were .59 for the high standards subscale and .81 for the discrepancy subscale. Sherry, Mackinnon, Macneil, and
Fitzpatrick (2013) conducted longitudinal research over a 130-day period that yielded stability coefficients rang-
ing from .78 to .81.
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Validity evidence was summarized in Slaney et al. (2002) .Rice et al. (2007) found in a sample of 207 university
students that the APS-R high standards scale correlated .68 with self-oriented perfectionism, and .65 with per-
sonal standards. In the sample assessed by Stairs et al. (2012) , the APS-R order factor exhibited the expected high
correlation with the order factor ( r5.84), but the APS-R high standards factor exhibited a correlation of only .36
with the order factor. There was also a strong positive association between order and the FMPS organization fac-
tor ( r5.87). Discrepancy was associated significantly ( r5.47 or greater) with socially prescribed perfectionism,
concern over mistakes, doubts about actions, and parental criticism. Stairs et al. (2012) found that the high stan-
dards scale was linked with self-oriented perfectionism and personal standards. Discrepancy had its strongest
links with dimensions tapping dissatisfaction ( r5.78), reactivity to mistakes ( r5.66), and black and white think-
ing ( r5.46). A moderate positive correlation of .37 was found between high standards and discrepancy in the
Wang, Slaney, and Rice (2007) sample of Taiwan university students.
Divergent/Discriminant
Examination of performance on a proof-reading task showed a clear distinction between the discrepancy and
high standards subscales (see Stoeber & Eysenck, 2008 ). The discrepancy subscale, after controlling for high stan-
dards, correlated negatively with correctly reporting errors ( r52.21) and hesitancy in reporting detected errors
(r52.21), suggesting that high scorers are quite cautious. High standards showed a negative correlation with
efficiency ( r52.27) due to a tendency for high scorers to find fault when mistakes did not really exist.
Regarding discriminant group validity, Slaney et al. (2001) have focused on the identifying and contrasting
adaptive perfectionists (i.e., high standards and low discrepancy), maladaptive perfectionists (i.e., high standards
and high discrepancy) and people who are not perfectionists (i.e., low on both). Numerous studies have sup-
ported this distinction with participants of various ages and backgrounds (e.g., Chan, 2009; Hawkins et al., 2006;
Mobley et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2007 ). In clinical settings, some evidence suggests that the discrepancy subscale
can differentiate among women who vary in levels of eating disorder ( Patterson, Wang, & Slaney, 2012 ) but it
does not significantly differentiate these women on the high standards subscale. This finding contrasts with the
exceptionally high levels of self-oriented perfectionism among women with anorexia ( Cockell et al., 2002 ). The
APS-R high standards subscale also does not differentiate employees in a control group versus those suffering
from clinical burnout, anxiety, depression, or co-morbid conditions. However, the discrepancy scores are signifi-
cantly higher in these groups versus employees in the control group (see Van Yperen, Verbraak, & Spoor, 2011 ).
Construct/Factor Analytic
Confirmatory factor analyses conducted by Slaney et al. (2001) using a sample of 809 college students provided
strong support for three distinguishable factors. These factors have generally been replicated in subsequent con-
firmatory factor analyses, including studies conducted with translated versions ( Nakano, 2009; Wang et al., 2007 ).
Administration of the APS-R to 383 undergraduates from Turkey also yielded a three-factor solution that sup-
ported the multidimensionality of the APS-R based on confirmatory factor analysis ( Ulu et al., 2012 ).Mobley
et al. (2005) established similarly via a confirmatory factor analysis that the three-factor solution fit the data for a
sample of 251 African American students and a sample of 314 European American students.
Criterion/Predictive
Rice et al. (2007) examined the FFM correlates of the APS-R in two university student samples. The second
sample also completed the FMPS, the HFMPS, and various measures including depression and self-esteem. The
APS-R high standards subscale was associated with conscientiousness ( rs of .46 and .48), and order was also asso-
ciated with conscientiousness ( rs of .55 and .58). Discrepancy had modest but negative associations with conscien-
tiousness ( rso f2.22 and 2.32), as well as strong associations with neuroticism ( rs of .59 and .62). Two APS-R
subscales predicted unique variance in self-esteem beyond the variance attributable to the FMPS, HFMPS, neurot-
icism, and conscientiousness. Discrepancy was associated uniquely with lower self-esteem while the high stan-
dards factor was associated uniquely with higher self-esteem.606 21. MEASURES OF PERFECTIONISM
V. VICES AND VIRTUES