of
one’s behavior (Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990; Stoeber & Janssen, 2011). It was
conceptualized initially as a unidimensional construct, limited to intrapersonal aspects. In con-
trast, Hewitt and Flett (1991) developed a multidimensional conceptualization of perfectionism,
assessing three dimensions: self-oriented, socially prescribed, and other-oriented perfectionism.
It has been suggested that some dimensions of perfectionism may have some adaptive value
(Stoeber et al., 2006), whereas other dimensions have shown close relations with shame (Noble,
Gnilka, Ashby, & McLaulin, 2017), self-criticism (Chen, Hewitt, & Flett, 2015), psychological

1University
of Coimbra, Portugal
2York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
3The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

Corresponding Author:
C. Bento, Pediatric Clinic University, Pediatric Hospital of Coimbra, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, R.
Dr. Afonso Romão, 3030 Coimbra, Portugal.
Email: carmenbento@sapo.pt
2 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 00(0)

maladjustment, and mental health problems such as anxiety, depression, and disordered eating in
adults and adolescents (Bento, Pereira, Roque, Saraiva, & Macedo E Santos, 2017; Blankstein,
Lumley, & Crawford, 2007; Hill, McIntire, & Bacharach, 1997; Macedo et al., 2007; Minarik &
Ahrens, 1996).
The Child–Adolescent Perfectionism Scale (CAPS) is the most widely used measure when
assessing perfectionism in children and adolescents from a multidimensional perspective (Flett
et al., 2016). The CAPS consists of 22 items with 12 items assessing self-oriented perfectionism
and 10 items assessing socially prescribed perfectionism (Flett et al., 2016). Extensive evidence
attesting to its positive psychometric properties and utility has been provided (for a summary, see
Flett et al., 2016). The Portuguese version of the CAPS presents adequate psychometric proper-
ties, similar to the original version (Bento, Pereira, Saraiva, & Macedo, 2014).
There are several reasons to develop a brief version of the CAPS. In most instances, the use
of the original version is preferable but there are times when a briefer and more economical ver-
sion of the instrument would be beneficial, especially when it is included with several other
measures or when there are participants who may have some limitations in their reading ability.
The development of a brief version of the CAPS would be particularly useful if the abbreviated
version has comparable psychometric characteristics when completed by younger children ver-
sus older children and adolescents.
Our decision to create a brief version of the CAPS is also guided by the recognition that some
previous researchers have already taken it upon themselves to use a version of the CAPS with fewer
than 22 items due to the particular needs of their study. Shorter versions of the CAPS have been
utilized with some researchers dropping only a few items (McVey, Pepler, Davis, Flett, & Abdolell,
2002), whereas other researchers have used much fewer items. For instance, Kenney-Benson and
Pomerantz (2005) conducted research on maternal control and children’s perfectionism. They
focused on a sample of children who were 7 to 10 years old. Perfectionism with the CAPS was
assessed with two eight-item subscales measuring self-oriented and socially prescribed perfection-
ism. The two subscales had high levels of internal consistency but in this sample, there was a much
higher correlation between the two perfectionism dimensions (r = .76) than is typically the case in
samples that have used the entire CAPS. Another investigation by Saling, Ricciardelli, and McCabe
(2005) examined perfectionism in 326 Australian children in Grades 3, 4, and 5. They used an
eight-item version of the CAPS that was based on a random selection of four items from each sub-
scale. Unfortunately, the internal consistency was relatively low for self-oriented perfectionism (α
coefficients of .51 for boys and .61 for girls), so the authors opted to sacrifice the multidimensional
focus and combine all eight items into one overall perfectionism score. This resulted in internal
consistencies of .81 for both boys and girls. More recently, a team of investigators examined the
ability of the CAPS to assess differences in perfectionism in the sports context (Donachie, Hill, &
Hall, 2018). Psychometric analyses resulted in a 10-item version with four items assessing self-
oriented perfectionism and six items assessing socially prescribed perfectionism.
Other authors have focused on shorter versions of the CAPS as a result of their efforts to
explore the CAPS factor structure. McCreary, Joiner, Schmidt, and Ialongo (2004) analyzed
the item responses of Black children from the Baltimore area. They described a 14-item ver-
sion with a socially prescribed perfectionism subscale and two self-oriented perfectionism
factors. As noted by Flett et al. (2016), these results can be questioned because McCreary et al.
(2004) used a nonstandard, unique version of the CAPS by significantly altering the measure.
Specifically, five CAPS items were reworded. Also, McCreary et al. (2004) decided to use a
four-option response key that no longer resembled the standard 5-point response key.
Subsequently, O’Connor, Dixon, and Rasmussen (2009) sought to determine whether the
three-factor solution could be replicated in their samples of 624 and 737 Scottish adolescents.
O’Connor et al. deemed that the three-factor solution described by McCreary et al. (2004) was
a poor fit to their data. Instead, they developed an alternative 14-item version. The negatively
Bento et al. 3

worded CAPS items were dropped as well as other items that loaded complexly with cross-
loadings on the factors. The factors were as follows: (a) a three-item self-oriented perfection-
ism striving subscale, (b) a four-item self-oriented perfectionism self-critical subscale, and (c)
a seven-item socially prescribed perfectionism subscale. These factors were found in both of
their samples. Flett et al. (2016) observed that this version is problematic for two reasons.
First, at a conceptual level, self-oriented perfectionism is best considered a unidimensional
entity, so the theoretical basis for two self-oriented perfectionism factors needs to be expli-
cated. Second, Flett et al. (2016) suggested that the four-item self-critical perfectionism factor
identified by O’Connor et al. (2009) is subject to other interpretations due to item content. The
four items in this factor seem to generally reflect reactions and responses to imperfection and
failure—only one item has wording that openly reflects self-criticism.
Recent developments in the assessment of perfectionism continue to attest to the possibility
and suitability of developing short forms of lengthy measures (e.g., Burgess, Frost, & DiBartolo,
2016). Accordingly, we set out to develop a shorter version of the CAPS with one factor repre-
senting self-oriented perfectionism and another factor representing socially prescribed perfec-
tionism. As noted below, items were selected based on their association with the full set of items
but also in terms of the degree to which the item content reflects the essence of descriptions of
self-oriented perfectionism and socially prescribed perfectionism.
The current research primarily explores the feasibility of creating a brief version of the CAPS
in a sample of children and adolescents in Portugal. Such a short version might be particularly
useful in settings where time constraints make the use of the long form less feasible or advisable
(e.g., time-consuming survey research, therapy process-outcome research, and individual moni-
toring in daily clinical practice).
The research described below outlines the development of the brief CAPS. We also included
measures that should be associated with elevated levels of perfectionism in children and adoles-
cents. For instance, given the established relationships between perfectionism and depression,
anxiety, and stress (e.g., Hewitt et al., 2002; Hewitt, Flett, & Ediger, 1996), we used the
Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale–21 Items (DASS-21) to explore the utility and validity of
the brief CAPS.

Method
Sample
Participants consisted of 756 adolescents from public and private of middle and high schools of
Coimbra, whose parents accepted their adolescents to participate. The mean age was 13.22 years
± 2.28 (range: 9-18). The total sample was divided in two samples considering the elementary
school (youngest) and secondary school (oldest).
Sample 1 (S1) consisted of 427 adolescents (241 girls [56.4%] and 186 boys [43.6%]); and
Sample 2 (S2) consisted of 329 participants (164 girls [50.1%], 165 boys [49.9%]). All partici-
pants took part without financial compensation or any other benefit. The participants in S1 were
significantly younger than the participants in S2, S1: 12.31 ± 2.08 versus S2: 13.95 ± 2.10;
t(707.498) = 10.676, p < .001.

Materials and Procedure


Procedure. Permission was obtained from the Ethic Commission of Faculty of Medicine of
Coimbra, from the Portuguese Data Protection Authority and from the schools headmasters. The
informed consent was also obtained from the parents of the adolescents who took part. Confiden-
tiality was ensured.
4 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 00(0)

Measures.  The CAPS is a 22-item scale. Responders rated each statement on a 5-point Likert-
type scale ranging from 1 (false- not at all true for me) to 5 (very true for me). CAPS scores can
range from 22 to 110. Items 3, 9, and 18 from the CAPS are reversed.

Development of the child–adolescent perfectionism scale–short form (CAPS-SF).  The initial version
of the short form of the CAPS-SF was constructed with a Portuguese-speaking sample. It was
created based on the Portuguese original CAPS. Following Stöber and Joormann’s (2001) pro-
cedure for creating short forms of longer self-report measures, we selected the items from the
Portuguese original CAPS that demonstrated loadings higher than .65 (Bento et al., 2014). As
noted by Stöber and Joormann (2001), these requirements helped to ensure that the short form
would evidence a high correlation with the long form of the scale and the items would be rep-
resentative of their intended subscale domains. We also retained items that were deemed by the
authors to capture the essence of self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism as psycho-
logical constructs. For instance, the items tapping self-oriented perfectionism reflected not
only exceptionally high standards, but also generalization tendencies of young people with this
orientation (e.g., wanting to be the best at everything), and the sense of personal imperative of
them being perfect. Overall, the brief version had four self-oriented perfectionism (SOP) items
and five socially prescribed perfectionism (SPP) items. Note that all items from the CAPS-SF
subscales were not reverse-coded.
The items that were selected to form the CAPS-SF are listed in Table 1.

DASS-21.  The scale comprises 21 items designed to measure the extent to which participants
have experienced depressive (D), anxiety (A), and stress (S) symptoms during the past week
(Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). The Portuguese version was used (Ribeiro, Honrado, & Leal,
2004).

The forms of self-criticizing and reassuring scale (FSCRS).  This 22-item self-report scale measure
forms of self-criticism and self-reassuring (Gilbert, Clarke, Hempel, Miles, & Irons, 2004). The
Portuguese version (Castilho & Gouveia, 2011) was used.

The other as shamer for adolescents–short form (OAS-SF).  The Portuguese version was used (Cunha,
Xavier, Cherpe, & Gouveia, 2017; Goss, Gilbert, & Allan, 1994). This self-report measure con-
sists of eight items designed to measure external shame (i.e., what the subjects think about the
way others see them).

Psychometric data evaluation.  Given the broad age range of the complete sample, we decided
to conduct a multigroup analysis, dividing the sample into two age categories. This analysis
was conducted to evaluate the model for multigroup invariance of the CAPS-SF across two
youngsters groups. The invariance of the structural model for both groups was tested through
the chi-square difference test and the critical ratios for differences among all parameter esti-
mates. Significant differences between groups exist when critical ratio values are larger than
1.96 (Byrne, 2013).
To assess overall model fit, a number of goodness of fit measures and recommended cut points
were used (Kline, 2005): Chi-Square (χ2), Normed Chi-Square (χ2/df), Comparative Fit Index
(CFI ≥ .90, acceptable, and ≥.95, desirable; (Hu & Bentler, 1998), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI ≥
.90, acceptable, and ≥ .95, desirable; Hu & Bentler, 1998), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI ≥ .90,
good, and ≥.95, desirable; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA ≤ .07, good fit if GFI ≥ .92; Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2009) with a 95% con-
fidence interval (CI).
Bento et al. 5

Table 1.  Items for the CAPS-SF, Including Item Correlations With Subscale Score (Both the Long and
Short Versions).

Loadings Loadings
CAPS-LF CAPS-SF
CAPS Items (α = .81) α = .84a (.86)b
Factor I: Socially 13. O
 ther people always expect me to be .806 .857 (.808)
prescribed perfectionism- perfect.
SF α = .872 (.863)
  8. M y family expects me to be perfect. .760 .839 (.792)
  15. P  eople around me expect me to be .751 .819 (.787)
great at everything.
  5. T here are people in my life who expect .706 .811 (.736)
me to be perfect.
  21. I feel that people ask too much of me. .680 .673 (.728)
Factor II: Self-oriented 2. I want to be the best at everything I do. .724 .817 (.850)
perfectionism-SF
α = .771 (.773)b
  I try to be perfect in everything I do. .706 .780 (.783)
  16. W  hen I do something, it has to be .708 .752 (.635)
perfect.
  7. It really bothers me if I don’t do my .652 .678 (.628)
best all the time.

Note. Values for Sample 2 are shown in parentheses. CAPS-SF = child–adolescent perfectionism scale–short form;
CAPS-LF = child–adolescent perfectionism scale–long form (Bento, Pereira, Saraiva, & Macedo, 2014);
α = Cronbach’s alpha.
aSample 1
bSample 2.

Temporal stability was analyzed by the test–retest correlation method (Pearson correlation). A
subset of 341 adolescents (213 girls; mean age = 14.17 years and 132 boys; mean age = 13.46
years) from the original sample completed the CAPS-SF a second time 6 weeks later.

Results
Exploratory Data Analysis
Mean and standard deviations.  As the original CAPS, the CAPS-SF rates each statement on a
5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (false—not at all true for me) to 5 (very true for me).
For the total sample, the mean scores were as follows: SOP–short form (SOP-SF): M = 14.41,
SD = 3.575; SPP–short form (SPP-SF): M = 14.31, SD = 5.258.
No significant mean differences were observed between both samples for SOP-SF: S1: 14.27
± 3.734 versus S2: 14.75 ± 3.169; t(–1.803) = 509.430, p = .072 or for SPP-SF: S1: 14.41 ±
5.346 versus 14.13 ± 5.025; t(.694) = 467.269, p = .488.

Internal consistency.  Table 1 presents internal consistency reliabilities (using Cronbach’s α) for
the CAPS–long form (CAPS-LF; Bento et al., 2014) and CAPS–SF, including the total score and
the subscale scores. Internal consistency of the CAPS–SF was higher (S1 α = .84; S2 α = .86)
than the CAPS-LF (α = .81). It was found in the total sample that the correlations between the
CAPS-SF subscales were r = .77 for self-oriented and r = .90 for Socially Prescribed; and the
correlation between self-oriented and for socially prescribed was r = .43 (p < .01). For the
youngest sample, the correlations were as follows: r = .79 for self-oriented and r = .91 for
6 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 00(0)

Figure 1.  Standardized loadings and correlations for the two-factor model according to the
modification indices and theoretical considerations.
Note. SPP = socially prescribed perfectionism; SOP = self-oriented perfectionism.

Socially Prescribed; the correlation between self-oriented and for socially prescribed was r = .46
(p < .01). The correlations in the oldest sample were as follows: r = .72 for self-oriented,
r = .90 for Socially Prescribed and the correlations between self-oriented and for socially pre-
scribed were r = .33 (p < .01).
Both samples (S1 and S2) showed the same factor structure (Table 1).

Test–retest reliability.  For the CAPS-SF, the test–retest correlation coefficient was .67 (p < .001)
for the total score. The test–retest correlation for the socially prescribed perfectionism subscale
was .61 (p < .001) and for self-oriented perfectionism was .67 (p < .001).

Confirmatory Data Analysis


Preliminary data analyses.  Analyses for normal distribution did not show any severe bias, as all the
variables presented acceptable values of skewness and kurtosis (SK < |3| and Ku < |8-10|) and
variance inflation factor (VIF) < 5 (Kline, 2005), which excludes the existence of multicollinear-
ity. Also, from the analysis of multivariate outliers using Mahalanobis distance statistic (D2),
some cases indicated the presence of outliers, and were therefore excluded.
Bento et al. 7

Table 2.  Correlations Between CAPS-SF, FSCRS Dimensions, and OAS-SF.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1.SPP-SF 1  
2.SOP-SF .426** 1  
3.CAPS-SF .903** .773** 1  
4.FSCRS-SI .262** .018 .198** 1  
5. FSCRS-SR –.131** .103* –.044 –.516** 1  
6.FSCRS-SH .183** –.024 .117* .533** –.504** 1  
7.OAS-A-SF .243** –.002 .171** .582** –.410** .487** 1

Note. CAPS-SF = Child–Adolescent Perfectionism Scale–Short Form; SPP-SF = Socially Prescribed Perfectionism–
Short Form; SOPSF = Self-Oriented Perfectionism–Short Form; FSCRS-SI = Forms of Self-Criticizing and Reassuring
Scale–Self Inadequate; FSCRS-SR = Forms of Self-Criticizing and Reassuring Scale–Self-Reassured; FSCRS-SH = Forms
of Self-Criticizing and Reassuring Scale–Self-Hated; OAS-A-SF = Other As Shamer for Adolescents–Short Form.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).  A multigroup analysis was conducted to verify if
there were differences in the final model between two groups of younger versus older partici-
pants (younger ones from 9 to 15 years old; older ones from 16 to 18). The tested model pre-
sented a very good fit to the data for both groups: χ2(24) = 89.420, p < .001; CFI = .980; TLI
= .970; RMSEA = .061, CI = [.048, .074]; p = .087. Measurement invariance is suggested
when measurement properties are structurally equivalent in different groups (Byrne, 2013). The
multiple-group CFA invariance was verified by comparing the unconstrained model (i.e., with
free structural parameter coefficients) and the constrained model (i.e., where the parameters are
constrained equally across groups; Byrne [2013]). The model presented a very good fit to the data
for both groups: GFI = .96; CFI = .975; TLI = .96; RMSEA = .047, p (RMSEA ≤ .05) = .977,
90% CI = [0.037, 0.057].
The multigroup analysis confirmed the invariance of measurement across groups. The uncon-
strained model (i.e., with free structural parameter coefficients) and the constrained model (i.e.,
where the parameters are constrained equal across groups) were compared (Byrne, 2013) and
results from the chi-square difference test revealed that the model was invariant for both groups for
measurement weights (i.e., equal factor loadings), presenting a nonsignificant probability value,
χ 2diff (7) = 16.536, p = .21 (Figure 1).

Divergent Validity
Scores on the abbreviated socially prescribed subscale presented modest but positive correlations
with anxiety (r = .212; p < .01), depression (r = .234; p < .01), and stress (r = .223; p < .01).
Scores on this subscale also had significant associations with Inadequate Self (r = .262; p < .01),
Hated Self (r = .183; p < .01), and OAS-SF (r = .243; p < .01). There was also a small but
significant negative correlation with reassured self (r = –.183; p < .01). In contrast, the abbrevi-
ated self-oriented subscale had no significant associations with DASS-21 dimensions, but there
was a small but significant weak correlation with reassured self (r = –.103; p = .04) (Table 2).

Discussion
Over the last three decades, there has been a worldwide growing interest in perfectionism from
childhood to adulthood. Because perfectionism has been associated with a wide range of psy-
chopathological conditions, particularly in young ages, the study of this construct can have
valuable implications in prevention (see Affrunti & Woodruff-Borden, 2014; Flett & Hewitt,
8 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 00(0)

2014; Teixeira, Pereira, Marques, Saraiva, & Macedo, 2016). There is substantial interest,
especially when assessing children and youth, in constructing short form scales that enable
researchers to assess a large number of constructs in a reasonably short test session, enhancing
the adhesion of participants. In addition, the use of short forms can ensure that measures of
many potentially critical variables are obtained so the researcher has greater latitude in testing
alternative hypotheses (Widaman, Little, Preacher, & Sawalani, 2011). Accordingly, the pres-
ent study sought to develop a short version of the CAPS as an extension of previous work on
the Portuguese CAPS (Bento et al., 2014) with the expectation that the measure developed
could be a short form that is used globally in research in general with participants from North
America and other locations.
Our findings can be summarized as follows. First, the short form shows adequate psychomet-
ric characteristics with an internal consistency values for the CAPS–SF subscales which were
comparable with the internal consistencies for the subscales of the longer CAPS. As Nunnally
and Bernstein (1994) mentioned, short form scales reliabilities of .80 or above are generally quite
acceptable values.
Second, although the number of scale items was reduced substantially (i.e., nine items instead
of 22 items in total), the shortened version had no substantial loss in terms of internal consistency
for total scores and after factor analysis; in fact the CAPS-SF yielded the anticipated factor struc-
ture. The four items and five items for the subscales have clear content and face validity, but it is
also the case that the these items had, almost without exception, the highest factor loadings in the
factor analysis of the CAPS items reported in Flett et al. (2016).
Third, CFA confirmed the proposed structure with good fit indices also showing that the short-
ened CAPS have the same higher order factor structure as the original full scale. Fourth, the
multigroup analysis confirmed the invariance of measurement across age groups, which supports
that this scale is appropriate to use across the entire age range.
Fifth, the temporal stability reliability (SOP-SF: r = .67 and SPP: r = .61) was comparable
with the Portuguese original version (SOP: r = .69 and SPP: r = .59). The test–retest reliabilities
were quite comparable with the 1-year test–retest reliabilities for the two original CAPS sub-
scales (.65 for self-oriented perfectionism, .59 for socially prescribed perfectionism) when the
full CAPS was administered to a large sample of adolescents from Canada.
Finally, the CAPS-SF subscales had modest associations with the DASS-21 dimensions.
Specifically, the abbreviated measure of socially prescribed perfectionism was associated signifi-
cantly with all three DASS-21 indices, but there was little association between these measures
and self-oriented perfectionism. This pattern of findings is not in keeping with recent research by
Sironic and Reeve (2015) who found that both self-oriented and socially prescribed perfection-
ism were associated positively and significantly with the DASS-21 subscale measures of anxiety,
depression, and stress in their sample of Australian adolescents.
The results with the measures of self-criticism and being shamed by others showed similarly
that the brief measure of socially prescribed perfectionism was linked with a self-critical orienta-
tion and reports of being shamed by others, and these associations were not found with the abbre-
viated measure of self-oriented perfectionism. We interpreted these results as illustrating the
associated constructs that contribute to the vulnerability inherent in socially prescribed perfec-
tionism; however, the modest magnitude of the obtained associations further illustrates that the
perfectionism construct as assessed by the abbreviated CAPS does not overlap to too much of an
extent with related constructs such as self-criticism and shame.
Clearly, the current findings point to several directions for future research. First and fore-
most, the factor structure and other psychometric features of the abbreviated CAPS subscale
need to be examined in other samples. Given that the nine-items in the abbreviated CAPS were
also items that were also found as having the strongest loadings in the analyses conducted by
Flett et al. (2016), we are confident that generalizability will be supported to a substantial
Bento et al. 9

degree. It is also evident that research is needed to further explore the nomological network
associated with the brief assessment of self-oriented perfectionism and socially prescribed
perfectionism in children and adolescents.
Collectively, the present findings attest to the potential usefulness of the abbreviated nine-
item CAPS. Our analyses established that there is clear evidence of the multidimensionality of
trait perfectionism in children and adolescents with this version of the CAPS. The obtained
evidence from our Portuguese speaker samples suggested that this version can be used both
effectively and efficiently used as an economical alternative to the full CAPS. The CAPS-SF
addresses the need for a brief multidimensional inventory for assessing trait perfectionism in
children and adolescents, and its characteristics support the contention that this version of the
measure merits consideration by other researchers as an alternative to the practice of researchers
selecting their own subset of items.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests


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

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article: This research was supported by the Portuguese General Health Direction included in
the Project “Emotional and Behavioral deregulation in a School Population Sample.”

ORCID iD
C. Bento https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6483-9620

References
Affrunti, N. W., & Woodruff-Borden, J. (2014). Perfectionism in pediatric anxiety and depressive dis-
orders. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 17, 299-317. doi:10.1007/s10567-014-0164-4
Bento, C., Pereira, A. T., Roque, C., Saraiva, J. M. T., & Macedo E Santos, A. J. F. (2017). Longitudinal
effects of an intervention on perfectionism in adolescents. Psicothema, 29, 317-322. doi:10.7334/psi-
cothema2016.223
Bento, C., Pereira, A. T., Saraiva, J. M., & Macedo, A. (2014). Children and Adolescent Perfectionism
Scale: Validation in a Portuguese adolescent sample. Psicologia: Reflexao e Critica, 27, 228-232.
doi:10.1590/1678-7153.201427203
Blankstein, K. R., Lumley, C. H., & Crawford, A. (2007). Perfectionism, hopelessness, and suicide ide-
ation: Revisions to diathesis-stress and specific vulnerability models. Journal of Rational-Emotive &
Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 25, 279-319. doi:10.1007/s10942-007-0053-6
Burgess, A. M., Frost, R. O., & DiBartolo, P. M. (2016). Development and validation of the Frost
Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale–Brief. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34, 620-633.
doi:10.1177/0734282916651359
Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. London, England: Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780203805534
Castilho, P., Gouveia, J. P. (2011). Auto-Compaixão: Estudo da validação da versão portuguesa da Escala
da Auto-Compaixão e da sua relação com as experiências adversas na infância, a comparação social
e a psicopatologia [Self-Compassion: Study of the Validation of the Portuguese Version of the Self-
Compassion Scale and its Relationship to Adverse Childhood Experiences, Social Comparison
and Psychopathology]. Psychologica: Avaliação Psicológica em Contexto Clínico [Psychologica:
Psychological Assessment in a Clinical Context], 54, 203-230.
Chen, C., Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (2015). Preoccupied attachment, need to belong, shame, and interper-
sonal perfectionism: An investigation of the Perfectionism Social Disconnection Model. Personality
and Individual Differences, 76, 177-182. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.001
10 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 00(0)

Cunha, M., Xavier, A. M. de J., Cherpe, S., & Gouveia, J. P. (2017). Avaliação da vergonha em adolescen-
tes: “The Other as Shamer Scale [Teen shame rating: The Other as Shamer Scale].” Psicologia: Teoria
e Pesquisa [Psychology: Theory and Research], 33, e3336. doi:10.1590/0102.3772e3336
Donachie, T. C., Hill, A. P., & Hall, H. K. (2018). The relationship between multidimensional perfection-
ism and pre-competition emotions of youth footballers. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 37, 33-42.
doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.04.002
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2014). A proposed framework for preventing perfectionism and promoting
resilience and mental health among vulnerable children and adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 51,
899-912. doi:10.1002/pits.21792
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Besser, A., Su, C., Vaillancourt, T., Boucher, D., . . . Gale, O. (2016). The
Child–Adolescent Perfectionism Scale: Development, psychometric properties, and associations with
stress, distress, and psychiatric symptoms. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34, 634-652.
doi:10.1177/0734282916651381
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 14, 449-468. doi:10.1007/BF01172967
Gilbert, P., Clarke, M., Hempel, S., Miles, J. N. V., & Irons, C. (2004). Criticizing and reassuring oneself:
An exploration of forms, styles and reasons in female students. British Journal of Clinical Psychology,
43, 31-50.
Goss, K., Gilbert, P., & Allan, S. (1994). An exploration of shame measures—I: The other as Shamer Scale.
Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 713-717. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(94)90149-X
Hair, J. F. Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Education.
Hewitt, P. L., Caelian, F., Flett, G. L., Sherry, S.B., Collins, L., & Flynn, C. A. (2002). Perfectionism in
children: Associations with depression, anxiety, and anger. Personality and Individual Differences, 32,
1049-1061. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00109-X
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. doi:10.1037/0021-
843X.105.2.276
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., Turnbull-Donovan, W., & Mikail, S. (1991). The Multidimensional Perfectionism
Scale: Reliability, validity, and psychometric properties in psychiatric samples. Psychological
Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 3, 464-468.
Hill, R. W., McIntire, K., & Bacharach, V. R. (1997). Perfectionism and the big five factors. Journal of
Social Behavior & Personality, 12, 257-270. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?d
irect=true&db=aph&AN=9704204887&site=ehost-live
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparam-
eterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453. 10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8 user’s reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software
International.
Kenney-Benson, G. A., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2005). The role of mothers’ use of control in children’s perfec-
tionism: Implications for the development of children’s depressive symptoms. Journal of Personality,
73, 23-46. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00303.x
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of
the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33, 335-343. doi:10.1016/0005-7967(94)00075-U
Macedo, A., Soares, M. J., Azevedo, M. H., Gomes, A., Pereira, A. T., Maia, B., & Pato, M. (2007).
Perfectionism and eating attitudes in Portuguese university students. European Eating Disorders
Review, 15, 296-304. doi:10.1002/erv.735
McCreary, B. T., Joiner, T. E., Schmidt, N. B., & Ialongo, N. S. (2004). The structure and correlates of
perfectionism in African American children. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 33,
313-324. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3302_13
McVey, G. L., Pepler, D., Davis, R., Flett, G. L., & Abdolell, M. (2002). Risk and protective factors asso-
ciated with disordered eating during early adolescence. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 22, 75-95.
doi:10.1177/0272431602022001004
Bento et al. 11

Minarik, M. L., & Ahrens, A. H. (1996). Relations of eating behavior and symptoms of depression and anxi-
ety to the dimensions of perfectionism among undergraduate women. Cognitive Therapy and Research,
20, 155-169. doi:10.1007/BF02228032
Noble, C. M., Gnilka, P. B., Ashby, J. S., & McLaulin, S. E. (2017). Perfectionism, shame, and tricho-
tillomania symptoms in clinical and nonclinical samples. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 39,
335-350. doi:10.17744/mehc.39.4.05
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill,
Inc.
O’Connor, R. C., Dixon, D., & Rasmussen, S. (2009). The structure and temporal stability of the Child and
Adolescent Perfectionism Scale. Psychological Assessment, 21, 437-443. doi:10.1037/a0016264
Ribeiro, J. L. P., Honrado, A. A. J. D., & Leal, I. P. (2004). Psicologia, Saúde & Doenças [Psychology,
Health & Diseases]. Sociedade Portuguesa de Psicologia da Saúde [Portuguese Society of Health
Psychology]. Retrieved from http://repositorio.ispa.pt/handle/10400.12/1058E
Saling, M., Ricciardelli, L. A., & McCabe, M. P. (2005). A prospective study of individual factors in
the development of weight and muscle concerns among preadolescent children. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 34, 651-661. doi:10.1007/s10964-005-8953-1
Sironic, A., & Reeve, R. A. (2015). 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. Psychological Assessment,
27, 1471-1483. doi:10.1037/pas0000137
Stöber, J., & Joormann, J. (2001). A short form of the worry domains questionnaire: Construction and
factorial validation. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 591-598. doi:10.1016/S0191-
8869(00)00163-X
Stoeber, J., & Janssen, D. P. (2011). Perfectionism and coping with daily failures: Positive reframing helps
achieve satisfaction at the end of the day. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 24, 477-497. doi:10.1080/10615
806.2011.562977
Stoeber, J., Otto, K., Bardi, A., Giner-Sorolla, R., Hamilton-West, K., Joor-Mann, J., .  .  .Weick, M. (2006).
Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches, evidence, challenges. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 10, 295-319. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1004
Teixeira, M. D., Pereira, A. T., Marques, M. V., Saraiva, J. M., & Macedo, A. F. (2016). Eating behaviors,
body image, perfectionism, and self-esteem in a sample of Portuguese girls. Revista Brasileira de
Psiquiatria, 38, 135-140. doi:10.1590/1516-4446-2015-1723
Widaman, K. F., Little, T. D., Preacher, K. J., & Sawalani, G. M. (2011). On creating and using short
forms of scales in secondary research. In K. H. Trzesniewski, M. B. Donnellan, & R. E. Lucas (Eds.),
Secondary data analysis: An introduction for psychologists (pp. 39-61). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/12350-003

S-ar putea să vă placă și