Personality and Individual Differences 172 (2021) 110589

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Perfectionism and academic burnout: Longitudinal extension of the bifactor

model of perfectionism
Hyunmo Seong a, Sangeun Lee a, Eunbi Chang b, *
a
Korea University, Republic of Korea
b
Kangwon National University, Republic of Korea

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Perfectionism is a personality disposition that is highly relevant in the education domain and related to various
Academic burnout educational and psychological outcomes in students. As students experience challenges and stress in school,
Bifactor model academic burnout is also a critical phenomenon. The current study investigated longitudinal effects of perfec­
Perfectionism
tionism on academic burnout, using a recently advanced bifactor model of perfectionism. With a sample of 336
Adolescents
Longitudinal analysis
secondary school students (7th–12th grades, 63% female) across three waves spanning a six-month period.
Results of the confirmatory analysis and longitudinal invariance tests showed that the bifactor-(S⋅I – 1) model
with the general perfectionism, defined by one item of concerns over mistakes as the reference item, and specific
perfectionism factor better explained the multidimensional structure of perfectionism, relative to the two-factor
model. Specific perfectionistic concerns remained unreliable after controlling for the general factor, while spe­
cific perfectionistic strivings remained as a more reliable factor. The cross-lagged analyses showed that the
general perfectionism predicted longitudinal increases in emotional exhaustion and cynicism. On the contrary,
specific perfectionistic strivings did not predict changes in students’ burnout.

When students fail to cope effectively with academic stress and
pressure for academic achievement, they experience academic burnout
(Lee et al., 2013). Academic burnout consists of three dimensions:
emotional exhaustion, cynical attitude towards learning (i.e., cynicism),
and decreased efficacy (i.e., inefficacy) (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Aca­
demic burnout is closely associated with problems in students’ school
adaptation and psychological well-being: it is positively associated with
students’ psychological maladjustment (Lee & Lee, 2018) and school
dropout (Bask & Salmela-Aro, 2013), but negatively associated with
subjective well-being (Raiziene et al., 2014) and performance (May
et al., 2015). Thus, researchers have been interested in factors affecting
academic burnout.
Perfectionism is a multidimensional personality trait that includes
tendencies of setting and striving for excessively high standards and
feeling discrepancy with those standards (Frost et al., 1990; Slaney et al.,
2001). It has been studied as one of the factors affecting academic
burnout (e.g., Chang et al., 2020; Kljajic et al., 2017). Stoeber and Otto
(2006) classified it into two higher-order dimensions such as perfec­
tionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns.
Perfectionistic strivings refer to setting high standards (Frost et al.,
1990; Slaney et al., 2001). They mostly have positive association with
adaptive outcomes (e.g., Madigan, 2019), but sometimes also have
positive association with maladaptive outcomes (Gotwals et al., 2012).
By contrast, perfectionistic concerns refer to discrepancies between
actual performance and ideal standards (Slaney et al., 2001), concerns
over mistakes, and doubts about one’s performance (Frost et al., 1990).
Their positive associations with maladaptive outcomes are consistently
reported (e.g., Hill & Curran, 2016).
Regarding the association between perfectionism and academic
burnout, many studies have been conducted and reported consistent
associations: academic burnout is positively associated with perfec­
tionistic concerns and negatively associated with perfectionistic striv­
ings. Hill and Curran’s (2016) meta-analysis of perfectionism and
burnout showed that perfectionistic strivings had a small negative or
non-significant association with symptoms of burnout; in contrast,
perfectionistic concerns had medium-to-large positive association with
symptoms of burnout. However, the relationship of perfectionism
(especially perfectionistic strivings) and burnout showed little differ­
ence when controlling for the overlapping variance between two di­
mensions of perfectionism. That is, there were small-to-medium
negative association between pure perfectionistic strivings and all
burnout symptoms, which are consistent with Stoeber and Otto’s (2006)

* Corresponding author at: Department of Education, College of Education, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, Republic of Korea.
E-mail address: eunbichang@kangwon.ac.kr (E. Chang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110589
Received 8 September 2020; Received in revised form 27 November 2020; Accepted 8 December 2020
Available online 17 December 2020
0191-8869/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Seong et al.
report that the adaptive side of perfectionistic strivings may be clear
when the correlation between perfectionistic strivings and concerns
were controlled.
Since a substantial construct overlap between the two factors has
been reported, recent researchers questioned the two higher-order fac­
tor model and suggested a bifactor model of perfectionism. Bifactor
model is consisted of a general factor and specific factors (e.g., perfec­
tionistic strivings factor); this model showed a better fit to the data than
the two-factor model of perfectionism (e.g., Gäde et al., 2017; Howell
et al., 2020; Smith & Saklofske, 2017). General factor reflects the shared
variance of perfectionism subfactors. In contrast, specific factors reflect
unique variance that general factors do not account for.
So far, research examining the association between perfectionism
and academic burnout mainly adopted the two-factor model of perfec­
tionism, and does not reflect recent important advancement on the
bifactor model of perfectionism. In addition, as most of the studies (e.g.,
Chang et al., 2020) were cross-sectional and used mediational approach,
it is difficult to infer the direct causal relationship between perfec­
tionism and academic burnout. Lastly, even though burnout is a multi­
dimensional phenomenon (Schaufeli et al., 2002), many studies (e.g.,
Luo et al., 2016) did not examine the association between each
dimension of academic burnout symptoms with perfectionism
separately.
Therefore, the present study tested the following research questions:
(a) Will the bifactor model of perfectionism be applied to Korean sam­
ple? and (b) what is the longitudinal relationship between multidi­
mensional perfectionism and academic burnout? Since there is no study
adopting the bifactor model of perfectionism for Korean sample, we first
examined whether the bifactor model of perfectionism can be applied to
Korean sample, and then examined the associations between perfec­
tionism and academic burnout by adopting a longitudinal design with
three waves at a three-month interval.
1. Methods
1.1. Participants and procedure
We recruited 450 7–11th graders from a public middle school and
two public high schools in Gangwon Province, South Korea. They
completed three questionnaires at intervals of three-month, spanning a
total of six months. Only completed data with all time points were used
in the analysis. The final sample comprised 336 adolescents (213 fe­
males, 28.6% middle and 71.4% high school students), with a mean-age
of 15.83 (SD = 1.35, range = 13–18). We explained the purpose of the
study to the students with the help of the teachers, and the students
participated in the study voluntarily and signed the consent forms. They
received a small gift (about 3 US$) as compensation.
1.2. Measures
1.2.1. Perfectionism
To measure perfectionism, subscales of two scales were used: Korean
version of Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS; Frost
et al., 1990; Lee & Park, 2011) and Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (APS-R;
Park, 2009; Slaney et al., 2001). Two subscales from the Korean version
of FMPS were used: Concerns over mistakes (8 items) and personal
standards (4 items). Doubts about actions subscale was excluded
because it only has two items resulting in questionable internal consis­
tency (r = 0.61). All items of the FMPS were rated ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Internal consistencies were 0.82
for concerns over mistakes and 0.73 for personal standards (Lee & Park,
2011). Two subscales from the APS-R were also used: Discrepancy (10
items) and high standards (5 items). The items were scored ranging from
1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The coefficient alphas were 0.88
for discrepancy and 0.79 for high standards (Park, 2009). Perfectionistic
strivings were assessed by personal standards and high standards;
2
Personality and Individual Differences 172 (2021) 110589
perfectionistic concerns were measured by concerns over mistakes and
discrepancy.
1.2.2. Academic burnout
The Korean version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Student Sur­
vey (MBI-SS; Shin et al., 2011) was used to measure academic burnout.
The MBI-SS has three subscales: emotional exhaustion (5 items), cyni­
cism (4 items), and academic inefficacy (6 items). Items were rated
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The coefficient
alphas were 0.86, 0.82, 0.82 for emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and
academic inefficacy, respectively (Shin et al., 2011).
1.3. Data analyses
Data were analyzed using Mplus 7.3. First, measurement models of
perfectionism were estimated. Hierarchical two-factor models were
compared to bifactor models at each time to investigate the factor
structure of perfectionism. In the two-factor model, each item loaded on
their respective first-order factors (i.e., subscale levels), and the four
first-order factors were expected to measure two correlated second-
order factors (i.e., perfectionistic concerns and perfectionistic striv­
ings). The bifactor model had two specific factors and a general factor.
However, since a traditional bifactor model is sensible only under the
assumption that the subscales are interchangeable, Eid et al. (2017)
suggested the bifactor-(S⋅I – 1) model as one of alternatives. We used the
bifactor-(S⋅I – 1) model in which all items were loaded on the general
perfectionism factor, and each item except the reference item loaded on
one of two specific factors, with the general and specific factors being
orthogonal. The reference item was determined as one that had the
largest factor loading on concerns over mistake in the two-factor model
in line with previous research using concerns over mistakes as a refer­
ence domain (Gäde et al., 2017). Model fit was evaluated using Tucker-
Lewis Index (TLI; values ≥0.90 for acceptable fit), Comparative Fit Index
(CFI; values ≥0.90 for acceptable fit), and Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA; values ≤0.08 for acceptable fit) (Hu & Bentler,
1999). For the bifactor model, coefficient omega (ω), omega subscale
(ωS), omega hierarchical (ωH), and omega hierarchical subscale (ωHS)
were also calculated to evaluate how much explained variance could be
attributed to the general and specific factors (Reise et al., 2013). Sup­
ported models of perfectionism at each wave were combined to evaluate
longitudinal measurement invariance across time. Invariance was also
tested with three-factor academic burnout models. The configural,
metric, scalar, and strict invariance were tested using four nested models
with cutoffs of 0.01 for ΔCFA and 0.015 for ΔRMSEA (Chen, 2007).
Next, a path model was specified to examine the longitudinal rela­
tionship between perfectionism and burnout. Factor scores estimated
from the final invariance models were used to reduce the ratio of pa­
rameters to participants as in previous studies on longitudinal bifactor
models (e.g., McElroy et al., 2018). The factor score approach can
overcome a drawback of fully latent model that requires a large sample
size (Devlieger & Rosseel, 2017). Chi-square (χ2), TLI, CFI, and RMSEA
were used to evaluate the fit of alternative cross-lagged models. As there
was missing data (≤1%) in our overall dataset, we used the maximum
likelihood estimation with robust standard errors for all the analyses.
2. Results
2.1. Measurement models
Preliminary analysis revealed that the data was normally distributed
(see Supplementary Materials 1). As shown in Table 1, the two-factor
models (Model 1) showed a poor fit. The refined two-factor models
with residual correlations (Model 2) still showed a poor fit. The bifactor-
(S⋅I – 1) model (Model 3) showed better fit at each time point. Thus, the
results implied that bifactor model with the item of concerns over mis­
takes as the reference best represented the structure of perfectionism.
H. Seong et al. Personality and Individual Differences 172 (2021) 110589

Table 1 Table 2. ω values indicated that 96–97% of the total variances were
Model fit indices of perfectionism at each wave. explained by the general and specific factors across time. ωS values that
Models Model fit indices showed the amount of explained variance by the general and the specific
factor were about 0.96 (perfectionistic concerns) and 0.92 (perfection­
χ2 SF df CFI TLI RMSEA
istic strivings) at each time. The proportion of variance in the observed
Time1 scores that was attributed to the general factor was high (ωH range =
M1: Two-factor 863.416*** 1.23 321 0.867 0.854 0.071
M2: Two-factor 738.196*** 1.23 317 0.896 0.885 0.063
0.76–0.79), suggesting that the general factors were dominant sources of
CE permitted variance. ωHS for perfectionistic concerns ranged from 0.23 to 0.24,
M3: Bifactor CE 537.098*** 1.22 294 0.94 0.929 0.05 meaning that only a small amount of variance of perfectionistic concerns
permitted is reliable after controlling for the variance explained by the general
Time2
factor. In contrast, ωHS for perfectionistic strivings ranged from 0.47 to
M1: Two-factor 923.549*** 1.27 321 0.876 0.864 0.075
M2: Two-factor 831.861*** 1.26 317 0.894 0.882 0.07 0.56. Relatively higher values indicated that a significant amount of
CE permitted unique variance could be attributed to specific perfectionistic strivings
M3: Bifactor CE 722.95*** 1.24 294 0.912 0.894 0.066 factor (Reise et al., 2013).
permitted Standardized factor loadings are presented in Table 2. All items were
Time3
M1: Two-factor 1005.96*** 1.43 319 0.87 0.857 0.08
significantly loaded on the general factor across time. However, items
M2: Two-factor 886.683*** 1.42 315 0.892 0.88 0.073 measuring perfectionistic concerns had relatively higher factor loadings
CE permitted on the general factor compared to the items of perfectionistic strivings.
M3: Bifactor CE 806.597*** 1.38 294 0.903 0.884 0.072 Specifically, some items of concerns over mistake had non-significant
permitted
loadings on the specific perfectionistic concerns. Thus, omega co­
Note. CE = Correlated Errors, SF = Satorra-Bentler χ2 scaling correction factor; efficients and factor loadings justified the use of the general perfec­
CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; RMSEA = Root Mean tionism factor and suggest that not perfectionistic concerns but rather
Square Error of Approximation. perfectionistic strivings was the reliable specific factor.
***
p < .001. Additionally, the measurement invariance of the three-factor struc­
ture of academic burnout at each time was also tested (see Supplement
Detailed information can be found in Supplemental Materials 2. Materials 3). The final longitudinal model of academic burnout with
The bifactor-(S⋅I – 1) models at each wave were combined to eval­ equal factor loadings and intercepts was used for cross-lagged path
uate longitudinal measurement invariance. A series of model compari­ analyses.
son revealed that strict longitudinal invariance model, constraining
factor loadings, item intercepts, and residuals to be equal across time, 2.2. Path models
was supported (detailed information can be found in Supplementary
Materials 3). To investigate the longitudinal relations between perfectionism and
The reliability of the final perfectionism bifactor model is shown in academic burnout, factor scores were estimated for the strict-invariance

Table 2
Standardized factor loadings of the final longitudinal perfectionism bifactor model and omega values.
Item Time1 Time2 Time3

General Perfectionistic Perfectionistic General Perfectionistic Perfectionistic General Perfectionistic Perfectionistic

concerns strivings concerns strivings concerns strivings

Perfectionistic CM6 0.79 0.81 0.82

concerns CM1 0.64 0.08 0.66 0.078 0.67 0.08
CM2 0.73 0.06n.s 0.75 0.06n.s 0.76 0.06n.s
CM3 0.77 − 0.06n.s 0.79 − 0.06n.s 0.80 − 0.06n.s
CM4 0.62 0.18 0.64 0.18 0.66 0.18
CM5 0.78 − 0.03n.s 0.79 − 0.03n.s 0.81 − 0.03n.s
CM7 0.60 0.10 0.62 0.10 0.64 0.10
CM8 0.67 0.02n.s 0.69 0.02n.s 0.70 0.02n.s
DIS1 0.59 0.37 0.61 0.37 0.63 0.37
DIS2 0.59 0.47 0.61 0.47 0.62 0.47
DIS3 0.50 0.59 0.52 0.59 0.53 0.59
DIS4 0.59 0.51 0.60 0.51 0.62 0.50
DIS5 0.53 0.61 0.55 0.61 0.56 0.60
DIS6 0.52 0.64 0.53 0.64 0.55 0.63
DIS7 0.58 0.50 0.59 0.51 0.61 0.50
DIS8 0.51 0.68 0.52 0.69 0.54 0.68
DIS9 0.55 0.68 0.56 0.68 0.58 0.67
DIS10 0.52 0.65 0.53 0.65 0.55 0.65
Perfectionistic PS1 0.66 0.30 0.69 0.28 0.71 0.26
strivings PS2 0.36 0.67 0.39 0.64 0.41 0.62
PS3 0.66 0.33 0.69 0.30 0.71 0.29
PS4 0.45 0.63 0.49 0.60 0.51 0.57
HS1 0.45 0.49 0.47 0.46 0.49 0.44
HS2 0.29 0.75 0.31 0.72 0.33 0.71
HS3 0.46 0.71 0.49 0.68 0.52 0.66
HS4 0.41 0.70 0.44 0.67 0.46 0.65
HS5 0.46 0.58 0.49 0.55 0.51 0.53
ω or ωS 0.963 0.951 0.922 0.966 0.956 0.92 0.968 0.958 0.92
ωH or ωHS 0.758 0.244 0.555 0.778 0.236 0.502 0.794 0.225 0.466

Note. n.sFactor loading was nonsignificant. Item CM6 was the reference item. CM, concerns over mistakes; DIS, discrepancy; PS, personal standards; HS, high standards;
ω, coefficient omega; ωS, coefficient omega subscale; ωH, coefficient omega hierarchical; ωHS, coefficient omega hierarchical subscale.

3
H. Seong et al.
bifactor-(S⋅I – 1) perfectionism model and the scalar-invariance burnout
model. With factor scores, we compared four alternative path models
(Kline, 2016). Detailed information regarding factor scores correlations
and model comparisons can be found in Supplementary Materials 4. At a
baseline, first- and second-order stability coefficient were estimated,
with within-time covariances set as equal over time. The perfectionism-
effect model, which adds cross-lagged paths from perfectionism factors
to burnout factors significantly improved the model fit. The burnout-
effect model, which adds paths from burnout to perfectionism factors
did not show a better model fit than the baseline. The bidirectional
model, with cross-lagged path from both perfectionism and burnout to
each other, did not significantly differ from the perfectionism model.
Therefore, the more parsimonious perfectionism-effects model was
chosen as the final model.
Fig. 1 shows the significant longitudinal paths of the final model.
Specifically, the general perfectionism factor had significant positive
effects on emotional exhaustion and cynicism. Perfectionistic strivings
factors had no significant effects on academic burnout.
3. Discussion
Although education is a domain where perfectionism and burnout
are highly relevant, there has been less research investigating the rela­
tionship between the two constructs than in other performance-related
domains (Hill & Curran, 2016). Hence, we aimed to examine the lon­
gitudinal relationship between perfectionism and academic burnout. To
incorporate the recent evidence supporting the bifactor structure of
perfectionism, we evaluated a bifactor model of perfectionism using the
FMPS and APS-R. Specifically, we implemented the bifactor-(S⋅I – 1)
model by taking one item as a reference item to avoid the problem of
collapsing factors and interpretability of the general factor (cf. Eid et al.,
2017). In our model, a specific item representing concerns over mistakes
was set as a reference item for defining the general factor. Therefore, the
meaning of the general factor can be interpreted based on the reference
item.
Fig. 1. Perfectionism-effects path model.
Note. Only significant longitudinal relations are shown. *p < .05, ***p < .001.
4
Personality and Individual Differences 172 (2021) 110589
Confirmatory factor analysis showed an acceptable fit for the bifac­
tor-(S⋅I – 1) model across three waves, with one general factor and two
specific factors (perfectionistic strivings and concerns). The results
indicated that most of the shared variance was attributable to the gen­
eral factor, and after accounting for this the specific perfectionistic
concerns factor was found to be an unreliable construct. In contrast,
specific perfectionistic striving factor remained as a reliable construct,
explaining a substantial amount of variance that is independent of the
general factor. Our results showed that the multidimensional structure
of perfectionism could be better explained by the bifactor model than
the two-factor higher-order model (e.g., Stoeber & Otto, 2006), in line
with previous studies that favored the bifactor model of perfectionism
(e.g., Gäde et al., 2017; Howell et al., 2020; Smith & Saklofske, 2017).
However, without an explicitly defined conceptual meaning, the
general factor and residualized specific factors might not be easily
interpretable (Eid et al., 2017). To increase interpretability, Gäde et al.
(2017) implemented the bifactor-(S – 1) model, which sets one facet as a
reference to the general factor and gives conceptual meaning to the
general factor. Our bifactor-(S⋅I – 1) model is based on a similar
approach, and more appropriate for our data as we used different items
from the two perfectionism scales (i.e., FMPS and APS-R), which are not
unidimensional, to establish perfectionism dimensions (Eid et al., 2017).
Indeed, the factor loading structure of the bifactor model showed that
different subscales (especially two subscales constituting perfectionistic
concerns) had somewhat different patterns of loadings on the specific
factors. This pattern has also emerged in other studies that implemented
different measures to capture overarching perfectionistic strivings and
concerns dimensions (e.g., Smith & Saklofske, 2017). Given that it is a
common practice to measure multidimensional perfectionism by
implementing more than one instrument (e.g., FMPS, APS-R, and Hewitt
and Flett’s (1991) multidimensional perfectionism scale) and combining
several facets, the usage of the bifactor-(S⋅I – 1) model would yield better
outcomes than other bifactor models.
Further, results from a series of longitudinal measurement invariance
tests also suggested that the factor structure of the bifactor-(S⋅I – 1)
H. Seong et al.
model was equivalent across three waves. Without such measurement
invariance, it could be argued that the bifactor structure of perfec­
tionism is not stable over time, and hence is not a reliable model. Our
results showed that the bifactor-(S⋅I – 1) structure of perfectionism is
stable over at least a 6-month period, which allowed us to explore lon­
gitudinal development or relations between the bifactor model of
perfectionism and other constructs such as burnout.
Results of the cross-lagged path model showed that general perfec­
tionism predicted longitudinal increases in emotional exhaustion and
cynicism after controlling for stability effects (i.e., autoregressive paths),
but not in academic inefficacy. The negative longitudinal effects of the
general perfectionism on academic burnout seem logical because in our
bifactor-(S⋅I – 1) model, the general perfectionism factor represents the
common variance between perfectionistic concerns and strivings, with
concerns over mistakes as a reference facet. Characteristics of the gen­
eral perfectionism factor could be interpreted in a way one would have
expected for perfectionistic concerns. Our results resonate with the
findings of Hill and Curran’s (2016) meta-analysis, which reported a
significant positive relation of perfectionistic concerns with emotional
exhaustion and cynicism, but not with academic inefficacy in the edu­
cation domain. For students, feelings of efficacy might be much more
affected by one’s academic achievement, than one’s perfectionistic trait
(Damian et al., 2017). Our results showed that general perfectionism
played the role of personal demands, exhibiting deleterious effects on
students’ suffering and the subsequent development of exhaustion and
cynicism over time (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017).
Magnitudes of the effects of general perfectionism on academic
burnout symptoms may seem rather trivial (β = 0.06– 0.12). However,
in longitudinal autoregressive models, effect sizes of the cross-lagged
paths are often dramatically smaller than those in cross-sectional
studies as a function of stability effects (Adachi & Willoughby, 2015).
Controlling for the strong stability in dependent variables removes a
large portion of variance that was shared with earlier predictor vari­
ables. Indeed, bivariate correlations between general perfectionism
factor scores (Tn) and emotional exhaustion and cynicism (Tn+1) were
0.46– 0.47 and 0.22– 0.26 respectively (See Supplementary Materials 4).
These bivariate correlations were attenuated by the impact of the strong
stability effects of burnout factors. Therefore, we argue that the longi­
tudinal effect sizes of general perfectionism on burnout symptoms are
meaningful.
By contrast, specific perfectionistic strivings did not predict changes
in burnout after controlling for stability effects. These findings are un­
expected because it has been claimed that adaptiveness of perfectionistic
strivings would be clearly demonstrated when shared variance is
removed (e.g., Stoeber & Gaudreau, 2017). Our results might be due to
rather weak reliabilities of specific perfectionistic factors. We consid­
ered specific perfectionistic strivings as a reliable factor, at least
moderately, based on Reise et al.’s (2013) minimum guideline (i.e., ωHS
≥ 0.50). However, ωHS for specific perfectionistic strivings did not meet
with a preferred value (i.e., ωHS ≥ 0.75; Reise et al., 2013). Therefore,
factor scores for specific perfectionistic strivings might not be meticu­
lously reliable. Smith and Saklofske (2017) also raised a question for the
reliability of specific perfectionistic strivings factor and called for
caution when interpreting the effects of perfectionistic strivings. Simi­
larly, our results suggest using higher-order perfectionism dimensions
without evaluating the bifactor model might be inappropriate.
The current study has several limitations. First, we derived factor
scores of perfectionism and burnout from the measurement models and
used them in the path model. Although a fully latent model would be a
better choice to test our research question, given its complexity and our
samples size, which are common concerns for longitudinal bifactor
models (McElroy et al., 2018), we utilized factor scores. Although using
factor scores is a common practice in applied research, factor scores may
also be biased (Skrondal & Laake, 2001). In relation to the model
complexity, it was also challenging to achieve model fit that met with
traditional cut-off criteria because of our large model with items as
5
Personality and Individual Differences 172 (2021) 110589
indicators. Future studies with larger sample size would be needed to
reproduce our findings utilizing a fully latent model, with lowered
standard errors of estimation. Second, the present findings may be
limited to the specific time spans examined (three-month between each
time point). Students’ burnout symptoms may vary within time periods
as they typically go through periodic experiences from the beginning of
a new semester to final exams, and from entrance to graduation.
Therefore, whether the longitudinal effects found in the study are
applicable to shorter or longer time spans should be examined in future
studies.
Despite these limitations, the current study has shown that the
bifactor-(S⋅I – 1) model would better explain the multidimensional
structure of perfectionism. Similar to the findings of Gäde et al. (2017),
we showed that overlaps between perfectionistic concerns and strivings
lie at the item level. Thus, grouping or combining of subscales into
higher-order perfectionism dimensions may oversimplify the multidi­
mensional structure of perfectionism. The bifactor-(S⋅I – 1) would be a
useful alternative when different, not unidimensional subscales are used
to capture multidimensional perfectionism. Also, we found the delete­
rious effects of the general perfectionism secondary school students.
Burnout has been shown to be related to various maladjustive educa­
tional and psychological outcomes. Teachers and mental health pro­
fessions in school may benefit from our findings for designing
prevention and intervention strategies targeting students’
perfectionism.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Hyunmo Seong: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation,
Formal analysis, Writing – original draft. Sangeun Lee: Visualization,
Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft. Eunbi Chang:
Resources, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110589.
References
Adachi, P., & Willoughby, T. (2015). Interpreting effect sizes when controlling for
stability effects in longitudinal autoregressive models: Implications for psychological
science. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12(1), 116–128. https://doi.
org/10.1080/17405629.2014.963549.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands-resources theory: Taking stock and
looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285. https://
doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056.
Bask, M., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2013). Burned out to drop out: Exploring the relationship
between school burnout and school dropout. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 28(2), 511–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-012-0126-5.
Chang, E., Seong, H., & Lee, S. M. (2020). Exploring the relationship between
perfectionism and academic burnout through achievement goals: A mediation
model. Asia Pacific Education Review, 21, 409–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-
020-09633-1.
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement
invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834.
Damian, L. E., Stoeber, J., Negru-Subtirica, O., & Băban, A. (2017). On the development
of perfectionism: The longitudinal role of academic achievement and academic
efficacy. Journal of Personality, 85(4), 565–577. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jopy.12261.
Devlieger, I., & Rosseel, Y. (2017). Factor score path analysis. Methodology, 13
(Supplement), 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1027/a000001.
Eid, M., Geiser, C., Koch, T., & Heene, M. (2017). Anomalous results in G-factor models:
Explanations and alternatives. Psychological Methods, 22(3), 541–562. https://
psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/met0000083.
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of
perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449–468. https://doi.org/
10.1007/BF01172967.
Gäde, J. C., Schermelleh-Engel, K., & Klein, A. G. (2017). Disentangling the common
variance of perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns: A bifactor model of
H. Seong et al.
perfectionism. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(160), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2017.00160.
Gotwals, J. K., Stoeber, J., Dunn, J. G., & Stoll, O. (2012). Are perfectionistic strivings in
sport adaptive? A systematic review of confirmatory, contradictory, and mixed
evidence. Canadian Psychology, 53(4), 263–279. https://psycnet.apa.org/d
oi/10.1037/a0030288.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts:
Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 60(3), 456–470. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.60.3.456.
Hill, A. P., & Curran, T. (2016). Multidimensional perfectionism and burnout: A meta-
analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20(3), 269–288. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1088868315596286.
Howell, J., Anderson, R., Egan, S., & McEvoy, P. (2020). One factor? Two factor? Bi-
factor? A psychometric evaluation of the Frost Multidimensional Scale and the
Clinical Perfectionism Questionnaire. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 49(6), 518–530.
https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2020.1790645.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling:
A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10705519909540118.
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New
York: Guilford.
Kljajic, K., Gaudreau, P., & Franche, V. (2017). An investigation of the 2 × 2 model of
perfectionism with burnout, engagement, self-regulation, and academic
achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 57, 103–113. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.lindif.2017.06.004.
Lee, D. G., & Park, H. J. (2011). Cross-cultural validity of the frost multidimensional
perfectionism scale in Korea. The Counseling Psychologist, 39(2), 320–345 (https://
doi.org/10.1177%2F0011000010365910).
Lee, J., Puig, A., Lea, E., & Lee, S. M. (2013). Age-related differences in academic burnout
of Korean adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 50(10), 1015–1031. https://doi.org/
10.1002/pits.21723.
Lee, M. Y., & Lee, S. M. (2018). The effects of psychological maladjustments on
predicting developmental trajectories of academic burnout. School Psychology
International, 39(3), 217–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034318766206.
Luo, Y., Wang, Z., Zhang, H., Chen, A., & Quan, S. (2016). The effect of perfectionism on
school burnout among adolescence: The mediator of self-esteem and coping style.
Personality and Individual Differences, 88, 202–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2015.08.056.
Personality and Individual Differences 172 (2021) 110589
Madigan, D. J. (2019). A meta-analysis of perfectionism and academic achievement.
Educational Psychology Review, 31, 967–989. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-
09484-2.
May, R. W., Bauer, K. N., & Fincham, F. D. (2015). School burnout: Diminished academic
and cognitive performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 42, 126–131. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.07.015.
McElroy, E., Belsky, J., Carragher, N., Fearon, P., & Patalay, P. (2018). Developmental
stability of general and specific factors of psychopathology from early childhood to
adolescence: Dynamic mutualism or p-differentiation? Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 59(6), 667–675. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12849.
Park, H. J. (2009). Validation of the almost perfect scale-revised. The Korean Journal of
Counseling and Psychotherapy, 21(1), 131–149.
Raiziene, S., Pilkauskaite-Valickiene, R., & Zukauskiene, R. (2014). School burnout and
subjective well-being: Evidence from cross lagged relations in a 1-year longitudinal
sample. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116(21), 3254–3258. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.743.
Reise, S. P., Bonifay, W. E., & Haviland, M. G. (2013). Scoring and modeling
psychological measures in the presence of multidimensionality. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 95(2), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.725437.
Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I. M., Pinto, A., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). Burnout
and engagement in university students: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 33, 464–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022102033005003.
Shin, H., Puig, A., Lee, J., Lee, J. H., & Lee, S. M. (2011). Cultural validation of the
Maslach Burnout Inventory for Korean students. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12(4),
633–639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-011-9164-y.
Skrondal, A., & Laake, P. (2001). Regression among factor scores. Psychometrika, 66(4),
563–575. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/BF02296196.
Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., Mobley, M., Trippi, J., & Ashby, J. S. (2001). The revised almost
perfect scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34(3),
130–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2002.12069030.
Smith, M. M., & Saklofske, D. H. (2017). The structure of multidimensional
perfectionism: Support for a bifactor model with a dominant general factor. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 99(3), 297–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00223891.2016.1208209.
Stoeber, J., & Gaudreau, P. (2017). The advantages of partialling perfectionistic strivings
and perfectionistic concerns: Critical issues and recommendations. Personality and
Individual Differences, 104, 379–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.08.039.
Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches,
evidence, challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 295–319.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_2.