The Structure of Multidimensional Perfectionism: Support for a Bifactor Model With a Dominant General Factor

Smith, Martin M.; Saklofske, Donald H.

doi:10.1080/00223891.2016.1208209

Cited by 30 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the fit of the unidimensional and two-factor model of the FMPS-B using a pure bifactor analysis and a CFA in a Norwegian sample due to previous mixed findings. Findings from the exploratory bifactor analysis indicate that two of the eight items perform unidimensionally, and all items from the FMPS-B load on a general factor, as previously indicated by Smith and Saklofske (2017). However, the general factor is weak in comparison to the specific subfactors.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 54%

“…Thus, the results of the pure exploratory bifactor analysis do not support perfectionism as measured by the FMPS-B as unidimensional, that is, the use of the total sum score of the FMPS-B. Smith and Saklofske (2017) also conducted both CFA and bifactor analysis on three combined samples of the MPS, original FMPS, and APS-R. The authors compared goodness of fit and chose the bifactor with a strong general factor model as the best representation of perfectionism ( Smith and Saklofske, 2017 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Stoeber and Otto (2006) argue striving correlations to positive mental health outcomes become most consistently evident after partialing out the overlap between strivings and evaluative concerns. However, Smith and Saklofske (2017) utilized bifactor modeling and call into question the adaptiveness of strivings because of evidence that specific factor scores for the two dimensions are unreliable and therefore question the practice of removing their general variance, as Stoeber and Otto (2006) suggest. In 2016, FMPS-Brief (FMPS-B) was further developed to represent these two core constructs: evaluative concerns and strivings (Burgess et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Psychometric Properties of the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale – Brief

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous psychometric analyses of the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale and the abbreviated version (FMPS-Brief) have resulted in inconsistent findings regarding the scale's bidimensionality or unidimensionality. Different studies evaluating the scale with different statistical analyses and comparative samples report different results and recommendations. This study assessed the FMPS-B's psychometric properties by conducting both confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and pure bifactor modeling in order to address previous findings and guide future use of the scale. The results indicate that the two-factor model is the best fit. Going forward, the FMPS-B's subfactors "strivings" and "evaluative concerns" may be studied separately. Implications for future research and challenges in bifactor modeling are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 54%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Psychometric Properties of the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale – Brief

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast to previous research ( Hill et al, 2004 ; Cruce et al, 2012 ; Smith and Saklofske, 2016 ), we used items as indicators of first-order factors instead of composite scores to assess the factorial structure of the German PI. According to the findings of Hill et al (2004) and Cruce et al (2012) , a model with eight correlated first-order factors representing the subscales of the PI, and a model with two second-order factors of perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns would have been expected to fit the data well.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… Smith and Saklofske (2016) also favored a bifactor model of perfectionism in their study. They suggested a bifactor model with one general factor and two specific factors of perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns, using subscales of different perfectionism measures as indicators.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disentangling the Common Variance of Perfectionistic Strivings and Perfectionistic Concerns: A Bifactor Model of Perfectionism

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perfectionism nowadays is frequently understood as a multidimensional personality trait with two higher-order dimensions of perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns. While perfectionistic concerns are robustly found to correlate with negative outcomes and psychological malfunctioning, findings concerning the outcomes of perfectionistic strivings are inconsistent. There is evidence that perfectionistic strivings relate to psychological maladjustment on the one hand but to positive outcomes on the other hand as well. Moreover, perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns frequently showed substantial overlap. These inconsistencies of differential relations and the substantial overlap of perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns raise questions concerning the factorial structure of perfectionism and the meaning of its dimensions. In this study, several bifactor models were applied to disentangle the common variance of perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns at the item level using Hill et al.’s (2004) Perfectionism Inventory (PI). The PI measures a broad range of perfectionism dimensions by four perfectionistic strivings and four perfectionistic concerns subscales. The bifactor-(S – 1) model with one general factor defined by concern over mistakes as the reference facet, four specific perfectionistic strivings factors, and three specific perfectionistic concerns factors showed acceptable fit. The results revealed a clear separation between perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns, as the general factor represented concern over mistakes, while the perfectionistic strivings factors each explained a substantial amount of reliable variance independent of the general factor. As a result, factor scores of the specific perfectionistic strivings factors and the general factor had differential relationships with achievement motivation, neuroticism, conscientiousness, and self-efficacy that met with theoretical expectations, while results for manifest subscale scores were ambiguous. Our results question the existence of reliable sub-constructs of perfectionistic concerns independent of the general factor when defined by concern over mistakes.

show abstract

Perfectionism interventions targeting disordered eating: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Robinson

Wade

2021

Intl J Eating Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Perfectionism is a risk factor for depression, anxiety, and eating disorders, and perfectionism interventions show evidence of the impact on the development and maintenance of these disorders. A systematic review and meta‐analysis were conducted of studies using perfectionism interventions that included measures of disordered eating/body image concerns. The primary aim was to investigate the impact on perfectionism and disordered eating/body image concerns, with a secondary aim of examining the impact on depression and anxiety. Method The systematic review was conducted using Medline, PsycINFO, and Scopus. Grey literature was sought via ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Effect size estimates for the meta‐analysis were calculated using between‐ and within‐group comparisons. Results Eight studies were included in the between‐group analysis and nine studies for the within‐group analysis. Perfectionism interventions were effective in reducing perfectionism and disordered eating with large effect sizes, and in reducing depression and anxiety with moderate effect sizes. Studies included both clinical and non‐clinical populations. Substantial heterogeneity was present across most analyses. Discussion Eating disorder treatments may benefit more from the inclusion of perfectionism interventions than depression and anxiety treatments. Possible reasoning for these variations between symptom reduction is discussed. This report provides important early evidence for the efficacy of perfectionism interventions, however, the limited number of publications in this area, the presence of heterogeneity, and lack of diversity in participant populations limits the generalizability of these findings. Future research is needed to determine whether eating disorder treatments may benefit from the routine inclusion of a perfectionism component.

show abstract

The Structure of Multidimensional Perfectionism: Support for a Bifactor Model With a Dominant General Factor

Cited by 30 publications

References 35 publications

The Psychometric Properties of the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale – Brief

The Psychometric Properties of the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale – Brief

Disentangling the Common Variance of Perfectionistic Strivings and Perfectionistic Concerns: A Bifactor Model of Perfectionism

Perfectionism interventions targeting disordered eating: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About