Investigation of Adaptive and Maladaptive Perfectionism with Turkish Almost Perfect Scale—Revised

Abstract

The present study examined the factor structure of the Turkish Almost Perfect Scale–Revised to identify adaptive and maladaptive perfectionists and non-perfectionists and examined whether the participants ( N = 383) in these groups differed on a measure of psychological distress. A confirmatory factor analysis of the Turkish Almost Perfect Scale–Revised yielded three subscales: High Standards, Order, and Discrepancy. A cluster analysis identified adaptive perfectionists, maladaptive perfectionists, and non-perfectionists and these groups were found to be significantly different from each other on a measure of psychological distress.

Measures of Perfectionism

“…These factors have generally been replicated in subsequent confirmatory factor analyses, including studies conducted with translated versions (Nakano, 2009;Wang et al, 2007). Administration of the APS-R to 383 undergraduates from Turkey also yielded a three-factor solution that supported the multidimensionality of the APS-R based on confirmatory factor analysis (Ulu et al, 2012). Mobley et al (2005) established similarly via a confirmatory factor analysis that the three-factor solution fit the data for a sample of 251 African American students and a sample of 314 European American students.…”

“…Mobley, Slaney, and Rice (2005) evaluated a sample of 251 African American university students and reported alpha coefficients of .75 for high standards, .91 for order, and .88 for discrepancy. Ulu, Tezer, and Slaney (2012) found in a large sample of undergraduates from Turkey that alpha coefficients were .78 for high standards, .85 for discrepancy, and .86 for order. Alpha coefficients reported for a sample of Japanese students were .81 for high standards, .90 for discrepancy, and .73 for order (Nakano, 2009).…”

Perfectionism and Academic Burnout: The Mediating Role of Worry and Depressive Rumination in University Students

“…In addition to these two models, Slaney et al (2001) studied perfectionism both qualitatively and quantitatively and they concluded that perfectionism is manifested in a three dimensional way including setting high standards, being orderly and having discrepancy in standards and performance. On the basis of their findings, they developed Almost Perfect Scale-R in 2001 and proposed that adaptive perfectionist set high standards for themselves and are more orderly and have low discrepancy between goals and performance while maladaptive perfectionist have high standards, are low in orderliness and have high discrepancy (Ulu & Tezeg, 2012). The current research focuses on the three dimensional presentation of perfectionism proposed by Slaney and colleagues and exploring what role perfectionism is playing in burnout in the presence of worry and rumination.…”

Is the “Almost Perfect Scale” Almost Perfect? The Psychometric Properties of the Arabic Version of APS-R and Its Short Form

“…The validity of the APS-R has been explored in several culturally diverse populations, and translated to various languages including Chinese, Asian, Indian, African American, and Turkish samples (e.g., Aydin;2013;Yang et al, 2007;Mobley, Slaney, & Rice, 2005;Slaney, Chadha, Mobley, & Kennedy, 2000;Slaney, Mobley, Trippi, Ashby, & Johnson, 1996;Ulu, 2007;Ulu, Tezer, & Slaney, 2012;Wang, Puri, Slaney, Methikalam, & Chadha, 2012;Wang, Slaney, & Rice, 2007;Wang, Yuen, & Slaney, 2009). Further, a short version of the scale that includes 8 of its items and represents standards and the discrepancy was tested and found to have similar characteristics (Rice, Richardson, & Tueller, 2014).…”