Psychometric properties of the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale in a clinical anxiety disorders sample

Psychometric Properties of the FrostMultidimensional Perfectionism Scale ina Clinical Anxiety Disorders Sample

Ä

Christine PurdonSt. Joseph’s Hospital and University of Waterloo

Ä

Martin M. Antony and Richard P. SwinsonSt. Joseph’s Hospital and McMaster University

The purpose of this study was to examine the factor structure of the FrostMultidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS-F; Frost, Marten, Laharte, &Rosenblate, 1990). Although perfectionism is thought to contribute tothe development of psychopathology and the MPS-F is gaining popularityfor use in assessing perfectionism in clinical samples, to date the factorstructure has not been examined in a clinical sample. Three hundred andtwenty-two individuals diagnosed with an anxiety disorder using the SCIDfor DSM-IV and 49 nonclinical controls completed the MPS-F as well as ameasure of perfectionism (MPS-H) developed by Hewitt and Flett (1991).Analyses suggested that the MPS-F has similar psychometric properties inclinical samples to those in nonclinical samples, and factors very similar tothose observed by Frost et al. (1990) could be extracted. A 3-factor solu-tion appeared more appropriate for statistical reasons, and the 3 scalesbased on these factors distinguished among diagnostic groups in a man-ner similar to scales based on the 6-factor solution in past research. Resultswere discussed in terms of the potential utility of a 3-factor solution and interms of the general construct of perfectionism and the distinction betweennonpathological high performance standards and neurotic perfectionism.© 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Clin Psychol 55: 1271–1286, 1999.

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Christine Purdon, Ph.D., Department of Psy-chology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1.

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 55(10), 1271–1286 (1999)© 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0021-9762/99/101271-16

Perfectionism has long been identified as a problematic factor in various disorders, includ-ing eating disorders (Garner, Olmstead, & Polivy,1983), depression (Blatt, D’Afflitti, &Quinlan, 1976; Burns, 1980a; Hewitt & Flett, 1993), obsessive-compulsive disorder (Ant-ony, Purdon, Huta, & Swinson, 1998; McFall & Wollersheim, 1979; Obsessive Compul-sive Cognitions Working Group, 1997; Rachman, 1993; Rasmussen & Eisen, 1989, 1992;Salkovskis, 1985, 1989), and social phobia (Antony et al., 1998; Frost, Heimberg, Holt,Mattia, & Neubauer, 1993; Heimberg, Juster, Hope, & Mattia, 1995; Hewitt & Flett,1991; Lundh & Öst, 1996). Although perfectionism is implicated as a factor in the per-sistence of these disorders, until recently surprisingly little attention has been directedtoward its definition and measurement. There has been general theoretical agreement thatperfectionism has two basic components: (a) high personal standards for achievement;and (b) negative self-evaluation for failing to meet those standards (Antony & Swinson,1998; Burns, 1980a, 1980b; Frost et al., 1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991).

Within that general framework, though, theorists have offered slightly different under-standings of the construct. For example, Burns (1980b) emphasized that personal stan-dards become “perfectionistic” when they are excessive and are pursued tenaciously.More recently, Antony and Swinson (1998) have proposed that perfectionism is distin-guished from nonpathological high performance standards by the excessiveness of theachievement standards, the accuracy of beliefs about the need to achieve perfection, thepersonal costs and benefits of imposing the standard, and the flexibility of the standard.Thus, these researchers emphasized that perfectionism is pathological to the extent thatachievement standards are excessive and rigid. Hewitt and Flett (1991) similarly haveoffered an understanding of perfectionism based on the view that it reflects unrealisticstandards that the individual is highly motivated to attain. However, they argued that inaddition to holding perfectionistic standards for themselves, individuals can hold perfec-tionistic standards for others and can perceive that others hold perfectionistic standardsfor them. Thus, they argued that perfectionism should be understood as a multidimen-sional construct, with interpersonal as well as intrapersonal dimensions. Hewitt and Flett(1991) used a rational approach to developing a measure of perfectionism designed toassess these dimensions. Labeled the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS-H),the measure consists of three relatively independent scales that assess: (a) the tendency tohave exacting standards for oneself and motivation to attain perfection and avoid failure(Self-Oriented Perfectionism), (b) the tendency to have unrealistic standards for otherpeople (Other-Oriented Perfectionism), and (c) the perceived need to attain standards andexpectations prescribed by significant others (Socially Prescribed Perfectionism). Stud-ies on the relationship between these scales and psychopathology suggest that the latterscale is most predictive of psychological disorder, whereas Self-Oriented Perfectionismis associated with performance standards and goals (Antony et al., 1998; Hewitt & Flett,1991, 1993; Hewitt, Flett, Turnbull-Donovan, & Mikail, 1991).

Frost and his colleagues (1990) defined perfectionism as the desire to achieve thehighest standards of performance, in combination with unduly critical evaluations ofone’s performance. This perspective derived from a review of the existing literature onperfectionism and identification of the important constructs described therein. In addi-tion to high performance standards and stringent self-evaluation, they identified severaladditional dimensions of perfectionism that included: (a) the tendency to be uncertain, inthe absence of absolute proof, as to whether tasks have been completed properly (thisdimension arose from the literature on obsessive-compulsive disorder); (b) the feelingthat one has not met one’s parents’ expectations and the tendency to perceive one’s par-ents as overly critical (this dimension arose from the contention of past theorists thatperfectionism results from childhood environments in which love and approval are con-

1272 Journal of Clinical Psychology, October 1999

ditional); and (c) an overemphasis on precision, order, and organization. The authorsnoted that although this latter dimension does not actually reflect the central feature ofperfectionism, it does relate to how one might approach the task of meeting perfection-istic standards. Thus, Frost and colleagues (1990) understood perfectionism as a problemof desiring to attain high performance standards accompanied by the tendency to be undulycritical of one’s performance. At the same time, etiological factors (i.e., parental stan-dards) and strategies for facilitating achievement of perfectionistic ideals (i.e., precision,organization) are identified as important aspects of the general construct of perfectionism.

To assess these various dimensions of perfectionism, Frost et al. (1990) developedthe Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS-F). Development of this scale involvedgeneration and examination of a pool of items drawn from existing unidimensional mea-sures of perfectionism (e.g., Burns, 1980a), as well as original items, all selected toreflect the four general dimensions of perfectionism described earlier. These items wereadministered to suitably sized nonclinical samples and subjected to a series of principalcomponents analyses. There were 35 items in the final pool, from which six factors wereultimately extracted. The first four factors, corresponding to the four dimensions identi-fied by Frost et al. (1990), respectively, were called “Personal Standards,” “Doubts AboutActions,” “Parental Expectations,” and “Organization.” Two additional factors, labeled“Concern Over Mistakes” and “Parental Criticism” emerged as well. The measure con-sisted of six subscales based on these factors, each exhibiting high internal consistency.All scales had a high correlation with the Total Perfectionism score (the summed total ofall items), except the Organization scale, which also showed very little relationship to theother scales.

Given that both Hewitt and Flett (1993) and Frost and colleagues (1990) identifiedhigh standards, undue self-criticism, and the perception that important others hold highstandards for oneself as significant dimensions of perfectionism, a relationship betweenHewitt and Flett’s measure of perfectionism and Frost and colleagues’ measure would beexpected. Frost et al. (1990) indeed found that the Personal Standards and Organizationscales were most strongly related to Self-Oriented Perfectionism, whereas the ConcernOver Mistakes, Doubts About Actions, Parental Expectations, and Parental Criticismscales were most strongly related to Socially Prescribed Perfectionism. Similarly, Frostet al. (1993) conducted a factor analysis of the pooled scales from the MPS-F and theMPS-H completed by a large nonclinical sample. They identified two distinct factors, thefirst consisting of items from the Concern Over Mistakes, Parental Criticism, ParentalExpectations, Doubts About Actions (Frost et al. [1990] scales), and Socially PrescribedPerfectionism scale (Hewitt & Flett, 1991). This factor was labeled “MaladaptiveEvaluation Concerns.” The second factor consisted of items from the Frost PersonalStandards and Organization scales, as well as the Hewitt and Flett Self-Oriented andOther-Oriented Perfectionism scales. The authors labeled the second factor “PositiveStrivings.” Taken together, these data suggest that both measures appear to tap similardimensions of high standards and high self-criticism.

There is some evidence for the construct validity of the Frost MPS scales. For exam-ple, Frost and Marten (1990) found that individuals from nonclinical samples with highgeneral perfectionism scores had more difficulty with an evaluative task and rated theirperformance more critically than individuals low in perfectionism. Similarly, Frost et al.(1997) found that nonclinical individuals with high Concern Over Mistakes scores per-ceived their mistakes as much more serious, ruminated about them more, believed otherswould think poorly of them, and had lower self-confidence than those scoring low on thisscale. Frost and his colleagues (1990) also found support for the multidimensional natureof perfectionism, observing that different dimensions of perfectionism were associated

Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale 1273

with different forms of psychopathology. For instance, in large nonclinical samples, theConcern Over Mistakes and Doubts About Actions scales were related to self-criticaldepression, guilt, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, and procrastination. The Organiza-tion and Personal Standards scales, on the other hand, were associated with more positivecharacteristics, such as efficacy, less procrastination, and less aversion to completingimportant tasks. Finally, the Concern Over Mistakes, Parental Criticism, and DoubtsAbout Actions scales have been found to have a significant correlation with scores on theBeck Depression Inventory and with negative, but not positive, affectivity, whereas thePersonal Standards and Organization scales were related to positive affectivity (Frostet al., 1993).

Since its initial development, researchers have begun using the MPS-F to investigatethe relationship between perfectionistic tendencies and psychopathology. For instance,Minarik and Ahrens (1996) used the MPS-F to examine perfectionism in individuals witheating disturbances. They found that symptom severity was positively correlated with theConcern Over Mistakes and Doubts About Actions scales, although surprisingly was notrelated to Parental Expectations or Criticism, factors long considered important in thedevelopment of eating disorders. Other clinical studies investigating patients with socialphobia have found a relationship between symptom severity and scores on the ConcernOver Mistakes, Doubts About Actions, Parental Criticism, and Parental Expectationsscales (Juster et al., 1996; Lundh & Öst, 1996). Frost and Steketee (1997) examinedperfectionism in a clinical sample of individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder andfound this group to have higher scores on Total Perfectionism, Concern Over Mistakes,and Doubts About Actions than nonclinical controls and other groups of individuals withanxiety disorders. Similarly, Antony et al. (1998) found that individuals with OCD, socialphobia, and panic disorder tended to have higher scores on the Concern Over Mistakesscales than individuals with specific phobia and nonclinical controls. Of the clinicalgroups, the OCD patients had the highest Doubts About Actions scores and the socialphobia group had the highest Parental Criticism scores.

The MPS-F measure thus has several strengths. Its scales show expected correlationswith another measure of the same construct (i.e., the MPS-H), and specific scales haveshown the expected relationship with specific types of psychopathology. However, sev-eral issues remain outstanding. The first issue concerns the construct validity of the MPS-F.Perfectionism is defined by Frost and his colleagues (1990) as consisting of two funda-mental components: the tendency to aspire to the highest standards of performance inaddition to unduly critical evaluations of one’s performance. These components are wellcaptured in the Concern Over Mistakes scale, in which each item reflects the fear ofmaking a mistake and the negative personal meaning that making a mistake has (e.g., “IfI do not do as well as other people, it means that I am an inferior human being”). How-ever, items from the Personal Standards and Organization scales capture the first com-ponent, which is the aspiration to high standards (e.g., “I have extremely high goals,” “Itry to be an organized person”) without the explicit meaning of what violations of thosestandards might mean to the self. Similarly, the Parental Criticism and Parental Expec-tations scales describe parental styles (e.g., “As a child I was punished for doing thingsless than perfect,” and “I never felt like I could meet my parents’ expectations”), but donot explicitly include a component reflecting the emotional impact of that style.

It is possible, then, that an individual could score high on the Personal Standards,Organization, Parental Criticism, and Parental Expectations scales if they possessed whatAntony and Swinson (1998) might consider to be normal, or nonpathological, high stan-dards for performance. That is, one could simply have high performance standards andtherefore obtain a higher score on these scales, but one might also be able to recover


easily when the standards are violated. Or, one could have high performance standardsthat are applied in a rigid and excessive manner. Scores, however, could be equally high.The same is true for the Self- and Other-Oriented Perfectionism scales of the MPS-H, inwhich the items state high perfectionistic ideals but not the consequences of failing tomeet those ideals (e.g., “I strive to be as perfect as I can be” and “I have high expectationsfor the people who are important to me”).

This issue is important because to date, the factor structure of the MPS-F has beenexamined only in student samples. Given that the daily lives of students involve regularevaluation of performance and the imposition of high standards of performance, wemight expect this sample to manifest tendencies for high achievement and personal stan-dards, as well as strong emphasis on organization, which would be the means to that end.Yet, the standards may be applied only to that specific domain in the service of a specificlong-term goal. Thus scores in a nonclinical sample may have a different meaning thanthose in a clinical sample. Furthermore, parental criticism and expectations, which wereidentified by Frost and colleagues (1990) as potential etiological factors in perfectionism,may not then show the same relationship to the other scales in such a sample, because theother scales are not tapping neurotic or pathological perfectionism, but rather are tappingpositive, goal-oriented standards.

It is possible, then, that the factor structure is different in a clinical sample. This hasimplications for the validity of the six scales identified by Frost and his colleagues (1990).Indeed, the MPS-F factor structure has shown some instability even in other nonclinicalsamples. Rhéaume, Freeston, Dugas, Letarte, and Ladouceur (1995) found that four itemsloaded on different factors than they did in the Frost et al. (1990) analysis, and the orderof appearance of the factors was different, with items reflecting the Organization con-struct appearing fourth, instead of second, as was found in the original analysis. Thus, inthis analysis, the Organization scale accounted for less total variance than was observedby Frost et al. (1990). Furthermore, Rhéaume and colleagues also reported finding yet adifferent factor structure when they analyzed preliminary data from their sample, sug-gesting that the factor structure may not be stable.

However, very few studies have examined the factor structure of the MPS-F, andnone to date have examined its properties in a clinical sample. Therefore, additional dataare required to understand the appropriateness of the six dimensions identified by Frostand colleagues (1990) in their initial validation studies for a clinical sample. The purposeof the present study was to address these concerns by examining the factor structure ofthe MPS-F in a clinical sample of patients with anxiety disorders. A clinical sampleconsisting of 322 anxiety disorder patients diagnosed using the Structured Clinical Inter-view for DSM-IV was administered the MPS-F and the MPS-H. Factor analysis of itemresponses on the MPS-F was conducted and correlations between subscales based on thefactors extracted from the analysis and the MPS-H scales were examined. The anxietydisorders groups were then compared with each other and with a nonclinical controlgroup (N 5 49) on subscales based on the factor analysis.

Method

Participants

Participants were 322 patients with one of the following DSM-IV (American PsychiatricAssociation, 1994) principal diagnoses: social phobia (n 5 102), obsessive-compulsivedisorder (n 5 94), panic disorder with or without agoraphobia (n 5 89), specific phobia(n 5 20), agoraphobia without a history of panic disorder (n 5 3), generalized anxiety


disorder (n 5 7), and anxiety disorder not otherwise specified (n 5 7). Individuals withcurrent diagnoses of substance abuse/dependence, psychotic disorder, or bipolar disorderwere excluded. Six participants had comorbid anxiety disorders of equal severity.

The sample reported on in this study overlapped with the sample from the study byAntony et al. (1998). Participants in the clinical groups had a mean age of 36 years (SD59.59, range: 18–65), and 49.70% were women. The sample was predominantly White(80.1%) and spanned a range of income levels, with about one fourth reporting an incomeless than $19,999 (Canadian dollars), one fourth reporting an income of $20,000–$39,900, one fourth reporting an income of $40,000–$70,000, and about 16% reportingan income of more than $70,000. Just under half of the sample (48.8%) was single and41.9% were married or cohabiting; the rest were either divorced, separated, or widowed.Just under half the sample (46.2%) had completed college or obtained university degrees,42.9% had completed high school only, and 9.7% did not complete high school.

Patients were referred for an evaluation in the Anxiety Disorders Clinic at the ClarkeInstitute of Psychiatry and completed this study as part of their evaluation. Each individ-ual was interviewed using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID-IV; First,Spitzer, Gibbon, & Williams, 1996). In addition, a second clinical interview was con-ducted by a staff psychiatrist. For cases in which the two interviewers disagreed, a diag-nosis was reached by consensus of the two interviewers. Forty-nine nonclinical individualswere recruited by advertisements posted in the community to serve as a comparisongroup for analyses of between-group differences (these individuals were excluded fromall other psychometric analyses in which the combined sample was used). Participants inthis group received a telephone interview based on the screening questions from theSCID-IV to ensure that they did not have a history including any of the major forms ofpsychopathology. Individuals for whom this telephone interview was inconclusive (e.g.,for which there was some indication of a possible problem) were excluded from thestudy. Participants in the nonclinical comparison group were paid for their participationin this study. The nonclinical sample had a mean age of 28.41 years (SD5 7.96), andconsisted of 19 men and 30 women, 75.5% of whom were single, and 24.4% of whomwere married or cohabiting. Their income level and educational status were very similarto the clinical sample. However, the nonclinical sample was only 51% White, with 26.5%from other racial/ethnic backgrounds.

Measures

Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS-F; Frost et al., 1990).This 35-itemquestionnaire generates an overall perfectionism score as well as scores for six subscalesthat reflect specific domains of perfectionism: Concern Over Mistakes (CM), DoubtsAbout Actions (DA), Personal Standards (PS), Parental Expectations (PE), Parental Crit-icism (PC), and Organization (OR). The Total Perfectionism score is the sum of allsubscales except OR, which tends not to correlate highly with the other subscales or withTotal Perfectionism (Frost et al., 1990).

According to Frost et al. (1990), the CM subscale reflects a tendency to be overlyself-critical and self-evaluative and is central to the construct of perfectionism. Sampleitems from this scale include “If I fail at work/school, I am a failure as a person” and “Ihate being less than best at things.” This subscale accounts for the largest portion of thevariance when the scale is subjected to factor analysis. The DA subscale reflects a ten-dency to be uncertain about the correctness of one’s decisions or behaviors. Sample itemsinclude “I usually have doubts about the simple everyday things I do” and “It takes me along time to do something right.” The PS subscale reflects a tendency to set high stan-


dards for performance as reflected in the sample items, “I set higher goals than mostpeople” and “I am very good at focusing my efforts on attaining a goal.” Because grow-ing up with parents who are highly critical or have high expectations is believed tocontribute to perfectionism, the MPS-F includes subscales to measure parental expecta-tions and parental criticism. Sample items from the PE and PC subscales include “Myparents set very high standards for me” and “As a child, I was punished for doing thingsless than perfectly,” respectively. Finally, the OR scale measures a tendency to be overlyorderly, organized, and tidy, as reflected by the item “organization is very importantto me.”

Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS-H; Hewitt & Flett, 1991).This 45-itemquestionnaire generates scores based on three subscales, each with 15 items. Self-oriented Perfectionism (SO) reflects a tendency to be perfectionistic with oneself, asreflected in the item, “I demand nothing less than perfection from myself.” The secondsubscale, Other-Oriented Perfectionism (OO), reflects a tendency to expect perfectionfrom other people, as reflected by the sample item, “The people who matter to me shouldnever let me down.” The third subscale, called Socially Prescribed Perfectionism (SP), isa measure of a person’s beliefs regarding other people’s expectations of him or her. A sam-ple item is “Anything I do that is less than excellent will be seen as poor work by those aroundme.” This questionnaire does not have a total perfectionism score. This measure hasdemonstrated high internal consistency and reliability, and its factor structure has been foundto be stable in both clinical and nonclinical samples (Hewitt et al., 1991).

Results

Factor Analysis (Six-Factor Solution)

Prior to conducting a factor analysis of the MPS-F items, data were screened for univar-iate and multivariate outliers. None were found. Missing data was handled in the follow-ing manner: If 80% or more of the items on the MPS-F were completed, missing itemswere replaced by the mean for that item of the participant’s diagnostic group. If morethan 20% of the items were missing, the data were not included in the analysis. Missingdata reduced the totalN for the analysis to 311.

To examine the suitability of a six-factor solution, as was identified by Frost et al.(1990), a factor analysis using principal axis factoring was conducted. In this procedure,the initial communality estimates are based on the squared multiple correlations betweeneach item and all the other items taken together. The solution was restricted to six factorsand oblique rotation was chosen, as the different dimensions of perfectionism were expectedto be correlated with each other. Items were considered to load on a particular factor iftheir factor loadings were greater than .32, as recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell(1996). The item loadings, eigenvalues, and percentage variance accounted for by eachfactor are presented in Table 1. The six factors all had eigenvalues greater than 1.0 andtogether accounted for 64.36% of the total variance before rotation. The pattern of itemloadings corresponded closely to the original factor structure proposed by Frost and col-leagues (1990) and is labeled accordingly. Two of the items from Frost et al.’s (1990)original PS scale loaded on the CM scale (“If I do not set the highest standards for myself,I am likely to end up a second-rate person” and “It is important to me that I be thoroughlycompetent in everything I do”). The amount of variance accounted for by each of the finalfour factors also differed from Frost et al.’s (1990) original analysis in that the PE and PCscales switched places, and the DA came before the PS factor. None of these differences


Tab

le1

Ite

ms

an

dF

act

or

Lo

ad

ing

so

nth

e6

-Fa

cto

rS

olu

tion

of

the

Fa

cto

rA

na

lysi

s

Co

nce

rnO

ver

Mis

take

sO

rga

niz

atio

nP

are

nta

lE

xpe

cta

tion

sD

ou

bts

Ab

ou

tA

ctio

ns

Pe

rso

na

lS

tan

da

rds

Pa

ren

tal

Cri

ticis

m

Eig

en

valu

ea

nd

pe

rce

nta

ge

of

vari

an

cea

cco

un

ted

for

pri

or

toro

tatio

n1

0.1

3(2

8.9

5)

4.5

2(1

2.9

0)

3.3

9(9

.69

)1

.91

(5.4

6)

1.4

9(4

.26

)1

.09

(3.1

1)

Ite

m

IfI

do

no

td

oa

sw

ell

as

oth

er

pe

op

le,

itm

ea

ns

Ia

ma

nin

feri

or

hu

ma

nb

ein

g.7

7If

Ifa

ila

tw

ork/s

cho

ol,

Ia

ma

failu

rea

sa

pe

rso

n.7

7If

Id

on

ot

do

we

lla

llth

etim

e,

pe

op

lew

illn

ot

resp

ect

me

.73

Pe

op

lew

illp

rob

ab

lyth

ink

less

of

me

ifI

ma

kea

mis

take

.69

Ifso

me

on

ed

oe

sa

task

at

wo

rk/sch

oo

lbe

tte

rth

an

I,th

en

Ife

lllik

eI

faile

dth

ew

ho

leta

sk.6

9T

he

few

er

mis

take

sI

ma

ke,

the

mo

rep

eo

ple

will

like

me

.67

IfI

fail

pa

rtly

,it

isa

sb

ad

as

be

ing

aco

mp

lete

failu

re.6

6I

sho

uld

be

up

set

ifI

ma

kea

mis

take

.64

IfI

do

no

tse

tth

eh

igh

est

sta

nd

ard

sfo

rm

yse

lf,I

am

like

lyto

en

du

pa

seco

nd

-ra

tep

ers

on

.52

Ih

ate

be

ing

less

tha

nth

eb

est

at

thin

gs

.52

Itis

imp

ort

an

tto

me

tha

tI

be

tho

rou

gh

lyco

mp

ete

nt

ine

very

thin

gI

do

.44

Ne

atn

ess

isve

ryim

po

rta

nt

tom

e.8

4I

am

an

ea

tp

ers

on

.80

Itr

yto

be

an

ea

tp

ers

on

.76

Itr

yto

be

an

org

an

ize

dp

ers

on

.66

Ia

ma

no

rga

niz

ed

pe

rso

n.6

7O

rga

niz

atio

nis

very

imp

ort

an

tto

me

.61

My

pa

ren

tsse

tve

ryh

igh

sta

nd

ard

sfo

rm

e.8

9M

yp

are

nts

exp

ect

ed

exc

elle

nce

fro

mm

e.8

0M

yp

are

nts

wa

nte

dm

eto

be

the

be

sta

te

very

thin

g.7

0M

yp

are

nts

ha

vea

lwa

ysh

ad

hig

he

re

xpe

cta

tion

sfo

rm

yfu

ture

tha

nI

ha

ve.5

6

Ite

nd

tog

et

be

hin

din

my

wo

rkb

eca

use

Ire

pe

at

thin

gs

ove

ra

nd

ove

r.8

2It

take

sm

ea

lon

gtim

eto

do

som

eth

ing

“rig

ht”

.78

Eve

nw

he

nI

do

som

eth

ing

very

care

fully

,I

oft

en

fee

lth

at

itis

no

tq

uite

rig

ht

.58

Iu

sua

llyh

ave

do

ub

tsa

bo

ut

the

sim

ple

eve

ryd

ay

thin

gs

Id

o.5

8

Ih

ave

ext

rem

ely

hig

hg

oa

ls.7

8I

set

hig

he

rg

oa

lsth

an

mo

stp

eo

ple

.70

Ie

xpe

cth

igh

er

pe

rfo

rma

nce

inm

yd

aily

task

sth

an

mo

stp

eo

ple

.45

Ia

mve

ryg

oo

da

tfo

cusi

ng

my

effo

rts

on

att

ain

ing

ag

oa

l.4

5O

the

rp

eo

ple

see

mto

acc

ep

tlo

we

rst

an

da

rds

fro

mth

em

selv

es

tha

nI

do

.32

My

pa

ren

tsn

eve

rtr

ied

tou

nd

ers

tan

dm

ym

ista

kes

.76

As

ach

ild,

Iw

as

pu

nis

he

dfo

rd

oin

gth

ing

sle

ssth

an

pe

rfe

ct.6

9I

ne

ver

felt

like

Ico

uld

me

et

my

pa

ren

ts’e

xpe

cta

tion

s.6

9I

ne

ver

felt

like

Ico

uld

me

et

my

pa

ren

ts’s

tan

da

rds

.31

.63

On

lyo

uts

tan

din

gp

erf

orm

an

ceis

go

od

en

ou

gh

inm

yfa

mily

.50


were associated with a noticeable difference in the amount of variance in the total solu-tion for which they accounted, compared to Frost’s sample. One item on Frost’s PersonalStandards scale did not load (“Other people seem to accept lower standards from them-selves than I do”). Correlations between scales based on these factors and the MPS-H arepresented in Table 2.

The general pattern of relationships was similar to that obtained by Frost et al. (1993)in terms of the magnitude of the correlations in relation to each other. However, in thissample, correlations tended to be noticeably higher and the PC scale was significantlycorrelated with the OO, unlike Frost et al.’s (1990) nonclinical sample.

Although the six-factor solution appeared adequate given that (a) all factors hadeigenvalues greater than 1, (b) it accounted for a substantial amount of the total variance,and (c) the factor loadings made sense conceptually, other indices suggested that thesolution may have been overextracted. First, the percentage of variance accounted for bythe last three factors was small, ranging from 3.1 to 5.5. Second, the scree plot revealeda “bend” between the third and fourth eigenvalues, suggesting that the fourth eigenvaluewas essentially equivalent in size to the remaining eigenvalues, and was thus not worth-while retaining. Taken together, these data suggested that a more parsimonious solutionmight be appropriate. Therefore, a second factor analysis was performed with obliquerotation, this time restricting the number of factors to three.

Factor Analysis (Three-Factor Solution)

The results of this analysis are presented in Table 3. All three factors had eigenvalues.1 and the three-factor solution accounted for 51.53% of the total variance before rota-tion. The first factor contained all of the items that loaded on Frost et al.’s (1990) originalCM factor, as well as all items from Frost et al.’s (1990) DA factor, in addition to one itemfrom the original PS factor (“If I do not set the highest standards for myself, I am likelyto end up a second-rate person”). Thus, items on this factor reflected the tendency to havehigh standards and to interpret violations of those standards as catastrophic, in addition toa tendency to lack confidence in one’s ability to have completed something properly. Thisfactor was subsequently labeled “Fear of Mistakes.”

The second factor consisted of all of the items from Frost et al.’s (1990) original ORfactor, in addition to five items from the original PS factor. However, one item from theoriginal PS factor did not load at all (“Other people seem to accept lower standards from

Table 2Zero-Order Correlations Between the Six Extracted Factors From the MPS-F With the MPS-HScales

Self-OrientedPerfectionism

Socially PrescribedPerfectionism

Other-OrientedPerfectionism

Concern Over Mistakes .60 .70 .40Organization .39 .02 .26Parental Expectations .38 .51 .32Personal Standards .70 .37 .43Parental Criticism .27 .52 .32Doubts About Actions .27 .44 .07

Note. N ’s range from 311 to 315, allr’s . .25 are significant atp 5 .05.


Table 3MPS-F Subscale Item Loadings for the 3-Factor Solution

Fear ofMistakes

Goal/AchievementOrientation

PerceivedParentalPressure

Eigenvalue and total percentageaccounted for prior to rotation 10.13 (28.95) 4.52 (12.90) 3.91 (9.69)

Item

If I do not do as well as other people, it means that I aman inferior human being .77 — —

If I fail partly, it is as bad as being a complete failure .70 — —The fewer mistakes I make, the more people will like me .70 — —People will probably think less of me if I make a mistake .70 — —If I fail at work /school, I am a failure as a person .67 — —If someone does a task at work/school better than I,

then I feel like I failed the whole task .66 — —If I do not do well all the time, people will not respect me .64 — —Even when I do something very carefully, I often feel that

it is not quite right .63 — —I usually have doubts about the simple everyday things

I do .58 — —It takes me a long time to do something “right” .57 — —If I do not set the highest standards for myself, I am likely

to end up a second-rate person .57 — —I should be upset if I make a mistake .56 — —I hate being less than the best at things .51 .32 —I tend to get behind in my work because I repeat things

over and over .50 — —

I try to be an organized person — .75 —I am an organized person — .74 —Organization is very important to me — .72 —I am a neat person — .72 —Neatness is very important to me — .68 —I try to be a neat person — .64 —I have extremely high goals — .54 .30I am very good at focusing my efforts on attaining a goal — .46 —I expect higher performance in my daily tasks than

most people .32 .42 —I set higher goals than most people — .39 .37It is important to me that I be thoroughly competent in

everything I do .35 .36 —Other people seem to accept lower standards from

themselves than I do .29 .25 .21

My parents have expected excellence from me — — .86My parents wanted me to be the best at everything — — .80My parents set very high standards for me — — .76I never felt like I could meet my parents’ standards — — .75I never felt like I could meet my parents’ expectations — — .72Only outstanding performance is good enough for my family — — .70My parents have always had higher expectations for my

future than I have — — .63As a child, I was punished for doing things less than perfect — — .60My parents never tried to understand my mistakes — — .53


themselves than I do”), and two items from that same scale had double loadings (“I sethigher goals than most people” and “It is important to me that I be thoroughly competentin everything I do”). Examination of the items with single loadings on this factor sug-gested that the factor reflects a general tendency to be organized and to engage in goal-oriented activity. This factor was thus labeled “Goal/Achievement Orientation.” The thirdfactor was comprised of all of the items from Frost et al.’s (1990) original PE and PCscales. The item content suggested that the factor reflected a general tendency to haveexperienced one’s parents as being exacting in their standards. This factor was labeled“Perceived Parental Pressure.”

Psychometric Properties of the Revised MPS-F Scales

Subscales based on the three-factor solution were constructed, excluding the four itemsthat had double loadings and the one item that did not load. All three scales showed highinternal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha scores of .91, .85, and .91 for the Fear ofMistakes, Goal/Achievement Orientation, and Perceived Parental Pressures scales, respec-tively. Correlations between these subscales, and a total scale score calculated by sum-ming across all items (excluding those with no loading or with double loadings), arepresented in Table 4.

The Fear of Mistakes and Perceived Parental Pressure subscales correlated morehighly with the Total Score than did the Goal/Achievement Orientation scale. The formertwo scales had a higher correlation with each other than either did with the Goal/Achievement Orientation scale.

Correlations between the Revised MPS-F Scales and the MPS-H Scales

Correlations between the three new subscales and the Hewitt and Flett MPS scalesare presented in Table 5. The Fear of Mistakes scale had a higher correlation with theSP scale than with the OO and SO scales of the MPS-H. Interestingly, the Fear of Mis-takes scale had a higher correlation with the SP scale than did the Perceived ParentalPressures scale (although the Perceived Parental Pressure scale did have its largest cor-relation with the SP scale). Finally, the Goal/Achievement Orientation scale was mosthighly correlated with the SO scale.

Comparisons Across Groups

Frost and Steketee (1997) and Antony et al. (1998) both found differences across clinicalgroups on the six scales. To determine whether this potentially valuable information on

Table 4Correlations between Subscales Based on 3-Factor Solution and Total Perfectionism Scale Score

Fear ofMistakes



TotalPerfectionism

Fear of Mistakes 1.00 .18 .45 .85Goal/Achievement Orientation — 1.00 .14 .50Perceived Parental Pressure for Perfectionism — — 1.00 .76

Note. N ’s vary from 311 to 313; all correlations..10 are significant atp , .05.


group differences in perfectionism profile was lost with the three-factor solution, fiveclinical groups were compared on the three new subscales based on the three factors. Thefive clinical groups were panic disorder (PD; including panic disorder with and withoutagoraphobia and agoraphobia without panic disorder), obsessive-compulsive disorder(OCD), social phobia (SOC), specific phobia (SP), and nonclinical volunteers.1 Individ-uals with other principal diagnoses were excluded from these analyses due to insufficientsample size, and individuals with comorbid anxiety disorders of the four types specifiedhere of equal severity were also excluded. A one-way multivariate analysis of variancewas conducted on the three scale scores with diagnostic category as the independentmeasure. The multivariateF was significant,F(12,1011)5 7.68,p , .001. Post hoc testswere then performed following the principle of Fisher’s protected tests, in which post hoccomparisons are conducted at the same level of alpha as used in the test of the main effect(see Cohen & Cohen, 1983). The means and standard deviations for each group arepresented in Table 6. All clinical groups except the SP group had significantly higherscores on the Fear of Mistakes scale than did the nonclinical volunteer group,F(1,337)535.05,p , .001;F(1,337)5 71.03,p , .001; andF(1,337)5 63.35,p , .001 (for PD,OCD, and SOC groups compared to the nonclinical group, respectively). In addition, theSOC group had higher scores on the Perceived Parental Pressure scale than did the non-clinical controls,F(1,337)5 5.37,p , .02. Thus, the PD, OCD, and SOC groups weredistinguished from the nonclinical sample primarily by having higher scores on the Fearof Mistakes scale. The SP group was additionally distinguished from the nonclinicalgroup by higher scores on the Perceived Parental Pressure scale.

Within the clinical groups, differences were as follows: The OCD and SOC groupshad higher scores on the Fear of Mistakes scale than did the PD group,F(1,337)5 7.44,p , .01, andF(1,337)5 4.53,p , .03, respectively, and the SP group,F(1,337)5 14.00,p , .001, andF(1,337)5 11.42,p , .001, respectively. The OCD and SOC groups didnot differ on the three scales. Thus, the OCD and SOC groups were distinguished fromthe PD and SP groups by having higher scores on the Fear of Mistakes scale. No otherdifferences across clinical groups were observed.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine the factor structure of the Frost et al. (1990)Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale in a clinical anxiety disorders sample to determine

1Please note that the sample in this analysis overlaps substantially with the sample used in the Antony et al.(1998) examination of the original six subscales across anxiety-disordered and nonclinical groups.

Table 5Zero-Order Correlations between New Subscales Based on 3-Factor Solutionof MPS-F and the MPS-H

Fear ofMistakes



TotalPerfectionism

Other-Oriented Perfectionism .33 .35 .35 .46Self-Oriented Perfectionism .53 .56 .36 .65Socially Prescribed Perfectionism .70 .13 .57 .71

Note. N ’s vary from 309 to 312, all correlations. .10 are significant atp , .001. MPS-F5 Multidimensional PerfectionismScale (Frost et al., 1990). MPS-H5 Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Hewitt & Flett, 1991).


whether the factor structure was similar to that found in previous research on nonclinicalsamples. It was proposed that the factor structure could vary in a clinical sample becausethe scale scores could reflect positive strivings in nonclinical individuals, but in clinicalsamples the scale scores could reflect pathological or neurotic perfectionistic ideals. Theresults of the analyses conducted here suggest that the MPS-F does not have differentialvalidity across samples. That is, the factor structure is generally the same in the clinicalsample as in the nonclinical sample, and the relationship between scales based on thefactor loadings and indicators of concurrent validity (i.e., the MPS-H) are also similar.Thus, the six-factor solution originally identified by Frost et al. (1990) appears viable ina clinical sample of individuals with anxiety disorders. It would have been worthwhile tocompare the six-factor solution across the clinical and nonclinical samples in our dataand examine coefficients of congruence. This would allow for a more rigorous compar-ison of the factor structure across samples. Unfortunately, in the present study the non-clinical sample was too small to appropriately conduct a factor analysis and make thiscomparison. Furthermore, it may be important to examine the factor structure in clinicalsamples with mood disorders and other forms of psychopathology besides anxiety disor-ders that have been shown to be associated with perfectionism.

Although the psychometric properties in general did not differ, the results of thepresent study did suggest that a three-factor solution, as opposed to the six-factor solutionupon which the existing subscales of the MPS-F are based, was more appropriate statis-tically (it is unknown whether a three-factor solution has been examined in nonclinicalsamples). The solution yielded interpretable factors, and subscales based on the threefactors showed high internal consistency. Furthermore, whereas the Organization scaleshowed little relationship to the other scales in both the present study and the Frost et al.(1990) study, the items from the original Organization scale loaded with several itemsfrom the original Personal Standards scale. Together, this pool of items showed a signif-icant, albeit smaller, correlation with the Total Perfectionism score. The three-factor solu-tion, then, provided a home for the Organization scale items while offering a moreparsimonious expression of the three dimensions of perfectionism.

Comparisons across anxiety disorder groups yielded results similar to Frost and Steke-tee (1997) and Antony et al. (1998), who found that their OCD groups were distinguishedfrom their PD groups by higher scores on the Doubts about Actions scale. In the presentstudy, the OCD group was distinguished from the PD group by higher scores on the Fearof Mistakes scale, which includes items from the original DA scale. Thus, one important

Table 6Means and Standard Deviations Across Diagnostic Groups

Fear ofMistakes


Perceived ParentalPressure forPerfection

Group M SD M SD M SD

Panic Disorder 40.05b 12.54 33.46 6.49 24.91ab 9.54OCD 44.87c 12.33 33.44 6.98 24.19ab 9.50Social Phobia 43.77c 11.52 31.82 7.33 26.08b 9.10Specific Phobia 33.90a 12.70 34.16 7.33 24.53ab 12.27Nonclinical Participants 27.55a 8.21 32.63 6.03 22.33a 7.17

Note. N 5 342. Means sharing subscripts within columns do not differ atp , .05.


difference in the “profile” of perfectionism across different groups of individuals withanxiety disorders observed in previous research was replicated here, with the three-factorsolution. However, is parsimony achieved at the expense of other important clinical infor-mation? Antony et al. (1998) found that their social phobic group was distinguished froma group of individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder by having higher scores on theParental Criticism scale. However, in the present study, the social phobic group did nothave higher scores on the Perceived Parental Pressure scale, which contains items fromboth the Parental Expectations and Parental Criticism scales identified by Frost et al.(1990). This could suggest that important distinctions are lost when scales based on thethree-factor solution are used.

On the other hand, concerns about negative evaluation by important others are thehallmark of the social phobia, so one might reasonably expect the social phobic group toobtain higher scores on both the Parental Criticism and Parental Expectations scales, andhence a scale based on the combined items from each. Furthermore, one might expectthose scales to be more strongly related to the MPS-H Socially Prescribed Perfectionismscale than the other two scales in this measure. Yet in the present study, the PerceivedParental Pressure scale (comprised of items from both the Parental Expectations andParental Criticism scales) shared less variance with the Socially Prescribed Perfection-ism scale than it did with the Fear of Mistakes scale.

One explanation as to why this pattern of results emerged lies in the nature of theitems comprising the Parental Expectations versus the Parental Criticism scale. In theformer scale, the items are statements of fact, with no evaluative component (e.g., “Myparents expected excellence from me”), whereas in the latter, the items have an affectivecomponent (e.g., “I never felt like I could meet my parents’ expectations”), which impliesboth the presence of unrealistic standards and the sense that one has failed to meet thosestandards. It is possible that the Parental Criticism scale is more predictive of socialanxiety and has more in common with the MPS-H Socially Prescribed Perfectionismscale than the Parental Expectations scale, and so collapsing across them washes outimportant differences.

This introduces the larger issue of the ability of the MPS-F to discriminate betweenpathological perfectionism and nonpathological high standards and flexible acceptanceof others’ standards. Like the Parental Criticism scale, the Fear of Mistakes scale iscomprised of items that specify both a high standard and perceived negative conse-quences of violating that standard, and both have been found to be associated with psy-chopathology (Frost et al., 1990; Frost et al., 1997). On the other hand, the PersonalStandards and Organization scales, whose scores reflect high personal standards withoutimplying that the standards are rigid, excessive, or problematic, have been associatedwith more positive strivings in nonclinical samples and generally loaded together in thethree-factor solution observed in the present study.

This supports the argument made by Rhéaume et al. (1995) that some dimensions ofthe MPS-F may be less able to tap neurotic perfectionism. Although this does not appearto influence the relative factor structure of the MPS-F in nonclinical versus clinical sam-ples, in future work it might be interesting to include some explication of the conse-quences or personal meaning of violating the perfectionistic standard in the existingitems of these scales. The ability of the scales to reliably distinguish between normal highstandards for achievement in one or two important life domains and neurotic perfection-ism could then be examined. For example, one could compare varsity athletes or studentswith scholarships to depressed individuals with self-critical features, or to individualswith social phobia or OCD. Important differences across clinical groups on the three-factor solution also could then be identified. Thus, the apparent lack of construct validity


of the Perceived Parental Pressure scale may be explained by the varying nature of theitems of which it is comprised, some of which may be more predictive of pathologicalperfectionism than others. Replication of the three-factor solution in both clinical andnonclinical samples is necessary, and it would be useful to examine the properties of theMPS-F in a clinical sample of individuals with mood disorders.

In sum, the psychometric properties of the MPS-F observed in nonclinical sampleswere replicated in a clinical sample, but findings suggest that the scale might be moreinformative if (a) scales based on a more parsimonious three-factor solution are adopted;and (b) items are written to reflect uniformly both high standards and the rigidity withwhich the standards are applied, the consequences of failing to meet the standards, or both.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders(4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Antony, M.M., & Swinson, R. (1998). When perfect isn’t good enough: Strategies for coping withperfectionism. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications.

Antony, M.M., Purdon, C., Huta, V., & Swinson, R.P. (1998). Dimensions of perfectionism acrossthe anxiety disorders. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 1143–1154.

Blatt, S.J., D’Affliti, J.P., & Quinlan, D.M. (1976). Experiences of depression in normal youngadults. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85, 383–389.

Burns, D.D. (1980a). Feeling good: The new mood therapy. New York: Signet.

Burns, D.D. (1980b, November). The perfectionist’s script for self-defeat. Psychology Today, 34–51.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioralsciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

First, M.B., Spitzer, R.L., Gibbon, M., & Williams, J.B.W. (1996). Structured Clinical Interview forDSM-IV Axis I Disorders—Patient Edition (SCID-I/P, Version 2.0). New York: BiometricsResearch Department, New York State Psychiatric Institute.

Frost, R.O., Heimberg, R.G., Holt, C.S., Mattia, J.L., & Neubauer, A.L. (1993). A comparison oftwo measures of perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 119–126.

Frost, R.O., & Marten, P.A. (1990). Perfectionism and evaluative threat. Cognitive Therapy andResearch, 14, 559–572.

Frost, R.O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism.Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449–468.

Frost, R.O., & Steketee, G. (1997). Perfectionism in obsessive-compulsive disorder patients. Behav-iour Research and Therapy, 35, 291–296.

Frost, R.O., Trepanier, K.L., Brown, E.J., Heimberg, R.G., Juster, H.R., Makris, G.S., & Leung,A.W. (1997). Self-monitoring of mistakes among subjects high and low in perfectionisticconcern over mistakes. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 21, 209–222.

Garner, D.M., Olmstead, M.P., & Polivy, J. (1983). Development and validation of a multidimen-sional eating disorder inventory for anorexia nervosa and bulimia. International Journal ofEating Disorders, 2, 15–34.

Heimberg, R.G., Juster, H.R., Hope, D.A., & Mattia, J.I. (1995). Cognitive-behavioral group treat-ment for social phobia: Description, case presentation, and empirical support. In M. Stein(Ed.), Social phobia: Clinical and research perspectives (pp. 293–321). Washington, DC: Amer-ican Psychiatric Press.

Hewitt, P.L., & Flett, G.L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: Conceptualization,assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 60, 456–470.


Hewitt, P.L., & Flett, G.L. (1993). Dimensions of perfectionism, daily stress, and depression: A testof a specific vulnerability hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 58–65.

Hewitt, P.L., Flett, G.L., Turnbull-Donovan, W., & Mikail, S.F. (1991). The MultidimensionalPerfectionism Scale: Reliability, validity, and psychometric properties in psychiatric samples.Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 3, 464–468.

Juster, H.R., Heimberg, R.G., Frost, R.O., Holt, C.S., Mattia, J.I., & Faccenda, K. (1996). Socialphobia and perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 403–410.

Lundh, L-G., & Öst, L-G. (1996). Stroop interference, self-focus, and perfectionism in socialphobics. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 725–731.

McFall, M.E., & Wollersheim, J.P. (1979). Obsessive-compulsive neurosis: A cognitive-behavioralformulation and approach to treatment. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 3, 333–348.

Minarik, M.L., & Ahrens, A.H. (1996). Relations of eating behavior and symptoms of depressionand anxiety to the dimensions of perfectionism among undergraduate women. Cognitive Ther-apy and Research, 20, 155–169.

Obsessive Compulsive Cognitions Working Group. (1997). Cognitive assessment of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35, 667–681.

Rachman, S.J. (1993). Obsessions, responsibility, and guilt. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 31,149–154.

Rasmussen, S.A., & Eisen, J.L. (1989). Clinical features and phenomenology of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Psychiatric Annals, 19, 67–72.

Rasmussen, S.A., & Eisen, J.L. (1992). The epidemiology and clinical features of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 15, 743–758.

Rhéaume, J., Freeston, M.H., Dugas, M.J., Letarte, H., & Ladouceur, R. (1995). Perfectionism,responsibility, and obsessive-compulsive symptoms. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33,785–794.

Salkovskis, P.M. (1985). Obsessional-compulsive problems:Acognitive-behavioural analysis. Behav-iour Research and Therapy, 23, 571–583.

Salkovskis, P.M. (1989). Cognitive behavioural factors and the persistence of intrusive thoughts inobsessional problems. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 27, 677–682.

Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.


Documents

Psychometric properties of the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale in a clinical anxiety disorders sample