Development and Validation of the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale–Brief
Abstract
Twenty-five years ago, one of the first empirically validated measures of perfectionism, the Frost et al. Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (F-MPS) was published. Since that time, psychometric studies of the original F-MPS have provided a plethora of evidence to support the potential development of a shorter yet still psychometrically robust version of the measure. Using confirmatory factor analyses across community and clinical samples, the current study identifies an eight-item F-MPS-Brief with two dimensions (i.e., striving and evaluative concerns) that evidences good internal consistency, measurement equivalence across ethnicities, and concurrent and convergent validity. This new, short version of the F-MPS captures well the bidimensional model of perfectionism that has emerged across studies over the past two decades and is suggested for use when a short yet high-performing assessment tool for this model is desired.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Burgess and colleagues argue that the parental subscales may contribute to the development of perfectionism rather than the nature or central components of perfectionism.
“Burgess and colleagues (2016) argue that the parental subscales may contribute to the development of perfectionism rather than the nature or central components of perfectionism, leading researchers to focus more on Concern over Mistakes and Doubts about Action as part of the Evaluative Concerns dimension.”
From Maladaptive Perfectionism, Disguised Distress, and Help Seeking in the Culture of 'Saving Face': Links to Anxiety and Depressive Symptoms among Asian Youth (2019) · cites this paper as Burgess et al., 2016
Burgess and colleagues (2016) suggested that parental subscales may contribute to the development of perfectionism rather than the nature or central components of perfectionism, pointing researchers to focus more on Concern over Mistakes and Doubts about Action as part of the Evaluative Concerns dimension.
“This led Burgess and colleagues (2016) to suggest that the parental subscales may contribute to the development of perfectionism rather than the nature or central components of perfectionism, pointing researchers to focus more on Concern over Mistakes and Doubts about Action as part of the Evaluative Concerns dimension.”
From Maladaptive Perfectionism, Disguised Distress, and Help Seeking in the Culture of 'Saving Face': Links to Anxiety and Depressive Symptoms among Asian Youth (2019) · cites this paper as Burgess et al., 2016
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 53 · Cited by 116
- Authors
- Burgess, A. M., Frost, R. O., & DiBartolo, P. M.
- Affiliations
- Smith College (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-08-03
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 620-633
- ISSN
- 0734-2829 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-5144
- OpenAlex
- W2405171232
- Cited by
- 116
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 7.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment (publishedVersion)
- Smith ScholarWorks (Smith College) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Perfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Keywords
- perfectionism, Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale, striving, evaluative concerns, scale shortening, measurement invariance, ethnic differences, psychometric validation
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
