Cited by 90Perfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety StudiesEating Disorders and BehaviorsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The Reliability and Validity of the Clinical Perfectionism Questionnaire in Eating Disorder and Community Samples

Open access
Egan, Sarah J., Shafran, Roz, Lee, Michelle, Fairburn, Christopher G., Cooper, Zafra, Doll, Helen A., Palmer, Robert L., Watson, Hunna J.·2016·Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy

Abstract

Background:Clinical perfectionism is a risk and maintaining factor for anxiety disorders, depression and eating disorders.Aims:The aim was to examine the psychometric properties of the 12-item Clinical Perfectionism Questionnaire (CPQ).Method:The research involved two samples. Study 1 comprised a nonclinical sample (n= 206) recruited via the internet. Study 2 comprised individuals in treatment for an eating disorder (n= 129) and a community sample (n= 80).Results:Study 1 factor analysis results indicated a two-factor structure. The CPQ had strong correlations with measures of perfectionism and psychopathology, acceptable internal consistency, and discriminative and incremental validity. The results of Study 2 suggested the same two-factor structure, acceptable internal consistency, and construct validity, with the CPQ discriminating between the eating disorder and control groups. Readability was assessed as a US grade 4 reading level (student age range 9–10 years).Conclusions:The findings provide evidence for the reliability and validity of the CPQ in a clinical eating disorder and two separate community samples. Although further research is required the CPQ has promising evidence as a reliable and valid measure of clinical perfectionism.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1352465814000629

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Egan, S. J., Shafran, R., Lee, M., Fairburn, C. G., Cooper, Z., Doll, H. A., Palmer, R. L., & Watson, H. J.
Affiliations
  • Curtin University (AU)
  • University College London (GB)
  • University of Reading (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of Leicester (GB)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Egan, Sarah J.
Venue
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy
Published
2015-03-03
Volume
44
Issue
1
Pages
79-91
ISSN
  • 1352-4658 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-1833
OpenAlex
W2095770305
Cited by
90
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
10.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
Wellcome Trust (046386, 079113, 063209, 079113/Z/06/Z, 094585)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Perfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
clinical perfectionism, eating disorders, psychometric properties, factor structure, construct validity, incremental validity, discriminant validity, internal consistency, readability, community sample, non-clinical sample
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Feeding and Eating Disorders, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review