Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evaluation of the Factor Structure and Psychometric Properties of the German Version of the Clinical Perfectionism Questionnaire: The CPQ-D

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The aim was to create a German version of the Clinical Perfectionism Questionnaire (CPQ-D) and to test its factor structure, reliability, and validity in a non-clinical population.

          Method

          We recruited N = 432 participants via an online panel. The factor structure of CPQ-D was examined. The convergent, discriminative, and incremental validity was assessed in relation to the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS) and the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS).

          Results

          Exploratory factor analysis resulted in two factors. Factor 1 represented the over evaluation of striving and Factor 2 was associated to concern over mistakes. Internal consistency was acceptable with ω = .81 for the total score, ω = .77 for Factor 1, and ω = .73 for Factor 2. Convergent, discriminative, and incremental validity was demonstrated. Important to note, Item 12 should be used with caution since it showed low communality and a low item-total correlation and should therefore be further evaluated in future research.

          Conclusion

          The results indicate that the German translated version of the CPQ has acceptable internal consistency, convergent, discriminative and incremental validity. Future research should test the CPQ-D scale further in clinical and non-clinical populations and assess a broader variety of scales to determine validity of the scale.

          Highlights

          • A German translation of the CPQ was tested and validated in a large community sample.

          • The factor structure equals the English version, revealing two factors of clinical perfectionism.

          • The CPQ-D proved to be a reliable and valid measure in a non-clinical sample.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.

          In recent studies of the structure of affect, positive and negative affect have consistently emerged as two dominant and relatively independent dimensions. A number of mood scales have been created to measure these factors; however, many existing measures are inadequate, showing low reliability or poor convergent or discriminant validity. To fill the need for reliable and valid Positive Affect and Negative Affect scales that are also brief and easy to administer, we developed two 10-item mood scales that comprise the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). The scales are shown to be highly internally consistent, largely uncorrelated, and stable at appropriate levels over a 2-month time period. Normative data and factorial and external evidence of convergent and discriminant validity for the scales are also presented.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            From alpha to omega: a practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation.

            Coefficient alpha is the most popular measure of reliability (and certainly of internal consistency reliability) reported in psychological research. This is noteworthy given the numerous deficiencies of coefficient alpha documented in the psychometric literature. This mismatch between theory and practice appears to arise partly because users of psychological scales are unfamiliar with the psychometric literature on coefficient alpha and partly because alternatives to alpha are not widely known. We present a brief review of the psychometric literature on coefficient alpha, followed by a practical alternative in the form of coefficient omega. To facilitate the shift from alpha to omega, we also present a brief guide to the calculation of point and interval estimates of omega using a free, open source software environment. © 2013 The British Psychological Society.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              The dimensions of perfectionism

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Clin Psychol Eur
                Clin Psychol Eur
                CPE
                Clinical Psychology in Europe
                PsychOpen
                2625-3410
                June 2021
                18 June 2021
                : 3
                : 2
                : e3623
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Psychology, LMU Munich, Munich, , Germany
                [b ]School of Psychology and Speech Pathology, Curtin University , Perth, , Australia
                [3]Philipps-University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany
                Author notes
                Barbara Cludius, Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, LMU Munich, Leopoldstr. 13, 80802, Munich, Germany. +49 (0)89 2180 5590. barbara.cludius@ 123456psy.lmu.de
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4814-1497
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3715-4009
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4061-8679
                Article
                cpe.3623
                10.32872/cpe.3623
                9667132
                36397955
                deddda07-9338-4a41-a5ae-5330f1542cf2
                Copyright @ 2021

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 27 April 2020
                : 30 March 2021
                Funding
                The authors have no funding to report.
                Categories
                Research Articles

                perfectionism,clinical perfectionism questionnaire,german version,validity,factor analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article