Introduction
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual defines Perfectionism as a multi-dimensional personality disposition characterised by tendencies to set a high standard for performance, extreme conditioners and strives for flawless execution. It provides in all areas of life, in particular, work and school work (American Psychological Association, 2013). According to DSM-V any variable that disrupts the personal, social and occupational functioning considered the psychological disorder. The literature is enriched with the evidence that people who pose the disposed the perfectionism or indicates the high tendencies for perfectionism diagnosed with anxiety, depression, eating disorder and other psychological disturbance on a high scale.According to extensive studies, the perfectionism is multidimensional construct and the most relevant domains found to be hope for success, positive affectivity, motivation to perform better, mastery in art, self-confidence, satisfaction, and achievements (Stoeber and Roche 2014). Perfectionism has been associated with lower-level of Psychological adjustment or well-being and higher levels of psychological maladjustment among adolescence (Stoeber, Edbrooke-Childs, & Damian, 2018). Therefore, the current study aimed at developing a valid and reliable scale for the assessment of Perfectionism among adolescents as adolescents are more vulnerable towards psychopathologies and psychological disturbance.
Literature Review
The Literature provides an overview of the latest research to illustrate the deeper meaning and dimension of the perfectionism construct. Literature suggests that diverse researcher defines the perfectionism domains differently with the relevant theoretical background. The Child-Adolescent Perfectionism was developed to investigate the children and adolescents perfectionist behaviour (CAPS; Flett, Hewitt, Boucher, Davidson, & Munro, 2000). The CAPS was comprised of two domain, i.e. self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism in youths. Literature recommended different perfectionist scale has been widely used in an empirical investigation in the recent years (Hewitt et al., 2011). The Big Three Perfection Scale investigate the three higher-order global factors such as self-critical perfectionism, rigid perfectionism, narcissistic perfectionism. The BTPS subdivided the domains into ten lower-order perfectionism facets, i.e., self-worth contingencies, self-oriented perfectionism, doubts about actions, concern over mistakes, self-criticism, other-oriented perfectionism, hypercriticism, socially prescribed perfectionism, grandiosity, entitlement (Smith et al., 2016).Another scale measures the perfectionism in a positive or negative domain, and illustrate the positive and negative aspects of the perfectionism (Egan, Piek, Dyck, &Kane, 2011). The above literature provided the sufficient information regarding the relevant dimension to develop a new scale, the following model has been the overview and followed for the development of a scale.
Theoretical framework
Perfection Structure Model better explains the etiological and theoretical framework perfectionisms. The Perfection structure model postulates the four factors of perfections such as Perfectionistic Strivings, Perfectionistic Concerns, Order, and, Parental Influences. Each dimension associated with positive as well as negative consequences. The first domains perfectionistic striving indicates the positive attribute of the personality and consistent with the positive outcome. The students who strive for performing best in the exams achieve high grades as compared to least strivers. The perfectionistic concerns are appropriate to some extent, but extremism in concerns leads to psychopathologies without any actual gain. An order is an important factor of the perfectionism, as it is associated with neatness and following the sequence of the task. The perfectionist does not tolerate any alteration or inconsistency in their work plan, and this rigid behaviour sometimes leads to failure in fulfilling their plans. The parents influence the tendencies of perfectionism on a high scale by unfair comparison among siblings, work pressure, and high expectations. The above dimension would be used in the current study to develop an indigenizing unidimensional scale.
Demographic
Age. According to researches, the perfectionism is more frequent in youth and adolescents than any other population and leads to severe mental disorder and suicidal attempts as well (Hewitt et al., 2011).Gender. According to the literature, the males pose more perfectionistic attributes than females. According to Mascinga and Dobrita (2010), the man indicates more concerned with mistakes and strive to perform better in work as compared to women.
Education. The education level is highly associated with the perfectionism as according to a study the school and college students make more irrational errors concerning setting the goals towards perfectionism as compared to university students (Mascinga, and Dobrita, 2010.
The above demographics are relevant to the current construct, therefore has been used in the study.
Methodology
This chapter provides a detailed description of the scale development following the particular steps. The other modalities such as what research method, design and sampling technique has been used in the scale also elaborated in the chapter.Development of the Scale
The scale has been developed following the three essential step including the generation item pool, empirical validation and end product.Generating of item Pools. The 30 item pools have been generated from literature and PIPI site and have been divided into four domains, i.e. self-critical perfectionism, rigid perfectionism, narcissistic perfectionism. Although the scale was unidimensional, the items were taken from the above dimensions to make a unidimensional scale. The journals, peer review and archival data has been consulted to investigate the possible dimension of the scale and items as well. The Polychotomous Response Format has been used for making scoring key where 0 never indicate, one indicates rarely, two refers to sometimes, and three specify often. Polychotomous Response Format provides a clear understanding to participants for choosing the most relevant answer as compared to the dichotomous technique which indicates the extremism or white or black responses. Never, often, rarely and sometimes measures the responses in frequency which are easy to understand and highly suitable for measuring the perfectionist construct.
Empirical Validations. The finalised items were empirically validated by the panel of expert psychologists and researchers. The face validity has been focused during the validation process and concluded that all the item have face validity. All the relevant items have been finalised in the scale. All the experts were approached separately, and the ambiguous and irrelevant questions were excluded from the study.
End product. The final scale was comprised of 20 items covering all the domain order, perfectionistic concerns, perfectionistic strives and parental influence. Item no 1,3, 8, 9 15, have been taken from ‘’order’’ domain, while 20 19 18, 12, 4 belongs to Pefectionsitic concerns, item no 17, 10, 7, 6, 16 derived from Perfectionistic Strives, and item 14, 13, 11, 5. 2 were from Parental Influence.
Pilot Study. The pilot study has been carried out to assess the comprehension level of the scale. The scale was piloted on eight participants including six boys and three girls; the scale was designed concerning the user-friendliness and participants completed the scale without any ambiguity.
Main study
The present study comprised the following modalities.Research Design. The mixing method research design has been used in the current study to elaborate the findings.
Research Design. The Survey research design will be used to collect the data from the participants.
Sampling. Non-probability sampling technique ‘’Convenient Sampling’’ was used to select the sample from the population.
Participants. The total number of 30 participants has been selected in the study.
Measures. The following measure has been used in the study.
Demographics sheet. The demographic has been selected by studying the literature, and the age, education, gender and family system were used in the study.
Perfection Scale. An indigenous scale has been developed and used in the current study. The scale composed of 12 items to measure the perfectionistic tendencies among adolescents. The scale comprised of 4 rating keys, never, often, rarely and sometimes and the scoring range varies from 0-3. The reliability of the original scale of perfectionism on IPIP is .81 for six items. In the current study, the psychometric properties have been mention in the above chapter.
Extravagance Scale. The extravagance scale has been used in the current study to investigate the construct validity of the perfectionistic scale. The scale has been taken from IPIP big five factors inventory. According to a survey, the reliability of the Extravagance scale was found to be .85 (Markey, & Markey, 2009).
Ethical Consideration
The ethical consideration has been followed during the current study. The participants were introduced to the purpose of the study. It was ensured to the participants that their information would be kept confidential. The informed consent has been signed by the participants, and their active participation has been appreciated. The participants were told that they might withdraw from the study if feel any physical, emotional and psychological harm.Procedures
The scale has been developed after the in-depth study of the literature. The themes were evaluated, and a few relevant them has been collected for the current research following the perfection structure model. The demographics have been selected that were found more relevant in the archival data, DSM V and peer reviews which were age, gender and education. The panel of experts has done the empirical validation and then the scale was tested via the pilot study. The ambiguous items were excluded from the study, and then the main study has been carried out. The data has been collected in September 2018 using the convenient sampling technique. All the ethical consideration has been followed during the study such as consent form, confidentiality and freedom to withdraw from the study. The data was entered into SPSS, and psychometric properties have been checked. The results of the analysis and psychometric output are below in the next chapter.Results
Sample Description.Following table shows the percentage and frequency distribution of the sample(N= 20).
Table 1
Percentages of the Demographic Characteristics of the Participants (N= 20)
Variables
|
Boys
|
Girls
|
Total
|
F(%)
|
F(%)
|
F(%)
|
|
Gender
|
9(45)
|
11(55)
|
20 (100)
|
Education
|
|||
9-10
|
6(30)
|
6(30)
|
12(60)
|
11-12
|
3(15)
|
5(25)
|
8(40)
|
Age group
(years)
12-14
15-17
|
3(33.3)
6(66.7)
|
6(54.5)
5(45.5)
|
9(45)
11(55)
|
Family system
Nuclear
Joint
|
4(20)
5(25)
|
8(40)
3(15)
|
12(60)
8(40)
|
The above table indicates that the 45% of participants belong to the male gender and 55% were female. The education level was matric among 60% participants, and 40 percents were studying at the intermediate level. The age group among a majority of participants 54% were the 15-17 age group, in contrast, 45% of participants were from 12-14 years of age. The 60% participants belong to the nuclear family system whereas 40% were from a joint family system. Psychometric Properties
The aim was to assess the validity and reliability of perfectionism scale.
Internal Consistency and Reliability of the Perfectionism Scale.
Table 2
Following table Indicating Cronbach Alpha of all items and Total Score of the scale
Item
|
Alpha
Coefficient (α)
|
Item1
|
.728
|
Item 2
|
.722
|
Item 3
|
.6.85
|
Item 4
|
.705
|
Item 5
|
.686
|
Item 6
|
.711
|
Item 7
|
.695
|
Item 8
|
.712
|
Item 9
|
.718
|
Item 10
|
.683
|
Item 11
|
.700
|
Item 12
|
.678
|
Item 13
|
.684
|
Item 14
|
.729
|
Item 15
|
.697
|
Item 16
|
.697
|
Item 17
|
.690
|
Item 18
|
.695
|
Item 19
|
.692
|
Item 20
|
.716
|
Total
|
.713
|
As shown in a year above table that a few items of the scale have good internal consistency while the other has low. To increase the internal consistency of the scale item no 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, and 20 have been excluded from the scale as the items were decreasing the reliability of the scale. The results of the selected items are listed below.
Table 3
Following table Indicating the Total Score of the scale
Item
|
Alpha
Coefficient (α)
|
Item 3
|
.778
|
Item 5
|
.771
|
Item 7
|
.793
|
Item 10
|
.748
|
Item 11
|
.768
|
Item 12
|
.736
|
Item 13
|
.749
|
Item 15
|
.780
|
Item 16
|
.760
|
Item 17
|
.755
|
Item 18
|
.771
|
Item 19
|
.779
|
Total
|
.782
|
The final list of the scale comprised of 12 items indicating a high internal consistency .782 of the scale.
Validity
Internal Scale Validity. The following table indicates the intercorrelation of the scale.
Table 4
Intercorrelation, Mean and Standard Deviation of the Scale
Items
|
Item 3
|
Item 5
|
Item 7
|
Item 10
|
Item 11
|
Item 12
|
Item 13
|
Item 15
|
Item 16
|
Item 17
|
Item 18
|
Item 19
|
Item 3
|
---
|
.563
|
.361
|
.146
|
.888
|
.657
|
.640
|
.201
|
.834
|
.008
|
.676
|
.745
|
Item 5
|
---
|
---
|
.112
|
.649
|
.113
|
.656
|
.888
|
.743
|
.885
|
. 259
|
.000
|
.050
|
Item 7
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
.278
|
.696
|
.760
|
.603
|
.479
|
.383
|
.580
|
.492
|
.014
|
Item 10
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
.012
|
.011
|
.154
|
.913
|
.164
|
.002
|
.953
|
.073
|
Item 11
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
.009
|
.116
|
.631
|
.125
|
.351
|
.716
|
.802
|
Item 12
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
.000
|
.092
|
.000
|
0.53
|
.469
|
.898
|
Item 13
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
.028
|
.000
|
.175
|
.496
|
.978
|
Item 15
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
1
|
.105
|
.968
|
.521
|
.647
|
Item 16
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
.215
|
.274
|
.574
|
Item 17
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
1
|
.395
|
.630
|
Item 18
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
1
|
.550
|
Item 19
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
1
|
M
|
1.30
|
1.00
|
1.25
|
.70
|
.70
|
.85
|
.80
|
1.10
|
.90
|
.90
|
.95
|
.55
|
SD
|
1.21
|
1.25
|
1.37
|
1.12
|
1.03
|
1.18
|
1.24
|
1.07
|
`1.21
|
1.02
|
.99
|
.94
|
According to the above table a high correlation was found between items number 13 and 19 (r=.978), 12 and 18(r=.898), 11 and 19, (r=.802), 11 and 18 (r=.716), 19 and 18 (.953), 10 and 15 (.913), 7 and 12, (.760). Intercorrelation between item number 5, 13, 15 and 16 was also noted to be high (r=.888, .743, .885). Similarly item number 3 found to have high correlation with the item no 11, 16, 19 (r=.888, .834, .745). The rest of the item indicated a low or moderate level in internal correlation.
Table 5
Intercorrelation, Mean and Standard Deviation of the Perfection and Extravagance Scale
Items
|
E1
|
E2
|
E3
|
E4
|
E5
|
Perfection_Total
|
Extravagance 1
|
---
|
.0.16
|
1.00
|
.888
|
.164
|
.289
|
Extravagance 2
|
---
|
---
|
.929
|
.218
|
.269
|
.035
|
Extravagance 3
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
.163
|
.671
|
.133
|
Extravagance 4
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
.931
|
.291
|
Extravagance 5
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
.568
|
Perfection_Total
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
---
|
M
|
4.75
|
4.45
|
4.80
|
4.35
|
4.05
|
14.20
|
SD
|
.444
|
.945
|
.523
|
.754
|
1.191
|
9.49
|
Note: E= Extravagance
The above table indicates the low correlation between Perfectionism and extravagance scale.
Discussion
Psychopathologies as a result of Perfectionism are pervasive in the worldwide. The literature is enriched with the studies that depict the strong relationship between psychopathologies and perfectionism personality trait (American Psychological Association, 2013). Perfectionism used to consider positive trait in the past, but extremism obsession and preoccupation has made the attribute alarming for the people. The unhealthy trait leads to alarming consequences due to lack of comprehension between the normal and abnormal use of personality traits(CAPS; Flett, Hewitt, Boucher, Davidson, & Munro, 2000).The alarming consequences of the perfectionism are more frequent among adolescents as compared to other population (Stoeber, Edbrooke-Childs, & Damian, 2018). Therefore the current study aimed at developing an indigenous scale for the assessment of perfectionism. To achieve the target, the perfectionism structure model has been used as it covers all the four associated aspects. The scale has been developed following the particular step such as generating item pools, empirical validation and piloting. The reliability of the scale found to b appropriate with the Cronbach alpha .783. The intercorrelation between the items of the scale was found to be appropriate for some item, but the contract validity was found to be weak. The intercorrelation and weak validity found to be weak as the items were selected randomly from IPIP net.
Limitation
The limitation of the study, is the weak psychometric properties of the scale. The sample size was comprised of 20 participants that were causing hindrance in obtaining high valid and reliable output.
Recommendation
The psychometric properties should be analysed on the large size of the sample to achieve the valid and reliable results.