Stöber, J. (). The Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale: More perfect with four (instead of six) dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences. Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Hewitt, P.L., & Flett, G.L. (). Perfectionism and depression: A multidimensional analysis. Journal of Social Behavior. Abstract. Twenty-five years ago, one of the first empirically validated measures of perfectionism, the. Frost et al. Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (F-MPS).

Author: Tojalabar Vurn
Country: Poland
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Music
Published (Last): 9 April 2011
Pages: 252
PDF File Size: 16.29 Mb
ePub File Size: 19.2 Mb
ISBN: 125-5-86073-246-1
Downloads: 24034
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Arashibei

Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale: The Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale is one of the most world widely used measures of perfectionism.

Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale – Stöber () – Kent Academic Repository

To analyze the psychometric properties of the Portuguese version of the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale. Corrected item-total correlations ranged from. The scale test-retest reliability suggested a good temporal stability with a test-retest correlation of. A principal component analysis with Varimax rotation was performed and based on the Scree plot, two robust factorial structures were found four and six factors.

The principal component analyses, using Monte Carlo PCA for parallel analyses confirmed the six factor solution. The two factorial structures of four and six dimensions of the Portuguese version of Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale replicate the results from different authors, with different samples and cultures. This suggests this scale is a robust instrument to assess perfectionism, in several clinical and research settings as well as in transcultural studies.

Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale, personality, reliability, validity, Portuguese. Perfectionism has been a topic of increased interest in recent years. It is commonly viewed as a personality trait characterized by striving for flawlessness and by the setting of excessively high standards for performance which is accompanied by a tendency to be overly critical of one’s behavior 1.

Since the early ‘s perfectionism has been conceptualized as a multidimensional construct, with intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions 1,2. This conception of perfectionism led to the development of two of the most widely used perfectionism measures, the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scales, one from Frost et al. Literature findings have indicated that perfectionism may be characterized by positive and negative dimensions, differently linked to various adaptive and maladaptive processes and outcomes.

Perfectionism has been implicated in the stress generation and maintenance 3 and in psychological distress, such as depression 2anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorders 4eating disorders 5personality disorders 6sleep disturbances 7 and suicide 8.

In respect to eating disorders, Carvalho et al. Another study 11 showed that personality characteristics, such as a self-demand trait a construct related to perfectionism, as perfectionists demand perfection of themselves, and self-imposed standards in salient domains that are personally demanding interfere with intestinal functioning, being associated with irritable bowel syndrome. In fact, recent literature findings support that perfectionism and secondary appraisal are implicated in the stress response, by their association with cortisol increase and HPA axis activation Therefore, perfectionism has a role in the individual response to psychosocial stress and might be a transdiagnostic personality trait implicated in the vulnerability to many psychiatric disorders This scale has been validated and reveals good psychometric characteristics in many countries and cultures.

The original version of FMPS 1 presents six dimensions, but this factor structure was not always replicated. Given the clinical and research importance of this scale, the purpose of the present study is to develop the FMPS Portuguese version and analyze its psychometric characteristics. Data for this study were drawn from an ongoing research on Perfectionism and Stress. This research project was reviewed and approved by the Ethical Committee of the Faculty of Medicine of University of Coimbra.


The research aims and its voluntary nature were explained to the students. After they agreed to participate, they filled in the questionnaires. There was complete adherence. The FMPS and other self-report questionnaires were administered to a community sample of 1 st year university students The great majority of the students were single ; One hundred eighty one Their mean age was of The Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale. The FMPS 1 consists of 35 questions, which can be responded in a five-point Likert scale from 1-“strongly disagree” to 5-“strongly agree”.

The total score may range from 35 towith higher scores indicating higher perfectionism levels. Originally, the scale included six subscales: The PS subscale reflects the setting of high standards, the striving to attain it and the contingent self-evaluation based on the achievement. The CM dimension reflects excessive concerns about failure and the fear of negative evaluation from others.

The DA dimension reflects the individual perfectionisk about one’s abilities. The PE and PC scales reflect the belief that one’s parents set very high goals and were overly critical.

The O dimension reflects the excessive importance given to orderliness. Research revealed that personal standards and organization are more adaptive, dimensions whereas concern over mistakes, doubts about actions, high parental expectations and parental criticism seem to be maladaptive 6. The original version revealed good reliability alpha: The original scale was translated by two Portuguese psychiatrists MH Azevedo; A Macedo dominating both languages and who had large experience on the translation of psychopathology assessment instruments.

Preliminary qualitative item analyses included the thinking aloud methodology with pilot participants and an experts panel. After that it was retranslated by a bilingual person blind to the study.

This English version was discussed by three English-speaking experts in psychological assessment. These experts also analyzed the linguistic and conceptual equivalence. The discrepancies found were discussed between the research team and multidimensiojal independent reviewers. Accordance was achieved and the Portuguese version adjusted.

The Portuguese version revealed good psychometric properties 5. The Profile of Mood Ecale. In this study we used the shorter version composed by 36 items Bos et al. A factorial analysis of the responses given by our sample revealed two mutidimensional To compare two independent groups multidimensionak continuous variables we used Student t-tests.

Pearson’s or Spearman’s correlation coefficients were used to test variables associations. The FMPS temporal stability was analysed by the test-retest score correlation after a month. To analyse the contribution of each item to the scale internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the total scale, excluding each item were calculated and compared with the total scale alpha.

When the exclusion of the item corresponded to a lower alpha than the one obtained for the total scale, we concluded that it contributed to the scale internal consistency. To analyse the extent to which each item was a good construct measure, we performed correlations between each item and the total scale multidimensionxl the item.


The scale factor structure was studied using the multidimensionap components multjdimensional, with Varimax rotation and the Cattell’s Scree plot. The correlation coefficients between each item and corrected total score ranged from. All correlation coefficients were higher than. Twenty four items presented higher coefficients than.

The Cronbach’s alphas excluding each item were calculated and compared with the total alpha. Results revealed that 29 items contributed significantly for the scale’s internal consistency. Perfectionims majority of the Organization items and the item 13 did not increase the alpha. Spearman’s correlation coefficients of each item ranged from.

Prior to the principal components analysis PCAthe data suitability for factor analysis was assessed. The Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin value was nultidimensional. PCA explained between 2. However, the Scree plot analysis showed a clear break after the fourth component Figure 1.

Although the four factor solution seemed an acceptable option, the six factor solution also showed to be good, and was confirmed by parallel analysis PA The PA revealed six components with eigenvalues exceeding the corresponding perfectionusm for a randomly generated data matrix of the same size 35 variables x respondents.

The six factors were significant, as their eigenvalues 7. Considering the importance of research comparability, we decided to explore the two factorial solutions.

There was a problem providing the content you requested

The four factor solution. The four component solution explained This factor also includes item 10, an item from the original PS component. Factor 3 includes all the Organization O items. Factor 4 is formed by PS items and also includes the 5 item from CM. The scale and all the four factors revealed a good internal consistency: The six factor solution. Multidimensionla six component solution explained In respect to each dimension the explained variance was of: Only the items from the O dimension multidomensional a total overlap on the six and four factor solutions.

FMPS scores inter-correlations and normative characteristics. The FMPS normative characteristics and inter-correlations are shown in table 3.

Considering the four factor solution, the inter-correlations between dimensions scores were moderate and ranged from. The inter-correlations between dimensions and the total score were high and ranged from. In which respects to the six factor solution, the inter-correlations between dimensions multidimnsional were moderate and ranged from.

In the four and six component solutions the PS a more adaptive dimension showed significant and positive associations with maladaptive dimensions and no significant association perfectionusm O. The Pearson correlation between the two MPS scales total scores was high.

Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale: the portuguese version

Conversely, PE was significantly and positively associated with PA. An unexpected result was the positive significant association between PS 4 and 6 factors and NA Table 3. The correlation coefficients between each item and corrected total score revealed that 29 items contributed significantly for the scale internal consistency.

Some exceptions were the majority of the Organization items and item The FMPS total scale temporal stability was perffectionism. The inclusion of the O dimension was not consensual.