ساختار و اعتبار پرسشنامه کمال گرایی بالینی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|32641||2012||5 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||4225 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 52, Issue 8, June 2012, Pages 865–869
Pathological perfectionism is of increasing interest in clinical research, although the dimensionality of this construct is actively debated. Most studies refer to two underlying dimensions associated with evaluative concerns and personal standards, and multidimensional scales are used to capture these. The more recently proposed construct of ‘clinical perfectionism’ (CP), is argued as unidimensional, as is the Clinical Perfectionism Questionnaire (CPQ) arising from this. This study assesses the reliability and validity of the CPQ in a sample of young adults. Utilising a survey design, participants were 491 undergraduate students aged 18–30 years who completed a battery of psychometric measures, of whom 142 were retested after 4 months. After removal of two items, exploratory factor analysis and parallel analysis revealed two distinct factors broadly consistent with existing two-factor formulations of pathological perfectionism, but with modest internal consistency and test–retest reliability. Norms need to be established in order to ascertain meaningful cut-offs and to aid understanding about significant improvement in the different dimensions if the CPQ is to be used in future research. Further research also needs to consider the relative utility of the CPQ against already existing measures of pathological perfectionism in common use.
The construct of perfectionism has long held interest as being both causal and maintaining factors of a variety of psychological conditions (see Shafran & Mansell, 2001 for a review). Arising from this, debates have arisen about the dimensionality of perfectionism particularly as these relate to certain disorders. Generally two higher order dimensions have been focused on: adaptive or ‘benign’ forms of perfectionism, and pathological or ‘problematic’ forms (Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990). The former typically involves high self-imposed, personal standards (PS), while the latter involves self-critical evaluative concerns (EC) including excessive concern over mistakes and doubts about actions (see Dunkley, Blankstein, Masheb, & Grilo, 2006). Factor analytic studies have largely supported the importance of distinguishing between these two dimensions (e.g., Bieling et al., 2004, Dunkley et al., 2003 and Hill et al., 2004) and measures reflecting these are in common use. In the main, researchers have used relevant subscales from the Frost et al. (1990) Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS) or the Hewitt, Flett, Turnbull-Donovan, and Mikail (1991) Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (HMPS). These measures are closely related (Frost, Heimberg, Holt, Mattia, & Neubauer, 1993). Critical of this multidimensional approach, Shafran, Cooper, and Fairburn (2002) coined the term clinical perfectionism (CP) to describe “the overdependence of self-evaluation on the determined pursuit of personally demanding, self-imposed, standards in at least one highly salient domain, despite adverse consequences” (p. 778). Unlike the broader construct of perfectionism which may have some benefits such as positive striving (Bieling et al., 2004), the self-imposed standards in CP are dysfunctional, striving for these is continuous but results in multiple psychological consequences. CP is argued as the clearest conceptualisation of pathological perfectionism (Shafran et al., 2003 and Shafran et al., 2002) and has been applied to a range of conditions particularly eating disorders (Rieger et al., 2010 and Riley et al., 2007). However the construct of CP is not without its detractors (e.g., Dunkley et al., 2006 and Hewitt et al., 2003). In particular, Hewitt et al. (2003) argue that Shafran et al. (2002) overly emphasise the self-orientated aspects at the cost of wider relational and interpersonal dimensions that make up the multiple aspects which existing multidimensional measures are designed to capture. They go onto criticise CP as “a self-contained unidimensional model” (Hewitt et al., 2003, p. 1232) and if applied to treatment, risks bringing about temporary change only. Glover, Brown, Fairburn, and Shafran (2007) likewise consider CP as “largely speculative” (Glover et al., 2007, p. 86). Shafran et al. (2003) do not dispute that perfectionism (as opposed to CP) may have multiple dimensions but reemphasise that CP is a more “circumscribed clinical construct” (Shafran et al., 2003, p. 1218). When first proposing the construct of CP, Shafran et al. (2002) considered that existing psychometric measures of perfectionism were too broad and therefore failed to adequately capture the elements of self-evaluation core to their theoretical model, and were problematic because of the inclusion of benign aspects of perfectionism. This prompted Fairburn and associates (see Riley et al., 2007) to propose a specific measure of CP, the 12-item Clinical Perfectionism Questionnaire (CPQ). The CPQ has since been used in a number of published studies (Shafran et al., 2004 and Steele et al., 2011) and larger treatment trials including those targeting CP (Glover et al., 2007 and Riley et al., 2007). Preliminary psychometric properties of the CPQ have been reported against an interview-based measure, the Clinical Perfectionism Examination (CPE) (Riley et al., 2007) which is itself awaiting the fuller publication of psychometric properties. These preliminary data showed that the CPQ had adequate convergent validity (r = .57), and that it could distinguish between clinical and non-clinical samples, although the data relating to these samples are unpublished (see Riley et al., 2007). Steele, O’Shea, Murdock, and Wade (2011) recently reported high internal consistency (α = 0.83) in a sample of 39 eating disordered women. In light of the increasing use of the CPQ in clinical and non-clinical research, and the limited published psychometric qualities of this, the purpose of this study was to explore the psychometric properties of the CPQ in young adults, and to consider these findings in the context of debates about the dimensionality of CP. We hypothesis that the CPQ contains two perfectionism factors.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The shortened 10-item CPQ consists of distinct two dimensions with good internal consistency and modest temporal stability. Given the paucity of published data on the CPQ, more research is needed to replicate the factor structure in other age and community groups and there is a particular urgency to explore the CPQ in large clinical samples given that it is currently being utilised with such groups. Further research is also needed to establish clinically meaningful cut-off scores that are associated with pathological perfectionism especially as this measure is now being used in treatment studies. If there are distinct components of CP, these may respond differently to different aspects of treatment, and may be useful for conducting individualised case formulations as recommended by Egan, Wade, and Shafran (2011). These debates are more than theoretical on the basis that accumulating research suggests that different dimensions of perfectionism may have distinctive roles. For example, Wade et al. (2008) found that PS alone predisposed people to develop anorexia nervosa, although both EC and PS are elevated in those who had this condition. Dickie, Wilson, McDowell, and Surgenor (in press) found that EC, but not PS, predicted later drive for thinness, while Boone, Soenens, Braet, and Goossens (2010) used cluster analysis to define four symptom groups based on different permutations of high/low PS and EC. Finally, research should examine the extent to which the dimensions found in the modified CPQ concur with other commonly-used measures of pathological perfectionism including the dimensions of self-orientated and socially-prescribed perfectionism found in the HMPS. Shafran et al. (2002) originally critiqued multidimensional measures as leading to acceptance of perfectionism as multidimensional, and this “resulted in the concept (of perfectionism) being too readily equated with its method of measurement” (p. 776). An analogous caution could apply to the 12-item CPQ when used as single scale instrument. Shafran, Egan, and Wade (2010) have recently revised the model of CP reemphasising the maintaining mechanisms of performance-checking behaviours once standards have been set. For example, although standards may be met, checking these leads to reappraisal of one’s standards as not being sufficiently demanding. This in turn leads to pathological lifting of standards. We agree with Shafran et al. (2002) that theoretically-based constructs are important, and whether their revised model more closely aligns with the multidimensionality found in the CPQ in this study has yet to be tested.