Journal ofhttp://jca.sagepub.

com/
Career Assessment

Perfectionism: Its Measurement and Career Relevance

Robert B. Slaney, Jeffrey S. Ashby and Joseph Trippi
Journal of Career Assessment 1995 3: 279
DOI: 10.1177/106907279500300403
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jca.sagepub.com/content/3/4/279

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Career Assessment can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jca.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jca.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://jca.sagepub.com/content/3/4/279.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jun 1, 1995

What is This?

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com by Laura Pop on October 30, 2014

279-

Perfectionism: Its Measurement and

Career Relevance
Robert B.

Slaney
Pennsylvania State University
Jeffrey S. Ashby
University of Northern Iowa
Joseph Trippi
The Pennsylvania State University
The

The meaning and measurement of the construct of perfectionism

has potentially important implications for career choice and career
development. The present article reviews the theoretical and
empirical background of perfectionism. It then discusses the scales
previously developed to measure perfectionism and describes the
development of a new scale, the Almost Perfect Scale (APS; Slaney
& Johnson, 1992). Two additional studies are presented on the APS.
The first consists of three parts that examine the concurrent validity
of the APS and the factor structure of the subscales of the APS
relative to the subscales of two other scales developed to measure
perfectionism. The second study examines the factor structure of the
APS through the use of a confirmatory factor analysis. The results
are discussed and suggestions are made for future research that
would study the relationship between perfectionism and a variety
of career variables.

Perfectionism

Although the construct of perfectionism has been receiving increased

empirical attention in recent years, no articles were located that explored
the implications of perfectionism for career choice and career development.
That there are potentially important implications seems likely. For example,
it seems likely that being perfectionistic would be related to the type of career
chosen, performance while in that career, productivity, satisfaction,
adjustment to retirement, and a number of other variables central to the
study of career choice and development. Additional questions are not
difficult to generate. Given a perfectionistic client in career counseling,
there types of careers that need to be avoided or that should be
considered? Is there a relationship between perfectionism and career
indecision? Faced with the choice of hiring a person who is reputed to be
perfectionistic, should that choice be embraced or avoided? What if one
were selecting a supervisor, department head, colleague, or research
assistant? What if one were choosing a surgeon, plumber, dentist, electrician,
are

Published and

copyright @

1995

by Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

All

rights reserved.

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com by Laura Pop on October 30, 2014

280

or any number of persons who provide services that are of varying degrees
of importance to our well-being and/or survival?
The answers that are given to such questions often convey the ambivalence
that is so frequently embedded in reactions to the terms perfectionist or
perfectionism. Although a definite yes might be the predicted response for
the selection of an electrician, a surgeon, or a research assistant, there
would probably be far less certainty about the selection of a colleague,
department head, or supervisor. The answers inevitably involve explicit
or, more often, implicit definitions of perfection or perfectionism. Exploration
of the available literature indicates that there are currently no agreed
upon definitions of these terms in the professional literature. Clear
operational definitions of perfection or perfectionism are needed before
their implications for career issues can be explored empirically.
In the absence of clear definitions of perfection or perfectionism by the
profession, it seems understandable that standard dictionary definitions
appear to have been relied on. For example, perfectionism is defined as
&dquo;an extreme or excessive striving for perfection, as in ones work&dquo; (MerriamWebster, 1988, p. 873) or as &dquo;a disposition to regard anything short of

perfection as unacceptable&dquo; (Merriam-Webster, 1993, p. 863). Similarly,

perfection is defined as &dquo;an unsurpassable degree of accuracy or excellence&dquo;
(Merriam-Webster, 1993, p. 863). Although these definitions may raise
other questions, they clearly suggest that perfectionists have extremely
high, perhaps unattainable, personal standards for their performance.
In apparent agreement with the dictionary definitions, the early anecdotal
literature on perfectionism characteristically used adjectives like &dquo;excessive&dquo;
or &dquo;extreme&dquo; in describing the personal standards of perfectionists. For
example, Horney (1950) saw the perfectionist as possessing an arrogant
contempt for others and as neurotically using high standards as a basis for
looking down on others. Adler (1956) stated that &dquo;striving for perfection&dquo; is
innate and universal. However, Adler also noted that while normal individuals
set difficult but attainable goals that can be adjusted, neurotics set unrealistic
goals and require superiority in all things. More recently, Burns (1980) defined
perfectionists as &dquo;...those whose standards are high beyond reach or reason,
people who strain compulsively and unremittingly toward impossible goals and
who measure their worth entirely in terms of productivity and accomplishment&dquo;
(p. 34). Pacht (1984) suggested that his perception of perfectionism was similar
to Burns and he noted that &dquo;the insidious nature of perfectionism leads me to
use the label only when describing a kind of psychopathology&dquo; (p. 387).
Sorotzkin (1985) noted that &dquo;...most perfectionists are likely to experience
both neurotic and narcissistic elements of perfectionism&dquo; (p. 568). Halgin and
Leahy (1989) used &dquo;...the terms perfectionism and perfectionist to refer to
those individuals afflicted by an ego-dystonic and compulsive drive to achieve
unattainable goals&dquo; (p. 222). They noted that &dquo;...insatiable perfectionism,
however, has also emerged as a common component in the suicides of many
college students&dquo; (p. 222). Based on the level of distress attributed to
perfectionists, it seems likely that many would enter counseling for relief,
and, in fact, several authors have devised treatments specifically for
perfectionists (Barrow & Moore, 1983; Broday, 1988).

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com by Laura Pop on October 30, 2014

281

Certain

common

themes

can

be

seen

in the anecdotal literature

on

perfectionism. First, the definitions generally focus on the standards that

perfectionists set for themselves and emphasize the extreme, unattainable
nature of these standards. Second, the authors generally agree that these high
standards are typically accompanied by rather dire psychological implications.
Third, the authors appear to have based their writing on impressions that
were derived from clinical work. In essence, the anecdotal literature provided
answers to the question implied by the various definitions of perfectionism,
namely, what types of persons are perfectionists? To conclude that the
answers were not optimistic regarding the mental health of perfectionists
seems to understate the issue. Therefore, it is not surprising that when the
term perfectionism occurs in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1994), it is
related to the possession of &dquo;...overly strict standards&dquo; (p. 672).
It follows that attempts to develop scales to measure perfectionism have
also had a clear tendency to emphasize the negative or pathological aspects of
the construct. For example, Burns developed a scale designed to measure
perfectionism by modifying a portion of the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale
(Weissman & Beck, 1978), a scale that measures &dquo;...a number of self-defeating
attitudes commonly seen in persons who suffer from clinical depression and
anxiety&dquo; (Burns, 1980, p. 34). The research of Hewitt and Flett on perfectionism
makes it quite clear that they believed that all three of the dimensions of
perfectionism measured by their Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Hewitt
& Flett, 1991b) were essentially problematic (Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein, &
OBrien, 1991; Flett, Hewitt, & Dyck, 1989; Hewitt & Dyck, 1986; Hewitt & Flett,
1990, 1991a, 1991b, 1993, in press; Hewitt, Flett, & Blankstein, 1991; Hewitt,
Flett, & Endler, in press; Hewitt, Flett, & Turnbull-Donovan, 1992; Hewitt, Flett,
Turnbull-Donovan, & Mikail, 1991; Hewitt, Mittelstaedt, & Flett, 1990).
Similarly, Frost, Marten, Lahart, and Rosenblate (1990), in developing their
Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale, included items taken from Burns scale,
a second scale measuring eating disorders, and another measuring
obsessionality. In essence, all of the previous scales developed to measure
perfectionism viewed it as an essentially negative or problematic trait.
There have been, however, two important qualifications to the generally
negative view of perfectionism. Hamachek (1978), in an article entitled
&dquo;Psychodynamics of Normal and Neurotic Perfectionism,&dquo; stated that &dquo;within
normal limits, perfectionism is a specific personality characteristic that
can help one become a competent and able person&dquo; (p. 33). Frost et al.
(1990) noted that using high personal standards to define perfectionism was
problematic because &dquo;...it does not distinguish perfectionistic people from
those who are highly competent and successful. The setting of and striving
for high standards is certainly not in and of itself pathological&dquo; (p. 450). Both
Hamachek and Frost and his colleagues raise the possibility that there
may be positive, as well as negative, aspects of perfectionism and that the
positive aspects may be related to competence or success. This perspective
seems quite different from the perceptions conveyed in the anecdotal
literature and in previous attempts at measurement.
Because of the possibility that perfectionism might have both positive and
negative aspects, Slaney and his colleagues wanted to explore the construct

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com by Laura Pop on October 30, 2014

282

from as unbiased a perspective as possible. Slaney and Ashby (in press)

studied the interview responses of 37 participants who either identified
themselves as being perfectionists or were identified by others as
perfectionists. No definitions of perfectionism were provided. Instead, the
participants were asked for their definitions of perfectionism and responded
to a variety of related questions that the literature suggested were relevant
to the study of perfectionism.
The results of the qualitative study by Slaney and Ashby (in press)
suggested that (a) the participants defined perfectionism as the possession
of high personal standards, often accompanied by orderliness; (b) many of
the participants were distressed by their perfectionism; (c) they saw
themselves as procrastinating; and (d) some did have concerns about their
interpersonal relationships. Women expressed higher levels of distress and
had more concerns about their interpersonal relationships. Slaney and
Ashby also found that although the participants were distressed by their
perfectionism, they still evaluated being perfectionistic rather positively.
None who were asked agreed that they would be willing to give it up. There
was considerable variability in the amount of distress experienced and
some of the participants were quite positive about their perfectionism.
Throughout the study, the connections made by the participants between
perfectionism and their careers or career plans were clear.
Concurrent with the qualitative study, Slaney and a small research team
of graduate students at Penn State had begun to generate items with the
intent of developing a set of scales based on personality characteristics
that were identified as being related to perfectionism. They were also
particularly interested in variables that were related to counseling as a
perspective and as an activity. An attempt was made to develop items that
would be less negative than those found in Burns and the other scales. The
available literature on perfectionism was reviewed to determine the
constructs to include. This literature clearly suggested that having high
standards for personal performance was central to the construct (Adler,
1956; Burns, 1980; Frost et al., 1990; Hamachek, 1978; Hewitt & Flett,
1991b; Hollender, 1965; Horney, 1950; Pacht, 1984; Sorotzkin, 1985). Clients
with high personal standards are frequently seen in counseling.
Excessive orderliness, organization, neatness, and related concepts are
also frequently related to perfectionism (Broday, 1988; Burns, 1980; Frost
et al., 1990; Halgin & Leahy, 1989; Hollender, 1965; Pacht, 1984). These
attributions seem to be based on the frequently stated or implied relationship
between perfectionism and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder where
order and organization are integral criteria for the diagnosis.
A number of authors have suggested that perfectionism has important
implications for interpersonal relationships (Burns, 1980; Hewitt & Flett,
1991b; Horney, 1950; Frost et al., 1990; Pacht, 1984). Hewitt and Flett
(1991b) developed two of their three scales based on the importance of
interpersonal relationships. Burns specifically suggested that perfectionists
would have disturbances in their personal relationships. In addition, he
suggested they might have &dquo;a disclosure phobia,&dquo; based on &dquo;...their fear of
appearing foolish or inadequate&dquo; (p. 37). Relationship concerns are, of

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com by Laura Pop on October 30, 2014

283

course, very frequently brought to counseling. However, Burns assertions

imply that perfectionists may also have problems in the counseling
relationship where disclosure is most often a prerequisite to effective
interaction. Therefore, items designed to measure difficulties in interpersonal
relationships and difficulties that might be specifically related to selfdisclosure in counseling were included.
In order to study the normal-neurotic continuum suggested by Hamachek
(1978), items were included to measure anxiety based on the assumption
that anxiety is a defining or central construct of neurosis as it has been
traditionally perceived. Anxiety is, of course, frequently a central or peripheral
problem of clients in counseling. It has also been mentioned or studied in
relation to perfectionism by a number of writers (Burns, 1980; Flett et al.,
1989; Hamachek, 1978; Hewitt & Flett, 1991a, 1991b; Pacht, 1984).
Finally, procrastination has also been hypothesized as being a problem
frequently experienced by the perfectionist (Burns, 1980; Ferrari, 1992;
Flett, Hewitt, Blankstein, & Koledin, 1992; Frost et al., 1990; Hamachek,
1978; Pacht, 1984). The reasoning is, generally, that because perfectionists
want to produce the perfect painting, novel, or manuscript, they often delay
finishing because the product is not quite perfect. Such reasoning is clearly
behind the item used for diagnosing obsessive-compulsive personality
disorder, &dquo;perfectionism that interferes with task completion, e.g., inability
to complete a project because own overly strict standards are not met&dquo;
(APA, 1994; p. 356). Procrastination is also a problem that is very frequently
seen in university students who request counseling.
Although the literature was used as a guide, Slaney and Johnson also tried
to be inclusive in generating items in the early stages of scale development.
In developing what is called the APS, Johnson and Slaney (1994)
administered the items they had generated to a large sample of university
students. They then divided the sample randomly and subjected the
responses to two separate exploratory factor analyses. The first analysis

reduced the number of items from 62 to 38 items distributed over four

factors. The second analysis reduced the number of items from 38 to 32. The
two exploratory factor analyses both yielded four similar, interpretable
factors related to perfectionism. The factors, including sample items, were
as follows. The first factor combined having high standards (&dquo;I have high
standards for my performance at work or at school&dquo;), and being orderly (&dquo;I
am an orderly person&dquo;). A second factor seemed related to anxiety (&dquo;When
I think of things I have to do, I feel anxious&dquo;). A third factor addressed
relationships both in (&dquo;I find it hard to talk about my feelings&dquo;), and out of
counseling (&dquo;Relationships seem easier for other people&dquo;), and a fourth
factor was related to procrastination (&dquo;I tend to put things off for as long as
I can&dquo;). The factors accounted for about 86% of the common variance.
The relationship between the factor structure of the scale and the results
of the qualitative study seemed somewhat encouraging, especially the clear
emphasis on high personal standards. Although the six factors that were
expected based on the literature review did not emerge, the blending of the
items on relationships, in and outside of counseling, made intuitive sense.
Although the blending of the personal standards items with the items

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com by Laura Pop on October 30, 2014

284

to measure orderliness initially appeared to make less sense,

Frost et al. (1990) found a correlation of .43 between their personal standards
and organization scales. These scales also tended to behave similarly in a
number studies (Frost et al., 1990; Frost, Heimberg, Holt, Mattia, &

designed

Neubauer, 1993).
In a second part of their study, Johnson and Slaney (1994) studied 53 men
and 53 women participants who (a) had said &dquo;yes&dquo; when asked if they
thought of themselves as perfectionistic, (b) had said &dquo;yes&dquo; when asked if
&dquo;significant others (persons who know you well)&dquo; had said they were
perfectionistic, and (c) had rated themselves as a 6 or a 7 on a 7-point scale
asking them to &dquo;rate the degree to which you agree you are perfectionistic,&dquo;
(1 strongly disagree through 7 strongly agree). Another 53 men and 53
women who had responded &dquo;no&dquo; to the first two questions and had rated
themselves as a 1 or 2 on the 7-point rating scale were used as a comparison
group. Comparison of these groups used the four scales developed from the
factors as dependent variables. The results indicated that the first group,
the perfectionists, were higher on the standards and order scale than the
nonperfectionists, and they were more anxious. Contrary to expectations,
the results for the scales measuring relationships were not statistically
significant and the nonperfectionists had significantly higher scores on the
procrastination scale than the perfectionists had.
Johnson and Slaney (1994) also studied perfectionistic clients who were
involved in counseling. The rationale was that the anecdotal data had
generally been based on persons who were in treatment for their
perfectionism. The general hypothesis was that the perfectionists in treatment
for their perfectionism (problematic perfectionists) would more closely
resemble the clients described in the anecdotal literature. A logical
comparison group would be perfectionistic clients who were also in counseling,
but not because of their perfectionism (nonproblematic perfectionists). All
counselors (and the clients themselves) agreed that the clients were
perfectionistic. The anecdotal literature suggested that the problematic
perfectionists would have higher personal standards, be more orderly, be more
anxious, procrastinate more, and have more problems with interpersonal
relationships. Johnson and Slaney found that the two groups of clients did
not differ on the scale measuring high standards and order or on the scale
measuring interpersonal relationships. The problematic perfectionists were
higher on the scales measuring anxiety and procrastination. They were also
higher on the Trait form of the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI;
Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983), as well as on a scale
that seemed closely related to neurotic perfectionism. The two groups did not
differ on a scale that had been hypothesized to be measuring normal
perfectionism (Sandler & Hazari, 1960).
Overall, the above results seem to suggest that the anecdotal literature
has not been uniformly accurate in predicting the variables that were
positively related to perfectionism. High standards and, secondarily, a
sense of orderliness, have been consistently found to be related to
perfectionism. Whether these standards are necessarily excessive is unclear.
The third part of the Johnson and Slaney (1994) study does not appear to
=

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com by Laura Pop on October 30, 2014

285

support such

a contention. Anxiety,
the studies. For the scales

distress, was related to perfectionism

measuring relationships, the findings
were not generally supportive, and, for procrastination, the findings were
mixed, some being supportive and others contradictory. These initial results
appear to support the continued exploration of the APS as a measure of the
different aspects of perfectionism. This paper will present two additional
studies that explore the construct of perfectionism as measured by the APS.
across

or

Study 1
This study was designed to compare the APS with previous attempts at
measuring perfectionism and to include other variables that seemed
particularly relevant to the measurement of perfectionism. The measures
of perfectionism that were chosen included Burns (1980) Perfectionism
Scale, Hewitt and Fletts (1991b) Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale,
and Frost et al.s (1990) Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale.
Burns (1980), in developing his 10-point scale for measuring perfectionism,
modified a portion of the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale &dquo;...that measures a
number of self-defeating attitudes commonly seen in people who suffer
from clinical depression and anxiety&dquo; (p. 34). Clearly, this scales development
was guided by a pathological perspective. It had considerable influence on
the early research on perfectionism (Barrow & Moore, 1983; Broday, 1988;
Ferrari, 1992; Hewitt & Dyck, 1986; Hewitt & Flett, 1990, 1991b; Hewitt et
al., 1992; Hewitt, Mittelstaedt, & Wollert, 1989; Hewitt et al., 1990; Pirot,
1986). This influence extended to the development of two more recent and
sophisticated measures of perfectionism, both named the Multidimensional
Perfectionism Scale (Frost et al., 1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991b).
In developing their Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale, Frost et al.
(1990) reviewed the available literature and generated 65 items to measure
the features that they thought the literature emphasized as characteristics
of perfectionists. They included items taken from Burns scale, a second scale
measuring eating disorders, and another measuring obsessionality. They
administered their items to two samples of women (n 282 and n 178) and
factor analyzed the results. Six scales emerged from the 35 retained items,
and these generally reflected the dimensions the authors had found in
their review of the literature. The six subscales were labelled: Concern
over Mistakes (CM); Personal Standards (PS); Parental Expectations (PE);
Parental Criticism (PC); Doubts about Actions (D); and Organization (0).
Frost et al. thought that CM was the central element in perfectionism and
that 0 was weakly related to the other subscales and of marginal significance
=

to

perfectionism.

Hewitt and Flett (1991b) began developing their Multidimensional

Perfectionism Scale by stating that perfectionism contains personal
components, which they called Self-Oriented Perfectionism. The SelfOriented Perfectionist sets high personal standards and uses these standards
in evaluating his or her performance. Hewitt and Flett argued that
perfectionism also has important social aspects that they labelled OtherOriented Perfectionism and Socially Prescribed Perfectionism. The OtherOriented Perfectionist, according to Hewitt and Flett (1991b), &dquo;...is believed

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com by Laura Pop on October 30, 2014

286

to have unrealistic standards for

significant others, places importance

on

other people being perfect, and stringently evaluates others&dquo; (p. 457). In
contrast, Socially Prescribed Perfectionists believe that others &dquo;...have
unrealistic standards for them, evaluate them stringently, and exert pressure
on them to be perfect (p. 457). Hewitt and Flett developed three 15-item
scales to measure these three dimensions of perfectionism. Their assumption
that perfectionism is pathological or problematic was stated repeatedly
and is evident in their research focus on in-patient and out-patient
populations and their choice of dependent variables with a pathological
orientation (Flett et al., 1991, 1989; Hewitt & Dyck, 1986; Hewitt & Flett,
1990, 1991a, 1991b, 1993, in press; Hewitt, Flett, & Blankstein, 1991;
Hewitt et al., in press; Hewitt et al., 1992; Hewitt, Flett, Turnbull-Donovan,
& Mikail, 1991; Hewitt et al., 1990).
Because perfectionism has been frequently linked to depression,
theoretically and empirically, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck,
1978) was also included in this study. To examine the relationship between
anxiety and worry and their relationship to each other and to standards and
order, the Penn State Worry Scale (PSWS; Meyer, Miller, Metzger, &
Borkovec, 1990) was also included. To determine the degree to which the
scales of the APS may be affected by a set to respond in a socially desirable
manner, a measure of social desirability was included.
A second part of the study compared the factor structures of the three
measures of perfectionism. Frost et al. (1993) had compared their
Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (1990) with the Hewitt and Flett
(1991b) scale by the same name. In an attempt to reduce the nine subscales
to a small number of factors, they conducted a factor analysis of the nine
subscales from the two scales. Using a principal component factor solution
and a minimum eigenvalue of 1.0, three distinct factors were produced that
accounted for 67% of the variance. They then constrained the number of
factors to two because the third factor had an eigenvalue close to the
minimum value (1.05), and found two conceptually unambiguous factors. They
labelled the two factors &dquo;Maladaptive Evaluation Concerns&dquo; and &dquo;Positive
Striving.&dquo; Frosts CM, PC, PE, and D scales loaded on the &dquo;maladaptive
evaluation concerns&dquo; factor along with Hewitt and Fletts Socially Prescribed
Perfectionism scale. Frosts PS and 0 scales and Hewitt and Fletts SelfOriented Perfectionism and Other-Oriented Perfectionism scales loaded on
the &dquo;positive striving&dquo; factor. Frost et al. then constructed two scales to
measure Maladaptive Evaluation Concerns and Positive Striving using unit
weightings of subscales loading higher than 0.5 on the respective factors. The
Maladaptive Evaluation Concerns scale correlated .31 with the BDI and
.29 with a measure of negative affect. The Positive Striving scale was
positively correlated with a measure of positive affect, but not with the BDI
or the measure of negative affect. Frost et al. suggest that maladaptive
evaluation concerns are related to symptoms of psychopathology and positive
striving is related to more healthy characteristics. They also suggest that
these factors are reminiscent of Hamacheks (1978) distinction between
normal and neurotic perfectionism. The present study sought to replicate and
extend the Frost et al. study by including the subscales of the APS along with
the subscales of the two Multidimensional Perfectionism Scales.

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com by Laura Pop on October 30, 2014

287

Method

Participants
The participants were 167 undergraduates, 124 women and 43 men, from
upper-division education courses at a large state university in the Northeast.
Class credit was given for participation. The mean age of the students was
25.63 years, and ranged from 19 to 62. Data on race and ethnicity were not
gathered, but the sample was predominantly made up of White Americans.
Students were given packets of instruments to fill out and return. Based on
the small number of men in the sample, the data were combined for the
correlation analyses.
Procedure
For the second part of the study, the scores of the subscales of the two
Multidimensional Perfectionism Scales, along with the subscales from the
APS, were submitted to a factor analysis with orthogonal rotation.

Instruments
Burns

Perfectionism

Scale

(Burns, 1980)

This scale is a 10-item measure of attitudes adapted from the

Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale and is primarily related to excessively high
personal standards and concerns about performance. It is responded to on
5-point Likert scales. It has been widely used, and there are data to support
its reliability and validity (Hewitt et al., 1989).
Multidimensional

Perfectionism

Scale

(Frost

et

al., 1990)

This scale consists of 35 items that are responded to on a 5-point Likert

scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Frost et al. (1993)
defined perfectionism as &dquo;the setting of excessively high standards for
performance accompanied by overly critical self-evaluations&dquo; (p. 119). The
Frost et al. scale has five dimensions that relate to total perfectionism.
The first and, to Frost, the most important dimension is concern over
making mistakes. The second is the setting of high personal standards.
The third and fourth dimensions concern perceived parental expectations
and parental criticism, and the fifth is the tendency to doubt the quality of
ones performance. An additional dimension measures the tendency to be
organized and orderly. Frost and his colleagues have provided reliability and
validity data in support of the these dimensions (Frost et al., 1991, 1993).
Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Hewitt & Flett, 1991b)
This scale consists of three subscales of 15 items each. The items are
responded to on Likert scales ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly
disagree). The Self-Oriented subscale is seen as involving high self-standards
and excessive motivation to attain Perfectionism (e.g., &dquo;One of my goals is
to be perfect in everything I do&dquo;). Other-Oriented Perfectionism is conceived
of as involving unrealistic expectations for significant others (e.g., &dquo;If I ask
someone to do something, I expect it to be done flawlessly&dquo;), and SociallyPrescribed Perfectionism involves believing that others are imposing their

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com by Laura Pop on October 30, 2014

288

on the self (e.g., &dquo;Anything I do that is less than

excellent will be seen as poor work by those around me&dquo;). Hewitt and Flett
(1991b) and Hewitt, Flett, Turnbull-Donovan, and Mikail (1991) have
provided supportive data on the reliability and validity of this scale.

perfectionistic standards

BDI

21-item scale responded to with 4-point ratings. The scale

the severity of depressive symptomatology. Higher
designed
scores indicate greater degrees of depression. Internal consistency, testretest, and validity data provide support for this instrument (Beck, Steer,
& Garbin, 1988).

The BDI is

is

to

measure

PSWS

The PSWS is a 16-item scale responded to on a 5-point scale that ranged

from not at all typical of me to very typical of me. Meyer et al. (1990) present
a series of studies that provide support for the PSWS as a reliable self-report
instrument for assessing worry.

Desirability Scale (MCSDS; Crowne & Marlowe, 1960)

The MCSDS is a 33-item measure of socially desirable responding. The
items are responded to as true or false. The scale has been widely used as
a measure of social desirability and is generally highly regarded for this
purpose.
Marlowe-Crowne Social

Results and Discussion

The correlations between the APS subscales and the other measures of
perfectionism are presented in Table 1. The APSs standards and order
scale was substantially correlated with Hewitt and Fletts self-oriented
scale and moderately correlated with the other-oriented scale. The correlation
with the socially prescribed scale was not statistically significant. Relative
to the Frost et al. subscales, the highest correlations for the standards and
order scale were with the personal standards and organization scales, as was
expected. The correlations with the Burns scale and the PSWS were modest,
and the correlations with the BDI and social desirability were not
statistically significant. Overall, these relationships seem reasonable.
The correlations of the relationship scale with the Hewitt and Flett
scales were all statistically significant but moderate. That the correlations
were the same for the self-oriented and socially prescribed scales is
surprising given the apparent pathological nature of the socially prescribed
scale usually found by Hewitt and Flett. The correlations of the APS
relationship scale with the Frost scales were generally modest-to-low with
the exception of organization. The zero correlation with Frost et al.s
organization scale is of particular interest suggesting that organization is
not related to problems in relationships.
The relationships found between the APS anxiety scale and the Hewitt
and Flett scales were modest but positive. The correlations of anxiety with
the Frost et al. scales of CM and D, make intuitive sense, as do the
correlations with the BDI and the PSWS.

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com by Laura Pop on October 30, 2014

289

t!
cd

GU

x
m

©
CCS
cu

Q
~c

U
O

M
V

ej
2

I
O

C
ilI
03

Q
K!

%G
., U

~02

4fez
- S ~ >~

~ N
<
0

~ vJ

~,
Pi

Q
~ cc

1) &

m~
H

f~

U
--cc
&dquo;5 S

UU U~
.~
cS u

l8l

N
-~~ .
.

C~

~.2

02 2

<Hl

~~ ~

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com by Laura Pop on October 30, 2014

290

There were modest correlations of procrastination with CM, D, and the

BDI. The pattern of correlations seems reasonable, but offers limited support
for the construct
Overall, the pattern of relationships found seems sensible and provides
limited, but positive, support for the concurrent validity of the APS. The
results also seem to support the possibility that the standards and order scale
is at least partially measuring positive dimensions, an issue that is
approached more directly in the factor analyses of the subscales.
For the factor analyses of the subscales of the three measures of
perfectionism, a minimum eigenvalue of 1.0 was used, and three factors were
extracted that accounted for 64.2% of the variance. As with the Frost et al.
study, the third eigenvalue exceeded the criterion, but a two-factor solution
provided a clearer and less ambiguous solution. It also had the advantage
of being more directly comparable to Frost et al.s (1993) solution. The
factor loadings are presented in Table 2. As expected, the subscales of the
two Multidimensional Perfectionism Scales divided into what can be referred
to as adaptive and maladaptive dimensions in a manner that replicated the
results of Frost et al. (1993). In fact, even the factor loadings of the Hewitt
and Flett scales were extremely similar to those found by Frost et al. The

Factor

Note. APS

Loadings

Table 2
for the APS, the MPS-Hewitt and
MPS-Frost et al. Subscales

Almost Perfect

Scale; MPS

Flett, and the

Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale.

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com by Laura Pop on October 30, 2014

291

standards and order scale of the APS had the highest factor loading of .89
the adaptive dimension and a negligible loading on the maladaptive
dimension. The other three scales measuring relationships, anxiety, and
procrastination all loaded primarily on the maladaptive dimension as was
expected. However, the loading of the anxiety scale on the adaptive
dimension is interesting and mirrors the modest, but positive, correlations
found between standards and order and anxiety. These data do seem to be
consistent with Hamacheks and Frosts suggestion that there may be
positive aspects of perfectionism and Frosts earlier suggestion that high
personal standards, per se, might not be a particular problem, but that
maladaptive psychological factors associated with perfectionism may be
on

more

explanatory.

These results also suggest that the APSs &dquo;maladaptive&dquo; subscales, though
oriented toward concerns that might occur in counseling, fit well with the
the data generated by the subscales of the other two perfectionism scales.
They also appear to fit Hamacheks model of a normal-neurotic continuum.
That the standards and order scale of the APS had the highest factor
loading on the adaptive scale is at least consistent with the attempt, in
developing the APS, to make those two aspects of the scale positive. On the
other hand, even though the Self-Oriented Perfectionism scale, in particular,
was constructed with the expectation that this was a negative dimension,
the data were not generally consistent with that expectation.
These results also raise the possibility of exploring a number of additional
issues. For example, the present results seem to indicate that high personal
standards are adaptive, whereas the anecdotal literature was clear in
suggesting that, at extreme levels, high personal standards were problematic.
Future studies might also fruitfully explore various combinations of high
scores on the &dquo;adaptive&dquo; scales with persons who have either low or high
scores on different combinations of the other maladaptive subscales. Finally,
the loading of anxiety on the adaptive dimension raises the speculative
possibility that a certain level of anxiety may be facilitative.
2
The results of the initial studies on the APS seem promising. The fourfactor structure that emerged from the exploratory factor analyses did
seem to provide meaningful and interpretable factors. Based on the limited
and primarily anecdotal literature, it seemed appropriate to initially
examine how the variables were related through an exploratory approach.
However, that initial factor structure did differ from the theoretical six
factors that had been used as a basis for generating items. In retrospect,
there does seem to be a question of whether the variables of high personal
standards and orderliness are appropriately collapsed into a single factor.
The qualitative study by Slaney and Ashby (in press) seemed to suggest that
the few persons who placed primary emphasis on orderliness with little
mention of high standards were different from those who emphasized
personal standards or both. Having high personal standards for performance
and being orderly and neat may be related, though that does not always
appear to be the case. In any event, these variables do seem discriminable.

Study

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com by Laura Pop on October 30, 2014

292

Frost et al. (1990) developed separate scales to measure personal standards

and organization, though they were also correlated. In addition, the
relationship scales measuring interpersonal relationship difficulties and the
items measuring potential problems specific to a counseling relationship also
seemed potentially discriminable. For these reasons, it seems appropriate
to question whether the four-factor solution that was based on the
exploratory factor analyses or a six-factor solution that was hypothesized
based on the literature review would fit the data better.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is designed to test explicit hypotheses
about the goodness-of-fit of specific hypothesized models. The factors are not
rotated, and solutions are based on the various models that are proposed.
The procedure allows a researcher to compare alternative models in terms
of goodness-of-fit. In the present instance, the four factors that emerged from
the exploratory factor analyses conducted by Johnson and Slaney (1994) will
be contrasted with the constructs that were hypothesized based on the
review of the perfectionism literature and the related attempts to represent
those constructs with scales.

Method

Participants
The participants were 363 women and 205 men who completed the APS
and provided some additional data. Their ages ranged from 18 to 36, and the
mean age was 19.32 years. The sample was predominantly made up of
White Americans. About 3% were African American, about 4% were Asian
American, and about 1% were Hispanics. All received class credit for
participation and were from introductory psychology classes at Penn State.

Analysis
To examine the four- and six-factor models, as well as the null model,
covariance matrices based on the APS models were used as input to the
LISREL 7 program (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1988), using the maximum
likelihood estimation procedure. Items were constrained to load on only
one factor based on either the four-factor exploratory solution of Johnson and
Slaney (1994) or the theoretical six-factor model based on the review of
the literature. A null model was also included.
Because there is currently no clearly preferable single way of assessing
the fit of any model, Joreskog and Sorbom (1988) and Tracey, Glidden, and
Kokotovic (1988) have recommended the use of multiple measures of fit to
provide a more complete evaluation. The maximum likelihood chi-square
goodness-of-fit statistic is the most common assessment of fit. However,
as Tracey et al. (1988) noted, this statistic is sensitive to sample size (large
samples yield significant results), model complexity (complex models also
yield significant results despite the quality of fit), and deviations from
normality in the data. Tracey et al. indicated that Joreskog and Sorbom
recommend using the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), which is roughly equivalent
to R2 in multiple regression. According to Tracey et al., &dquo;the GFI is
independent of sample size and robust to departures from normality;

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com by Laura Pop on October 30, 2014

293

however the distributional properties of this statistic are unknown&dquo;

(p. 331). Tracey et al. suggested that GFI is best used to gain an assessment
of the fit of some models relative to others. Thus, GFI appears to be
particularly relevant to the present study. Tracey et al. also favored the use
of the ratio of chi-square to degrees of freedom as a measure of fit. They
stated that 5.0 has been used as a cutoff, although 2.0 is seen as more
conservative. Bentler and Bonetts (1980) delta is another index similar to
GFI. It varies from 0 to 1, and evaluates the normed index of fit relative to
the null model. Although there are no known distributional properties,
Bentler and Bonett recommend .90 as an indicator of acceptable fit. Rootmean-square (RMR) or average residual variance has also been used to
measure goodness-of-fit. Clear criteria do not exist, but the lower the value,
the better the fit. Finally, Tracey et al. also recommended inspecting the
modification indexes and the normalized residual matrix. Modification
indexes below 5.0 are not seen as adding to the model. Matrix values below
2.0 generally represent an adequate fit.

Results
The goodness-of-fit indexes are presented in Table 3. These indexes,
overall, indicate that the six-factor solution was found to be the best fit to
the data. The order of fit, from the worst to the best, was the null model, the
four-factor model, and the six-factor model. The six-factor model has a
slightly higher GFI and adjusted GFI. All of the chi-squares were statistically
significant, as was expected with a sample of this size. The chi-square to df
ratio was slightly lower for the six-factor model, although both met the
more stringent criterion of 2.0. The null model exceeded the less stringent
criterion of 5.0. RMR was the same for both the four-factor and the six-factor
models and, for both, was quite low. The values for delta did not meet the
.90 suggested criterion, but the .77 for the six-factor model was slightly
higher than the .74 for the four-factor model. The chi-square difference
between the four-factor and the six-factor models was statistically significant,
x2(9) 67.12, p < .001, favoring the six-factor model. For both the sixfactor and the four-factor models, the majority of terms of the modification
indexes were below the recommended level of 5.0. Some items had higher
values because they were constrained to load on only one factor. The majority
=

Table 3
Goodness-of-Fit Indicators for the Six-Factor, Four-Factor, and
Null Models for the Almost Perfect Scale

Note. N

519. GFI

goodness-of-fit index;

RMR

Root-mean-square

residual.

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com by Laura Pop on October 30, 2014

294

of terms in the standardized residual matrix for both models were also
below the recommended threshold of 2 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1988), although
a few exceeded this. Both solutions were superior to the null model on all
of the criteria except the p level. The correlations between the six factors
are presented in Table 4.
Discussion
The results of the CFA indicated that the six-factor solution was preferable
to the four-factor solution that was based on the exploratory factor analyses
by Johnson and Slaney (1994). The size of the correlations between the
high standards and order scales and between the two scales measuring
relationships in and out of counseling suggests that the superiority of the
six-factor model over the four-factor model may be somewhat short of
compelling. It does, however, provide the opportunity to use separate scales
to explore possible differences between persons who have both high
standards and high orderliness and those who may particularly emphasize
orderliness. It is also possible that differences may be found between
persons who have close interpersonal relationships, but would not consider
seeing a counselor or vice versa. While the CFA procedures favored the
six-factor model, a certain degree of caution seems appropriate. Both
confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses have aspects connected to
them that call for judgments and that currently lack precision (e.g., see
Tinsley & Tinsley, 1987; Tracey et al., 1988).
It is clear from the results of the studies presented that the questions
asked in the introduction need to be qualified based on the complexities that
have been encountered in developing a measure that represents an
operational definition of perfectionism. Perhaps the first question is whether
the data presented represent an adequate measure of perfectionism. Do
the scales of the APS capture the essential elements of the construct? A
related question that requires very careful thought is whether some aspects
of perfectionism are essential and defining, whereas others may be related
but more as consequents or concomitants of perfectionism and less as
defining aspects of the construct. Do the scales of the APS represent a
preferable alternative to other measures that are available? At present, that
Table 4
Intercorrelations of the Subscales of the Almost Perfect Scale

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com by Laura Pop on October 30, 2014

295

question remains to be answered, but the thoughtful researcher might

consider the scales that are available as measures of perfectionism relative
to the specific questions that are being addressed. In any event, it seems
quite clear that the questions raised in the introduction need to be restated
based on the results of the current studies and others. The following
questions are simply suggestions for possible consideration that would
serve as a beginning in the investigation of perfectionism relative to career
development and career choice. The reader will be able to add to the list
without difficulty.
1. Of the six factors that are seen as composing perfectionism in the
APS, which, if any, are related to career maturity, career
indecision, or career indecisiveness? Which are related to a
positive orientation toward career choice or performance?
2. Are there substantive relationships between the Holland types
and constructs like congruence and the factors composing
.

perfectionism?
3. Are any of the components of perfectionism significantly related
to evaluations of success (or a lack thereof) in any of a number of
process or outcome measures related to work?
4. Particular hypotheses might question how having high scores on
the personal standards and order scales may interact with the
other scale scores in predicting success, productivity, or
satisfaction in college or a career.
on some of the scales suggest possible difficulties in
with
others
or that some career choices should be
working
avoided? Would a person with high scores on the relationship
scales be well-advised to avoid careers related to counseling or
sales or careers that call for close interpersonal relationships?
6. Do persons with high standards work well individually, but have
difficulty working in groups or as supervisors? Do they have
relationship difficulties based on being critical of others?
7. Does a certain level of anxiety have a facilitative function in
terms of productivity? How does anxiety relate to the other
subscales in predicting performance?
8. Do women or men experience more distress over their
perfectionism? If so, is this related to particular concerns about
or problems with interpersonal relationships or to any other
aspects of their perfectionism?
9. Do persons with low standards (or high standards) and high
anxiety have a particular tendency to procrastinate?
10. Are high standards related to career self-efficacy? If so, are these
relationships similar or different for women and men? How do
the anxiety and procrastination scales relate to self-efficacy?
11. Can particular patterns of scores on perfectionism variables
predict success or failure in career counseling or in career
development? Are they related to successful adaptation to

5. Do elevations

change or to retirement?

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com by Laura Pop on October 30, 2014

296

These questions are only a few examples of the types of questions that can
be asked in examining the possible relationships between the various
aspects of perfectionism and a wide variety of career-relevant dimensions.
Hopefully, additional studies using the APS or some combination of the
other measures of perfectionism will be able to indicate which aspects of
perfectionism, if any, have particular relevance for assessing variables that
are relevant to career choice and development.

References
Adler, A. (1956). The neurotic disposition. In H. L. Ansbacher & R. R. Ansbacher (Eds.),
The individual psychology of Alfred Adler (pp. 239-262). New York: Harper.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Barrow, J. C., & Moore, C. A. (1983). Group interventions with perfectionistic thinking. The
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 61, 612-615.
Beck, A. T. (1978). Beck Depression Inventory. Philadelphia: Center for Cognitive Therapy.

Beck, A. T., Steer, R A., & Garbin, M. G. (1988). Psychometric properties of the Beck
Depression Inventory: Twenty-five years of evaluation. Clinical Psychology Review, 8, 77-100.
Bentler, P., & Bonett, D. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures.

Psychological Bulletin, 88,

588-606.

Broday, S. F. (1988). Perfectionism and the Millon Basic Personality Patterns. Psychological
Reports, 63, 791-794.
Burns, D. D. (1980, November). The perfectionists script for self-defeat. Psychology Today, 34-52.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of
psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.
Ferrari, J. R. (1992). Procrastinators and perfect behavior: An exploratory factor analysis
of self-presentation, self-awareness, and self-handicapping components. Journal of Research
in Personality, 26, 75-84.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Blankstein, K., & Koledin, S. (1992). Components of perfectionism
and procrastination in college students. Social Behavior and Personality, 20, 85-94.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Blankstein, K., & OBrien, S. (1991). Perfectionism and learned
resourcefulness in depression and self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 61-68.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., & Dyck, D. G. (1989). Self-oriented perfectionism, neuroticism,
and anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 731-735.
Frost, R. O., Heimberg, R. G., Holt, C. S., Mattia, J. I., & Neubauer, A. L. (1993). A comparison
of two measures of perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 119-126.
Frost, R. O., Marten, P. A., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of
perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449-468.
Halgin, R. P., & Leahy, P. M. (1989). Understanding and treating perfectionistic college
students. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 222-225.
Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism. Psychology,
15, 27-33.

Hewitt, P. L., & Dyck, D. G. (1986). Perfectionism, stress, and vulnerability to depression.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 10, 137-142.
Hewitt, P. L, & Flett, G. L. (1990). Perfectionism and depression: A multidimensional
analysis. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 423-438.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991a). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts:
Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 60, 456-470.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991b). Dimensions of perfectionism in unipolar depression.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 98-101.

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com by Laura Pop on October 30, 2014

297

Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1993). Dimensions of perfectionism, daily stress, and depression:
A test of the specific vulnerability hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 58-65.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (in press). Perfectionism and goal orientation in impulsive and
suicidal behavior. In B. McCown, I. Shure, & J. Johnson (Eds.), The impulsive client.
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Blankstein, K. R. (1991). Perfectionism and neuroticism in
psychiatric patients and college students. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 273-279.
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Endler, N. S. (in press). Perfectionism, coping, and depression
symptomatology in a clinical sample. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy.

Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Turnbull-Donovan, W. (1992). Perfectionism and Multiphasic
Personality Inventory Indices (MMPI) of personality disorder. Journal of Psychopathology and
Behavioral Assessment, 14, 323-335.
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., Turnbull-Donovan, W., & Mikail, S. F. (1991). The
multidimensional perfectionism scale: Reliability, validity, and psychometric properties in
psychiatric samples. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 3,

464-468.

Hewitt, P. L., Mittelstaedt, W., & Flett, G. L. (1990). Self-oriented perfectionism and
generalized performance importance in depression. Individual Psychology, 46, 67-73.
Hewitt, P. L., Mittelstaedt, W., & Wollert, R. (1989). Validation of a measure of
perfectionism. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 133-144.
Hollender, M. H. (1965). Perfectionism. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 6, 94-103.
Hollender, M. H. (1978). Perfectionism: A neglected personality trait. Journal of Clinical
Psychiatry, 39, 384-394.
Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and human growth. New York: Norton.
Johnson, D. P., & Slaney, R. B. (1994). Perfectionism: Construct measurement and a study
of perfectionists in counseling. Unpublished manuscript. (Available from second author.)
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1988). LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications.

Chicago: SPSS.
Merriam-Webster. (1988). Websters ninth new collegiate dictionary. Springfield, MA: G.
C. Merriam.
Merriam-Webster. (1993). Merriam-Websters collegiate dictionary, tenth edition. Springfield,
MA: G. & C. Merriam.
Meyer, T. J., Miller, R. L., Metzger, R. L., & Borkovec, T. D. (1990). Development and
validation of the Penn State Worry questionnaire. Behavior Research and Therapy, 28,
487-495.
Pacht, A. R. (1984). Reflections on perfection. American Psychologist, 39, 386-390.
&

Pirot, M. (1986). Dependency conflicts in high-achieving women: Toward an integration.

Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 19, 82-87.
Sandler, J., & Hazari, A. (1960). The obsessional: On the psychological classification of obsessional
character traits and symptoms. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 33, 113-122.
Slaney, R. B., & Ashby, J. A. (in press). Perfectionists: Study of a criterion group. Journal
of Counseling and Development.
Slaney, R. B., & Johnson, D. G. (1992). The Almost Perfect Scale. Unpublished manuscript,
The Pennsylvania State University. (Available from the first author.)
Sorotzkin, B. (1985). The quest for perfection: Avoiding guilt or avoiding shame?
Psychotherapy, 22, 564-571.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R., Lushene, P. R., Vagg, & Jacobs, G. S. (1983). Manual for
the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y). Palo Alto, CA. Consulting Psychologists.
Tinsley, H. E. A., & Tinsley, D. J. (1987). Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology,
research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 414-424.
Tracey, T. J., Glidden, C. E., & Kokotovic, A. M. (1988). Factor structure of the Counselor
Rating Form-Short. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35, 330-335.
Weissman, A. N., & Beck, A. T. (1978). Development and validation of the Dysfunctional
Attitudes Scale. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Advancement
of Behavior Therapy, Chicago.

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com by Laura Pop on October 30, 2014