A Self-Report Measure of Perfectionism: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Swedish Version of the Clinical Perfectionism Questionnaire

Authors

  • Allison Parks
    Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
  • Jakob Clason van de Leur
    PBM, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
  • Marcus Strååt
    PRIMA Barn och Vuxenpsykiatri AB, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
  • Fredrik Elfving
    Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
  • Gerhard Andersson
    Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
  • Per Carlbring
    Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
  • Roz Shafran
    Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
  • Alexander Rozental Orcid
    Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom

Abstract

Background: Perfectionism is often defined as the strive for achievement and high standards, but can also lead to negative consequences. In addition to affecting performance and interpersonal relationships, perfectionism can result in mental distress. A number of different self-report measures have been put forward to assess perfectionism. Specifically intended for clinical practice and research, the Clinical Perfectionism Questionnaire (CPQ) was developed and is presently available in English and Persian. To promote its use in additional contexts, the current study has translated and investigated the psychometric properties of the Swedish version of the CPQ.
Method: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis was performed to examine the best fit with data, using a priori-models and a sample of treatment-seeking participants screened for eligibility to receive Internet-based cognitive behavior therapy (n = 223).
Results: The results indicated a lack of fit with data. A two-factor structure without the two reversed items (2 and 8) exhibited the best fit, perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns, but still had poor structural validity. Correlations with self-report measures of perfectionism, depression, anxiety, dysfunctional beliefs, self-criticism, quality of life, and self-compassion were all in the expected directions. Eight-week test-retest correlation was Pearson r = .62, 95% Confidence Interval [.45, .74], using data from 72 participants in the wait-list control, and the internal consistency for the CPQ, once removing the reversely scored items, was Cronbach’s α = .72.
Conclusion: The CPQ can be used as a self-report measure in Swedish, but further research on its structural validity is needed.