toward others ( r5.15). The measures of parental expectations and parental criticism were unrelated to several
measures developed by Stairs et al. (2012) , including order and satisfaction ( r’sranging from 2.02 to .10).
The FMPS clearly has discriminant group validity, which is particularly important in perfectionism research
due to the premise that perfectionism is elevated among people with more extreme forms of dysfunction and dis-
order. Accordingly, we will provide illustrations of discriminant group validity for all of the measures that have
available information. Evidence in support of the FMPS was provided by Wheeler, Blankstein, Antony, McCabe,
and Bieling (2011) . They compared five groups (nonpsychiatric groups, depressed patients, socially anxiety
patients, panic disorder with agoraphobia patients, and obsessive-compulsive disorder patients) on several mea-
sures including the FMPS and HFMPS (reviewed next). The group comparisons revealed significant differences
for concern over mistakes and doubts about actions. Three groups (depressed, socially anxious, and OCD groups)
exhibited significantly higher scores than the control participants and the panic disorder with agoraphobia
groups. Comparisons of anorexic patients with normal controls, established that the anorexic patients had higher
mean levels of personal standards, concern over mistakes, doubts about actions, and parental criticism ( Bastiani,
Rao, Weltzin, & Kaye, 1995 ). Another investigation found that currently ill with bulimia nervosa and recovered
bulimics exhibited comparatively higher FMPS subscale scores on all measures except on the organization factor
(Lilienfeld, Stein, & Bulik, 2000 ).
Construct/Factor Analytic
Factor analyses of the FMPS items tend to divide into two groups. The initial factor analyses reported by Frost
et al. (1990) were conducted with 232 and 178 female undergraduates. A principal factor solution supported a
6-factor solution with concern over mistakes being the largest factor (also see Gelabert et al., 2011; Rheaume,
Freeston, Dugas, Letarte, & Ladouceur, 1995 ). Parker and associates also supported the 6-factor solution for both
278 college students ( Parker & Adkins, 1995 ) and for 885 academically talented children ( Parker & Stumpf, 1995 ).
Parker and Adkins (1995) utilized a principal-factor solution with factors rotated orthogonally with a varimax
solution. Six factors were also identified by Siegel and Shuler (2000) who factor analyzed the intercorrelations of
the item responses of 391 gifted and talented students in Grades 6 to 8. They conducted a principal components
analysis with varimax rotation. Parker and Stumpf (1995) also reported two higher-order factors supported via
confirmatory factor analysis that have been given various labels, including maladaptive evaluative concerns per-
fectionism and personal standards perfectionism. Typically, the personal standards and organization subscales
comprise the ‘personal standards perfectionism’ composite, while the other four factors comprise the ‘maladap-
tive evaluative concerns’ perfectionism composite.
Other analyses suggest that the FMPS comprises fewer than six factors, with the most common pattern being
that the two parental factors combine into one factor and the concern over mistakes and doubts about actions
items tend to load together (e.g., Chan, 2009; Harvey, Pallant, & Harvey, 2004; Hawkins, Watt, & Sinclair, 2006;
Lee & Park, 2011; Yang, 2007 ). As noted below, evidence also suggests that the scale can be reduced in the inter-
est of a replicable factor structure. Sto¨ber (1998) examined the item responses to the FMPS provided by a sample
of 243 university students. Use of Horn’s parallel analysis suggested four factors with one factor that combined
concern over mistakes and doubts about actions and another factor that combined parental expectations and
parental criticism. Sto¨ber (1998) noted that several items had secondary loadings and were loaded complexly by
more than one factor. Purdon, Antony, and Swinson (1999) identified three factors based on item analyses from a
clinical sample of 322 patients. They used principal axis factoring that restricted the solution to six factors with
oblique rotation. The first factor, labeled ‘fear of mistakes,’ combined concern over mistakes, doubts about
actions, and items from the personal standards subscale. The second factor labeled goal/achievement orientation
included the remaining items from the personal standards scale and the items from the organization subscale.
The third factor labeled perceived parental pressure combined the items from the two parental factors. Stallman
and Hurst (2011) used various factor analytic techniques to explore the FMPS responses of almost 6500 students
from two Australian universities. Analyses suggested that the inventory should be reduced from 35 to 29 items.
A confirmatory factor analysis established that a five factor solution was optimal. The authors cautioned that
despite high item loadings, ‘ ...many of the inter-item correlations for the organization and parenting factors
were poorly captured relative to the other factors’ (p. 232). Cox, Enns, and Clara (2002) conducted exploratory
and confirmatory factor analyses that resulted in reducing the scale to 22 items comprising a 5-factor solution.
The factors were labeled: Concern over mistakes (5 items), Doubts about actions (3 items), Parental perceptions (5
items), Personal standards (5 items), and Organization (4 items). Seipel and Apigian (2005) concluded that the
best fitting model was the one proposed by Cox et al. (2002) . The same conclusion was reached by Anshel and
Seipel (2006) who conducted a confirmatory factor analysis of the item responses of 186 undergraduates.598 21. MEASURES OF PERFECTIONISM
V. VICES AND VIRTUES