HFMPS SAMPLE ITEMS
1.Self-Oriented Perfectionism
2.One of my goals is to be perfect in everything I do
3.Other-Oriented Perfectionism
4.If I ask someone to do something, I expect it to be
done flawlessly5.Socially Prescribed Perfectionism
6.My family expects me to be perfect
Note: Reproduced with permission.
Almost Perfect Scale—Revised (APS-R)
(Slaney et al., 2001 ).
Variable
Perfectionism is defined as having both positive and negative aspects. Positive aspects are deemed to reflect
two elements /C0high standards and orderliness. Discrepancy is the negative aspect. According to Slaney et al.
(2001) , discrepancy is ‘ ...the central and defining negative aspect of perfectionism’ (p. 133). They defined dis-
crepancy as ‘the perceived discrepancy or difference between the standards one has for oneself and one’s actual
performance’ (p. 133).
Description
The APS-R grew out of earlier work with an earlier version (see Johnson & Slaney, 1996; Slaney & Johnson,
1992). Six items from the order subscale of the original measure were retained. They also retained six items from
the original high standards subscale but seven more items were written to strengthen this subscale ‘ ...while
retaining an emphasis on the positive aspects of having high standards’ ( Slaney et al., 2001 , p. 134). Overall, 20
new items were written to assess discrepancy. Respondents make 7-point Likert-type ratings with options rang-
ing from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree.’ The initial APS-R item pool consisted of 39 items. Item and factor
analyses of responses from various samples of participants involving several stages reduced the final version to
23 items (see Slaney, Rice, & Ashby, 2002 ). The final APS-R has 7 items assessing standards, 4 items assessing
order, and 12 items assessing discrepancy.
Sample
Means found in samples of 178 university students and 208 university students were as follows: high stan-
dards ( M538.14, SD57.02 and M539.61, SD56.37), discrepancy ( M543.63, SD513.61 and M540.15,
SD514.51), and order ( M519.83, SD55.13 and M519.94, SD54.85). The APS-R has seldom been used with
clinical samples, but Argus and Thompson (2008) found the following means in 141 clinically depressed inpa-
tients (high standards, M539.91, SD56.58; discrepancy, M561.94, SD516.60), and order ( M521.28,
SD55.14).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Initial results for the APS-R indicated that each subscale has Cronbach alpha coefficients of .85, .86, and .92 for
the high standards, order, and discrepancy subscales, respectively ( Slaney et al., 2001 ).Mobley, Slaney, and Rice
(2005) evaluated a sample of 251 African American university students and reported alpha coefficients of .75 for
high standards, .91 for order, and .88 for discrepancy. Ulu, Tezer, and Slaney (2012) found in a large sample of
undergraduates from Turkey that alpha coefficients were .78 for high standards, .85 for discrepancy, and .86 for
order. Alpha coefficients reported for a sample of Japanese students were .81 for high standards, .90 for discrep-
ancy, and .73 for order ( Nakano, 2009 ).
Test/C0Retest
Grzegorek, Slaney, Franze, and Rice (2004) reported test /C0retest reliabilities over a three-week period of .72 for
high standards, .80 for order, and .83 for discrepancies. Rice and Aldea (2006) reported Test /C0Retest reliabilities
of .76 for high standards, .87 for order, and .86 for discrepancy across a 10-week interval. Rice, Leever,
Christopher, and Porter (2006) focused only on high standards and discrepancy. The 10-week stability coefficients605 OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES
V. VICES AND VIRTUES