Psychological Assessment Copyright 2002 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

2002, Vol. 14, No. 3, 365–373 1040-3590/02/$5.00 DOI: 10.1037//1040-3590.14.3.365

The Multidimensional Structure of Perfectionism in Clinically Distressed

and College Student Samples
Brian J. Cox, Murray W. Enns, and Ian P. Clara
University of Manitoba

Confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate 2 multidimensional measures of perfectionism (R. O.
Frost, P. Marten, C. Lahart, & R. Rosenblate, 1990; P. L. Hewitt & G. L. Flett, 1991). On a first-order
level, support was found for Hewitt and Flett’s (1991) original 3-factor conceptualization of perfection-
ism, although only for an empirically derived 15-item subset. Support was also obtained for 5 of the 6
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

dimensions proposed by R. O. Frost et al. (1990), but the model only displayed good fit when a refined
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

scale containing 22 of the original 35 items was used. A second-order analysis found evidence for 2
higher-order factors of adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism. Perfectionism dimensions correlated in
expected directions with personality domains, symptom distress, and academic achievement. The brief
measures of perfectionism also retained the construct-related validity displayed by the full-item versions.

The potential harmfulness of perfectionism has been recognized
for many years in clinical writings, particularly in the context of
depression (e.g., Adler, 1956; Beck, 1967; Hamachek, 1978; Hol-
lender, 1965). Recurrent themes in these early descriptions of
maladaptive perfectionism include unrealistically high and inflex-
ible standards for performance, self-criticism and fear of failure,
inability to experience satisfaction from performance, and a per-
ceived discrepancy between performance and standards. In recent
years there has been considerable growth in the perfectionism
literature, due in large part to developments in the operationaliza-
tion and measurement of the perfectionism construct. Working
from different conceptual frameworks, two groups of investigators
independently developed instruments entitled Multidimensional
Perfectionism Scales (MPS; Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate,
1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991). The following paragraphs provide an
overview of these popular instruments and summarize a more
exhaustive review on the assessment of perfectionism recently
completed (Enns & Cox, 2002).
fectionistic motivation for one’s self), Socially Prescribed Perfec-
tionism (the perception that others hold excessively high standards
for one’s self), and Other-Oriented Perfectionism (holding unreal-
istic standards of performance for significant others). The HF MPS
contains 45 items in total, with 15 items assigned to each subscale.
Reliability and validity indices evidenced for the HF MPS have
been impressive (e.g., Hewitt, Flett, Turnbull-Donovan, & Mikail,
1991). In general, the Socially Prescribed subscale has been the
dimension most consistently implicated with several forms of
distress, including depressed and anxious mood states, hopeless-
ness, and even suicidal ideation. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
was used to identify subscales in a college student sample in the
initial development of the HF MPS (Hewitt & Flett, 1991). How-
ever, despite the clear and well-developed model of perfectionism
captured in the HF MPS, there have been no confirmatory studies
to evaluate its proposed factor structure in either clinical or non-
clinical samples.

Frost et al.’s (1990) MPS

Hewitt and Flett’s (1991) MPS
Hewitt and Flett (HF; 1991) described three dimensions of
perfectionism based on interpersonal source and direction, and
they are assessed by three subscales of the MPS: Self-Oriented
Perfectionism (the setting of excessively high standards and per-
Brian J. Cox and Murray W. Enns, Department of Psychiatry, University
of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada; Ian P. Clara, Department of
Psychology, University of Manitoba.
This work was supported by an operating grant from the Social Sciences
and Humanities Research Council of Canada and an infrastructure grant
from the Canada Foundation for Innovation. Brian J. Cox was supported by
the Canada Research Chairs program, and Ian P. Clara was supported by
the Manitoba Health Research Council.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Brian J.
Cox, PZ-430 PsycHealth Centre, 771 Bannatyne Avenue, Winnipeg, Mani-
toba R3E 3N4, Canada. E-mail: coxbj@cc.umanitoba.ca
The Frost MPS has the following six dimensions based largely
on the nature and potential origins of perfectionism: Concern Over
Mistakes is viewed as the major dimension in this conceptualiza-
tion. It involves setting high standards of personal performance
“which are accompanied by tendencies for overly critical evalua-
tions of one’s own behavior” (Frost et al., 1990, p. 450). The
remaining dimensions are Personal Standards (the setting of high
standards for one’s performance), Doubts About Actions (doubts
about the quality of one’s performance), and Organization (em-
phasizing order and precision). Two more subscales, Parental
Expectations and Parental Criticism, address perceptions about the
standards parents have for the individual and the belief that a
failure to meet these standards can result in a loss of acceptance,
respectively.
Although generally supportive, there has been considerably less
empirical work using the Frost MPS compared to the HF MPS.
Available evidence suggests that Doubts About Actions and espe-

365
 366 COX, ENNS, AND CLARA
cially Concern Over Mistakes are the dimensions most consis-
tently associated with emotional distress, including data from a
clinically depressed sample (Enns & Cox, 1999). EFA was used to
derive subscales in a college student sample in the initial devel-
opment of the Frost MPS (Frost et al., 1990). However, subsequent
studies using EFA have either (a) found a substantial number of
items with cross-loadings in the six-factor solution (Parker &
Adkins, 1995; Rheaume, Freeston, Dugas, Letarte, & Ladouceur,
1995), or (b) failed to identify a six-factor solution and instead
have generated three-factor solutions (Purdon, Antony, & Swin-
son, 1999) as well as four-factor (Stober, 1998; Stumpf & Parker,
2000) solutions. Given this apparent uncertainty in factor structure,
the paucity of confirmatory factor analytic studies of the Frost
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
MPS in either clinical or nonclinical samples is noteworthy. Parker
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
and Stumpf (1995) did use confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in
their evaluation of the Frost MPS with academically talented
sixth-grade children. They were able to obtain an adequate fit for
the model, but only after nine models were evaluated and modified
by freeing up parameter estimates that suggested poor fit.
There has been little factor analytic work involving direct com-
parisons of the two MPS instruments, and none with respect to
clinical samples. Using an undergraduate sample, Frost, Heimberg,
Holt, Mattia, and Neubauer (1993) conducted an EFA of the nine
combined MPS subscales. The results indicated a two-factor so-
lution that the authors interpreted as reflecting maladaptive eval-
uation concerns and positive achievement striving. This interpre-
tation was largely based on the profile of correlations between the
individual subscales that comprised the two factors and measures
of negative affect and positive affect. The Frost MPS dimensions
of Concern Over Mistakes, Doubts About Actions, and Parental
Criticism and the HF MPS dimension of Socially Prescribed
Perfectionism were significantly associated with negative affect.
The HF MPS dimension of Self-Oriented Perfectionism and the
Frost MPS dimensions of Personal Standards and Organization
were significantly associated with positive affect. The Other-
Oriented Perfectionism (HF MPS) and Parental Expectations
(Frost MPS) subscales were not associated with either type of
affect (correlations in all cases were very close to zero). In a
similar fashion, Stumpf and Parker (2000) recently used EFA of
factor scores to obtain a higher-order structure of the Frost MPS
that they labeled healthy and unhealthy perfectionism. The former
dimension was significantly correlated with the broad personality
domain of conscientiousness, whereas the latter was correlated
with neuroticism. It would be useful to evaluate a hierarchical
model of perfectionism with a second-order CFA in which the
relationships among the items and the latent factors could be
explicitly specified.
The present study therefore had three objectives. The first was
to evaluate the first-order structure of the two MPS instruments in
both clinically distressed and college student samples through the
use of first-order confirmatory factor analysis. As part of this task
we also sought to determine whether the factor structure could be
recovered with a smaller set of items, especially for the HF MPS.
In a clinical context, such as in the assessment of depressed
individuals, this issue is particularly relevant and becomes even
more pronounced if an attempt is made to simultaneously assess
the domains from both MPS instruments (i.e., a total of 80 Likert-
scale items of perfectionism). There is sufficient repetitiveness in
item content and wording to suggest that some items could be
eliminated. For example, several items in the Self-Oriented Per-
fectionism subscale all refer to the subjective need for “perfection”
or being “perfect,” and several items in the Socially Prescribed
Perfectionism subscale all refer to people’s “expectations” or what
people “expect.”
The second objective was to investigate a second-order, two-
factor model of perfectionism using a subset of scales from the two
MPS instruments and evaluated through the use of a second-order
CFA. On the basis of previous findings, our hypothesized model
contained two higher-order factors that were believed to represent
adaptive and maladaptive aspects of perfectionism.
A final objective was to examine associations between adaptive
and maladaptive dimensions of perfectionism and indices of per-
sonality, symptom distress, and academic performance in an at-
tempt to establish construct-related validity. It is important to
understand how specific individual differences that may confer
psychological vulnerabilities to emotional disorders relate to broad
personality dimensions (Lilienfeld, 1997). For example, higher-
order personality dimensions such as neuroticism can be viewed as
“source” traits (Cattell, 1977), which in turn give rise to more
specific “surface” traits (e.g., maladaptive perfectionism), and can
therefore shed light on the origins of the latter. In this regard,
conscientiousness and neuroticism were selected from the Big Five
taxonomy of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992), similar to the
approach taken in previous perfectionism research (e.g., Stumpf &
Parker, 2000). Neuroticism is characterized by the general ten-
dency to experience psychological distress and maladjustment, and
high levels convey proneness to “irrational ideas” (Costa & Mc-
Crae, 1992, p. 14). In contrast, conscientiousness is characterized
by purposefulness, organization, and “will to achieve,” and is
associated with academic and occupational achievement (Costa &
McCrae, 1992, p. 16). It was hypothesized that maladaptive di-
mensions of perfectionism would be significantly correlated with
neuroticism, whereas adaptive dimensions would be correlated
with conscientiousness.
In addition to relationships with higher-order personality dimen-
sions, we also evaluated the construct-related validity of the brief
and full perfectionism measures, and their adaptive and maladap-
tive dimensions, with a measure of depressed mood used in pre-
vious perfectionism research for this purpose (Frost et al., 1993).
Finally, we also followed an approach used in some previous
research on adaptive aspects of perfectionism (Brown et al., 1999)
and examined associations with recent and anticipated academic
performance. A third, independent sample consisting of medical
school students was used for this purpose.
Method
Participants
The clinically distressed sample consisted of 412 adult outpatients (241
women, 171 men; mean age ⫽ 40.83 years, SD ⫽ 12.31) seen for
assessment at a mood disorders program in a university-affiliated teaching
hospital. All patients were diagnosed according to criteria from the Diag-
nostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; American
Psychiatric Association, 1994), following a semistructured 1–2 hr clinical
interview conducted by an experienced psychiatrist. Patients gave informed
written consent that the information they provided be used for research
 MULTIDIMENSIONAL PERFECTIONISM SCALES
purposes. The breakdown of primary diagnoses in the sample included
major depressive disorder (48.8%), dysthymia (13.1%), panic disorder
(11.1%), and bipolar disorder (6.8%), other Axis I disorders, such as an
eating disorder (8.7%), other anxiety disorder (4.9%), substance abuse
(2.4%), depressive disorder not otherwise specified (2.4%), and personality
disorder (1.7%). The mean score for the sample on the Beck Depression
Inventory (BDI; Beck, Rush, Shaw, & Emery, 1979) was 25.86 (SD ⫽
11.69), a level considered to represent moderate to severe depression
(Beck, Steer, & Garbin, 1988). A subset of the patients with major
depressive disorder (n ⫽ 145) was used in a previous correlational study of
perfectionism dimensions and depression symptom severity (Enns & Cox,
1999).
The college sample consisted of 288 first-year university students re-
cruited from an introductory psychology course (182 women, 106 men;
mean age ⫽ 19.06 years, SD ⫽ 3.19). The BDI score for this nonclinical
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
sample (M ⫽ 10.15, SD ⫽ 7.69) was in the none to minimal depression
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
range (Beck et al., 1988). Students were given written feedback about the
purpose of the study and about recognizing the symptoms of depression.
They were also provided with information about student counseling ser-
vices and clinical services in the community. Data from this student sample
were used in a separate study of personality correlates of depressed mood
(Enns, Cox, & Borger, 2001).
The third sample was used for the purpose of further establishing
construct-related validity of the brief versus original perfectionism mea-
sures and consisted of 96 medical school students (56 men, 40 women;
mean age ⫽ 25.07 years, SD ⫽ 4.57) enrolled in the undergraduate medical
training program at the University of Manitoba. Data from this sample
were used in a separate study of perfectionism in medical students (Enns,
Cox, Sareen, & Freeman, 2001).
Materials
All participants completed both the HF MPS (Hewitt & Flett, 1991) and
the Frost MPS (Frost et al., 1990). The Hewitt and Flett MPS uses a 7-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 (disagree) to 7 (agree) and assesses three
subscales: Self-Oriented Perfectionism [SOP; ␣s ⫽ .92 (clinical), .91
(university)], Other-Oriented Perfectionism [OOP; ␣s ⫽ .80 (clinical), .74
(university)], and Socially Prescribed Perfectionism [SPP; ␣s ⫽ .88 (clin-
ical), .88 (university)].
The Frost MPS uses a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and assesses six perfectionism subscales
that contain between four to nine items each: Concern Over Mistakes
[COM; ␣s ⫽ .91 (clinical), .90 (university)], Doubts About Actions [DA;
␣s ⫽ .77 (clinical), .71 (university)], Parental Criticism [PC; ␣s ⫽ .84
(clinical), .84 (university)], Parental Expectations [PE; ␣s ⫽ .87 (clinical),
.85 (university)], Personal Standards [PS; ␣ ⫽ .81 (clinical), .83 (univer-
sity)] and Organization [O; ␣s ⫽ .65 (clinical), .93 (university)]. Although
the emphasis is on individual subscales, the Frost MPS can be used to
generate a total Perfectionism score by using only five of the subscales.
The Organization subscale is omitted from this score because of a low
correlation with the other subscales (Frost et al., 1990).
Participants also completed the NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI;
Costa & McCrae, 1992), a 60-item personality measure that assesses the
Big Five personality dimensions. In order to examine the correlates of
potentially adaptive and maladaptive aspects of perfectionism, we selected
the factors of Conscientiousness [␣s ⫽ .86 (clinical), .80 (university)] and
Neuroticism [␣s ⫽ .83 (clinical), .88 (university)]. The BDI was used to
assess depressed mood [␣s ⫽ .90 (clinical), .86 (university)].
Academic functioning in the medical students was assessed by two
questions: “In the past academic year, how do you think your medical
school performance compared to your classmates?” (recent performance),
and “What level of academic performance do you think you will be able to
achieve in medical school this year?” (anticipated performance). For both
367
questions a 5-point, Likert-type scale was used where 1 ⫽ bottom 10% of
the class, 2 ⫽ bottom third of the class, 3 ⫽ middle third of the class, 4 ⫽
top third of the class, and 5 ⫽ top 10% of the class. These anchors were
chosen to reflect the fact that these students do not receive letter grades and
instead are provided information on their performance relative to the rest of
the class.
Statistical Procedure
All confirmatory models were assessed using the AMOS 4.0 package
(Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999) with maximum likelihood estimation. Several
indices of fit were used to evaluate the models. The goodness-of-fit index
(GFI; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1986) looks at the proportion of variance
accounted for in the sample covariance matrix by the estimated population
covariance matrix. The adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI; Jöreskog &
Sörbom, 1986) is an adjustment of the GFI for the number of parameters
in the model. Values of .90 (GFI) and .80 (AGFI) are indicative of good fit
(Marsh, Balla, & McDonald, 1988). Both of these indices show downward
biases with smaller sample sizes (Fan & Wang, 1998). The comparative fit
index (CFI; Bentler, 1988) compares the hypothesized model against an
independence model and is normed between a 0 and 1 range. Values at or
greater than .90 are indicative of good fitting models (Tabachnick & Fidell,
1996), and there is little influence due to sample size effects (Fan & Wang,
1998). The Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI; Tucker & Lewis, 1973) is a type of
comparative fit index that can be used to compare models in different
samples of unequal size, and it can range outside of the 0 –1 range with
values at or over .90 being indicative of good fit (Marsh et al., 1988). The
root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) assesses the amount of
model misfit, and values less than .05 are considered to be indicative of
good fitting models (Fan & Wang, 1998; Raykov, 1998).
Accordingly, the following frequently used criteria were used in evalu-
ating the adequacy of the models: GFI ⬎ .90, AGFI ⬎ .80, CFI ⬎ .90,
TLI ⬎ .90, RMSEA ⬍ .05. No item was allowed to load on more than one
factor. Correlated errors were not specified in the models. For the HF MPS
and for the Frost MPS, all latent factors were allowed to covary. No
negative variances or correlations greater than one were present in any of
the CFA solutions.
Results
First-Order Confirmatory Analysis
HF MPS. The three-factor model proposed by Hewitt and Flett
(1991) was tested in each sample. As can be seen in Table 1, none
of the corresponding fit indices fulfilled the evaluative criteria for
good fit for this model.
To evaluate the potential of a brief HF MPS, we first conducted
an EFA using the college student sample and then attempted to
cross-validate the three-factor model with our reduced item con-
tent using CFA in the clinical sample. Because the number of HF
MPS factors is known and because of limitations imposed by
sample size, each of the 15-item HF MPS subscales was factor-
analyzed separately. A single factor was extracted in each case and
the 5 items from each subscale with the highest factor loadings
were chosen for inclusion in the briefer measure. This procedure
also ensured that there was a sufficient number of indicators (5) for
each of the factors (Marsh, Hau, Balla, & Grayson, 1998). The
items chosen for each of the three subscales were as follows:
Items 13, 31, 33, 35, 39 for SPP [␣s ⫽ .85 (university), .81
(clinical)]; Items 6, 14, 28, 40, 42 for SOP [␣s ⫽ .84 (university),
.84 (clinical)]; and Items 10, 19, 24, 43, and 45 for OOP [␣s ⫽ .66
(university), .52 (clinical)]. The results of the CFA are presented in
 368 COX, ENNS, AND CLARA

Table 1
Summary of Fit Indices for the Hewitt and Flett (1991) and Frost et al. (1990) Multidimensional
Perfectionism Scales (MPS) in University and Clinical Samples

Measure and sample GFI AGFI CFI TLI RMSEA ␹2 (df)

Hewitt & Flett (HF) MPS

Three-factor model
University .71 .68 .74 .72 .07 2,207.48 (942)
Clinical .71 .68 .75 .74 .07 2,806.35 (942)
Three-factor model (brief HF MPS)
Clinical .94 .92 .94 .93 .05 190.99 (87)
Frost MPS
Six-factor model
University .80 .77 .89 .88 .06 1,174.24 (545)
Clinical .80 .77 .86 .85 .07 1,648.28 (545)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Stober (1998) four-factor model

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

University .75 .71 .84 .83 .08 1,453.68 (554)

Clinical .74 .70 .82 .80 .08 2,064.82 (554)
Purdon et al. (1999) three-factor model
University .74 .70 .83 .81 .08 1,286.27 (431)
Clinical .75 .71 .82 .80 .09 1,750.70 (431)
Five-factor model (Brief Frost MPS)
Clinical .91 .88 .94 .93 .06 462.12 (199)

Note. GFI ⫽ Goodness-of-fit index; AGFI ⫽ Adjusted goodness-of-fit index; CFI ⫽ Comparative fit index;
TLI ⫽ Tucker–Lewis Index; RMSEA ⫽ Root-mean-square error of approximation.

Table 1. In contrast to the full HF MPS, the brief HF MPS model
satisfied almost all of the evaluative criteria for good fit.1
To perform a more rigid test of covariance structure generali-
zation, we took the parameter estimates from the confirmatory
analysis of the brief HF MPS in the university sample and treated
them as fixed parameters in the same model with the clinical
sample. In other words, following the procedure outlined by Ban-
dalos (1993) and Floyd and Widaman (1995) all common factor
loadings were restricted to determine whether the covariance ma-
trix in the cross-validation sample could be reproduced by the
factor loadings from the initial sample. The fit indices for this
cross-validation model in the clinical sample were as follows:
GFI ⫽ .93, AGFI ⫽ .91, CFI ⫽ .92, TLI ⫽ .92, RMSEA ⫽ .06,
and ␹2(99) ⫽ 248.42.
Frost MPS. Table 1 also contains the fit statistics for the Frost
MPS models. The original six-factor model failed to meet any of
the evaluative criteria although some indices (e.g., CFI), ap-
proached the level of good fit. The situation did not improve for
either a four-factor model (Stober, 1998; Stumpf & Parker, 2000)
or the Purdon et al. (1999) three-factor model.
At this point we decided to attempt to identify a Frost MPS
model through the use of EFA with the college student sample, and
then to cross-validate the model with CFA in the clinical sample.
Previous EFA analyses with the Frost MPS (e.g., Purdon et al.,
1999) have found that some items do not load very highly on their
respective subscales or factors. Therefore, similar to the approach
taken in the HF MPS analysis, we attempted to cull a set of items
that best represented their respective factors. Because the number
of factors or subscales in the Frost MPS is less clear than with the
HF MPS, and because our sample size permitted it, we performed
an exploratory analysis utilizing principal-components analysis
with all 35 items. Using an oblique (oblimin) rotation and a
criterion of eigenvalues greater than 1, we generated a five-factor
solution. The pattern of item loadings closely matched that of the
original scale, with two exceptions. Item 18 from the COM scale
loaded highest on the Personal Standards factor, and the items for
PC and PE loaded on a single parental factor (which is also a
characteristic of four-factor models of the Frost MPS; e.g., Stumpf
& Parker, 2000). Seven items that had cross-loadings higher than
.30 were removed. From the COM and PP factors the 5 items with the
highest factor loadings that did not cross-load were chosen, from the
O factor the top 4 items that did not cross-load were chosen, from PS
the 5 items that did not cross-load were chosen, and from the DA
factor the 3 items which did not cross-load were chosen. This process
yielded a 22-item set and five subscales: COM [Items 9, 13, 14, 23,
34; ␣s ⫽ .86 (university), .86 (clinical)], O [Items 7, 27, 29, 31; ␣s ⫽
.90 (university), .88 (clinical)], PS [Items 6, 12, 19, 24, 30; ␣s ⫽
.85 (university), .83 (clinical)], PP [Items 3, 20, 22, 26, 35; ␣s ⫽ .84
(university), .86 (clinical)], and DA [Items 17, 28, 32; ␣s ⫽
.63 (university), .68 (clinical)].
The factor structure was then cross-validated using confirmatory
analysis in the clinical sample, and the results are presented near
the bottom of Table 1. The model satisfied four of the five
goodness-of-fit indicators. Together with the brief HF MPS, the
1
In response to reviewers’ requests, all 45 items of the HF MPS were
also examined simultaneously in a single EFA. A very similar set of items
emerged when the 45-item factor analysis was used. The 5 OOP items
matched exactly, 4 of the 5 SPP items matched, and 3 of the 5 SOP items
matched. In accordance with this close similarity in item composition, the
CFA produced very similar fit indices.
 MULTIDIMENSIONAL PERFECTIONISM SCALES
brief Frost MPS was the most successful of the six different
models evaluated in the clinical sample.2
We performed a similar test of covariance structure generaliza-
tion on the Frost MPS. The parameter estimates from the univer-
sity sample for the 22-item five-factor Frost model were treated as
fixed parameters in the same model with the clinical sample. The
fit indices for this cross-validation model were as follows: GFI ⫽
.89, AGFI ⫽ .87, CFI ⫽ .93, TLI ⫽ .92, RMSEA ⫽ .04, and
␹2(219) ⫽ 575.73.
Correlations between the subscales of the HF MPS and brief HF
MPS are presented in Table 2, and the correlations between the
subscales of the Frost MPS and brief Frost MPS are presented in
Table 3. In the majority of cases the correlations exceeded .90 and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
all correlations exceeded .70. Table 4 displays the correlations
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
between the brief HF MPS and the brief Frost MPS. A high degree
of redundancy among the subscales was not indicated.
Second-Order Confirmatory Analysis
To determine whether a higher-order, two-factor structure of
adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism could be identified from
the HF MPS and Frost MPS items, we conducted a second-order
confirmatory factor analysis. Using the correlational findings of
Frost et al. (1993), we defined maladaptive perfectionism as a
composite of the items that constituted the COM, DA, and PC
subscales from the Frost MPS and the SPP subscale items from the
HF MPS. Adaptive perfectionism was defined as a composite of
the PS and O subscale items from the Frost MPS and the SOP
subscale items from the HF MPS. Consistent with their observed
lack of relationship with either negative affect or positive affect in
the Frost et al. (1993) study, the OOP subscale from the HF MPS
and the PE subscale from the Frost MPS were not included in the
maladaptive–adaptive model. Table 5 presents the CFA results for
this higher order, two-factor model based on the original, full item
sets from both MPS subscales. None of the indices indicated good
fit. An adaptive–maladaptive model based on the brief HF MPS
and brief Frost MPS was also evaluated. The same subscales used
in the full-scale versions were again selected. Because the majority
Table 2
Intercorrelations Between Corresponding Full (45-Item) and
Brief (15-Item) Subscales of the Hewitt and Flett (1991)
Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale for Clinical and
University Samples
Brief Brief Brief
Self- Socially Other-
Subscale Oriented Prescribed Oriented
Clinical (n ⫽ 412)
Self-Oriented .96
Socially Prescribed .91
Other-Oriented .73
University (n ⫽ 288)
Self-Oriented .95
Socially Prescribed .94
Other-Oriented .77
369
of PP items from the brief Frost MPS originated from the PC
subscale, it was conceptualized as an element of maladaptive
perfectionism. The results in Table 5 show that the model success-
fully passed three of the five fit indicators in each sample.
The third and final set of results consists of correlations between
brief and full-scale perfectionism dimensions, higher-order mal-
adaptive and adaptive dimensions of perfectionism (from the com-
posite subscales), and the broad personality domains of Neuroti-
cism and Conscientiousness, as well as a symptom measure of
distress and indices of academic achievement. Table 6 presents
these correlational results. The conservative ( p ⬍ .01) alpha is
more appropriate given the large number of correlation coeffi-
cients. The largest correlations were in expected directions (e.g.,
indices of maladaptive perfectionism and tendency to experience
distress), although there were some small correlations that were
unexpected (e.g., adaptive perfectionism and neuroticism). A very
similar pattern of correlational findings based on brief measures
versus full-scale measures of perfectionism was evident, indicating
that a reduction in scale length did not come at the expense of
reduced construct-related validity.
Discussion
The purposes of this study were to evaluate the first-order and
second-order structure of two popular multidimensional measures
of perfectionism. This study is the first to use CFA with several
different goodness-of-fit indicators in both nonclinical and clini-
cally distressed samples. The latter group is especially important
because although perfectionism has potentially broad implications
for a number of forms of psychopathology, much of the existing
factor-analytic literature is confined to college student samples. In
general, the findings were very consistent across the two different
samples, and this consistency attests to the robustness and appli-
cability of the perfectionism models for a wide range of current
level of psychological functioning.
Strong support was found for the three-factor model of the HF
MPS (Hewitt & Flett, 1991), although most of the evidence for
good fit was obtained with a reduced item set (i.e., 15 instead of
2
It is possible that the brief measures of perfectionism displayed such
good fit to the data simply because of the reduced number of items and
corresponding degrees of freedom in the models compared with the full-
item versions. This possibility was investigated by constructing brief item
sets that were not empirically derived. A random selection of 5 items from
the remaining 10 items of each subscale for the HF MPS were chosen to
construct an alternative 15-item scale which was subjected to a three-factor
CFA in both the university (U) and clinical (C) samples. The fit statistics
were GFI (.91 U, .87 C), AGFI (.88 U, .83 C), CFI (.82 U, .76 C), RMSEA
(.07 U, .09 C), and ␹2 (df ⫽ 87; 207.05 U, 384.35 C). For the Frost MPS
the remaining 13 items were used to construct an alternative 22-item scale,
with additional items randomly selected from the brief Frost MPS to bring
the total item numbers within each subscale up to equality with the brief
Frost MPS. This alternative scale was subjected to a five-factor CFA and
resulted in the following fit statistics: GFI (.85 U, .84 C), AGFI (.81 U, .80
C), CFI (.88 U, .85 C), RMSEA (.08 U, .08 C), and ␹2 (df ⫽ 199; 517.74
U, 776.63 C). To summarize, almost all of the goodness-of-fit indicators
suggested neither the alternative brief item set for the HF MPS nor the
Frost MPS satisfied criteria for good fit.
 370 COX, ENNS, AND CLARA

Table 3
Intercorrelations Between Corresponding Full (35-Item) and Brief (22-Item) Subscales of the
Frost et al. (1990) Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale for Clinical and University Samples

Brief Concern Brief Personal Brief Parental Brief Doubts Brief

Subscale Over Mistakes Standards Perceptions About Actions Organization

Clinical (n ⫽ 412)
Concern Over Mistakes .96
Personal Standards .97
Parental Expectations .86
Parental Criticism .91
Doubts About Actions .97
Organization .97
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

University (n ⫽ 288)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Concern Over Mistakes .96

Personal Standards .96
Parental Expectations .87
Parental Criticism .92
Doubts About Actions .96
Organization .98

45). This finding suggests that not only might a reduced item set
be advantageous in clinical and other assessment settings where
time and effort on the part of respondents is an important concern,
but also that the underlying factor structure might be better cap-
tured by focusing on the most salient or marker-type items. We
would encourage the developers of the HF MPS to consider the
construction of a brief HF MPS and hope that our findings help
point to directions that appear most promising with respect to item
selection.
We were also able to obtain good fit for the Frost MPS (Frost et
al., 1990), but only after refining the scale. In the process, and
perhaps not surprisingly, the data necessitated that parental criti-
cism and expectations be collapsed into one parental perceptions
domain. This refined Frost MPS containing five first-order factors
successfully passed several goodness-of-fit indicators, whereas
this was not the case for other previously identified models (Pur-
don et al., 1999; Stober, 1998; Stumpf & Parker, 2000). These
findings suggest that the factor structure uncertainty and instability

Table 4
Correlations Between the Brief Hewitt and Flett (1991) Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS) and Brief Frost et al. (1990)
MPS Subscales in the Clinical and University Samples

Brief Brief Brief

Brief Socially Brief Brief Concern Personal Parental Brief Doubts
Subscale Self-Oriented Prescribed Other-Oriented Over Mistakes Standards Perceptions About Actions

Clinical (n ⫽ 412)
Brief Socially Prescribed .51** —
Brief Other-Oriented .15** .12* —
Brief Concern Over Mistakes .39** .54** .00 —
Brief Personal Standards .71** .39** .15** .36** —
Brief Parental Perceptions .36** .56** ⫺.02 .43** .34** —
Brief Doubts About Actions .32** .43** ⫺.08 .59** .27** .34** —
Brief Organization .28** .04 .08 ⫺.03 .24** .11* ⫺.08

University (n ⫽ 288)
Brief Socially Prescribed .38** —
Brief Other-Oriented .12* .08 —
Brief Concern Over Mistakes .44** .57** .06 —
Brief Personal Standards .70** .37** .21** .41** —
Brief Parental Perceptions .24** .69** ⫺.02 .49** .25** —
Brief Doubts About Actions .36** .43** ⫺.01 .53** .31** .41** —
Brief Organization .20** ⫺.03 ⫺.08 .08 .23** .02 .22**

* p ⬍ .05, two-tailed. ** p ⬍ .01, two-tailed.

 MULTIDIMENSIONAL PERFECTIONISM SCALES
Table 5
Summary of Fit Indices for the Second-Order Analysis in the University and Clinical Samples
Measure and sample GFI AGFI
Adaptive–Maladaptive Perfectionisma
University .71 .68
Clinical .69 .67
Adaptive–Maladaptive Perfectionismb
University .83 .81
Clinical .85 .83
Note. GFI ⫽ Goodness-of-fit index; AGFI ⫽ Adjusted goodness-of-fit index; CFI ⫽ Comparative fit index;
TLI ⫽ Tucker–Lewis Index; RMSEA ⫽ Root-mean-square error of approximation.
a
From original set of items. b Items from the Brief Hewitt and Flett (1991) Multidimensional Perfectionism
Scale (MPS) and the brief Frost et al. (1990) MPS.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
might be put to rest with the adoption of the model and item
composition identified in the present study. Our findings were
consistent with previous research (e.g., Purdon et al., 1999; Parker
& Adkins, 1995) which has shown that many Frost MPS items
have substantial cross-loadings or do not load highly on their
respective subscales. Specifically, the present results highlight the
potential advantage of culling a stronger and cleaner set of items
from the larger item set, in order to assess a robust and replicable
model. A brief 22-item subset was used to achieve this purpose,
and the subscales correlated very highly with the original
subscales.
Content validity has been defined as the “degree to which
elements of an assessment instrument are relevant to and repre-
sentative of the targeted construct for a particular assessment
purpose” (Haynes, Richard, & Kubany, 1995, p. 238). On the basis
of this definition and the description of “elements” provided by
Haynes et al., the factor analytically derived subscales of the two
brief MPS instruments look favorable. The instructions and re-
sponse formats remain unchanged. More important, the content of
the individual items that constitute the factors or subscales is very
consistent with the original descriptions of the various facets of the
perfectionism construct set out in the development of the two MPS
instruments (Frost et al., 1990; Hewitt & Flett, 1991). Using the
framework for judging content validity described by Murphy and
Davidshofer (1998), we found that in each case the subscale items
appear to provide a representative sample for each of the content
domains described in seminal articles (Frost et al., 1990; Hewitt &
Flett, 1991).3
Our results also build on previous literature that has suggested a
higher-order, two-factor model of perfectionism involving posi-
tive/healthy aspects and negative/unhealthy aspects (Frost et al.,
1990; Stumpf & Parker, 2000). The model used in the second-
order CFA consisted of adaptive versus maladaptive dimensions of
perfectionism, and it was able to satisfy several goodness-of-fit
indicators. A difference from previous studies is that we were able
to identify a model that provided good fit to the data that actually
relied on fewer items. In fact, a two-factor, second-order model of
perfectionism was empirically supported only when items from
the two brief versions of the MPS instruments were used. By
not including other-oriented perfectionism in the adaptive–mal-
adaptive model, this resulted in a composite item length of only 32
items—fewer items than contained in either of the individual MPS
371
CFI TLI RMSEA ␹2 (df)
.81 .80 .06 2876.24 (1370)
.79 .78 .06 3833.74 (1370)
.91 .90 .06 918.82 (457)
.91 .90 .06 1075.18 (457)
instruments. In general, correlations between the two higher-order
perfectionism dimensions and the broad personality domains of
neuroticism and conscientiousness were in the expected directions,
as were associations with symptom distress versus academic
achievement. The strongest correlations, representing medium to
large effect sizes (Cohen, 1992), were the positive associations
between maladaptive perfectionism with neuroticism and symp-
tom distress, as well as adaptive perfectionism with conscientious-
ness and academic achievement. However, the relationships were
not as unambiguous as they could be and there were some unex-
pected, albeit small, correlations (adaptive perfectionism and
neuroticism).
A limitation of the present study and of the perfectionism
literature is the sole reliance on self-report measures. The devel-
opment of a valid and reliable structured interview of multiple
dimensions of perfectionism is a clear direction for future research.
Another limitation is that all of the data were gathered from the
same respondents, and an interesting question for further study is
the degree to which participants’ responses and those of their
spouses or significant others converge. Similarly, measurement
formats that would complement verbal and self-report assessment
are also needed. Examples include behavioral observation or psy-
chophysiological indices in laboratory-task situations.
In conclusion, the present study was able to obtain strong
support for two different conceptually derived, multidimensional
measures of perfectionism as well as a hierarchical model of the
structure of perfectionism. The results suggest these measures of
3
In fact, the “parental perceptions” factor of the brief Frost et al. MPS
identified in the present study can be viewed as more consistent with the
original construct defined by Frost et al. (1990) compared with the two
separate parental subscales that subsequently emerged from empirical analysis
in the Frost et al. MPS. In the Frost et al. article each of the facets of the
perfectionism construct were explicitly defined in separate sections, and pa-
rental influences were discussed as a single facet. Frost et al. subsequently
divided the parental facet into separate PE and PC subscales on the basis of the
results from a factor analysis, but there was some ambiguity in content. For
example, the item “I never felt like I could meet my parents’ expectations”
emerged as part of the PC subscale rather than the PE subscale. Therefore, the
content validity of the parental perceptions factor in the present study appears
to be more consistent with the original description of a single parental dimen-
sion of perfectionism as delineated in the Frost et al. (1990) article.
 372 COX, ENNS, AND CLARA

Table 6
Correlations Between Perfectionism Dimensions, Higher-Order Personality Domains, Distress, and Academic Achievement

Neuroticism Conscientiousness BDI Recent academic Anticipated academic

achievement achievement
Scale and subscale Univ. Clin. Univ. Clin. Univ. Clin. (Med. school) (Med. school)

Brief HF MPS (1991)

Self-Oriented Perfectionism .18** .35** .38** .24** .11 .19** .31** .38**
(.18**) (.16**) (.41**) (.24**) (.13*) (.22**) (.30**) (.41**)
Socially Prescribed Perfectionism .41** .14** ⫺.07 ⫺.08 .41** .39** .15 .23*
(.45**) (.40**) (⫺.04) (⫺.13*) (.46**) (.44**) (.13) (.23*)
Brief Frost MPS (1990)
Concern Over Mistakes .53** .56** .06 ⫺.22** .53** .48** .15 .17
(.52**) (.54**) (.06) (⫺.18**) (.52**) (.48**) (.17) (.18)
Doubts About Actions .51** .58** .01 ⫺.36** .41** .39** ⫺.05 ⫺.09
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

(.53**) (.56**) (.01) (⫺.39**) (.43**) (.38**) (⫺.06) (⫺.09)

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Personal Standards .15** .09 .35** .25** .15* .10 .27** .29**
(.15**) (.08) (.39**) (.31**) (.13*) (.09) (.25*) (.30**)
Parental Perceptions .31** .26** ⫺.10 ⫺.03 .35* .19** ⫺.04 .07
(.33**) (.30**) (⫺.10) (⫺.05) (.38**) (.20**) (⫺.13) (⫺.00)
Organization .10 ⫺.15** .50** .60** .03 ⫺.06 .03 ⫺.13
(.11) (⫺.16**) (.50**) (.63**) (.05) (⫺.08) (.02) (⫺.12)
Composite Scales
Maladaptive Perfectionism .52** .49** ⫺.04 ⫺.10* .52** .45** .10 .17
(.54**) (.52**) (⫺.02) (⫺.19**) (.54**) (.49**) (.10) (.18)
Adaptive Perfectionism .19** .16** .52** .32** .13* .18** .28** .27**
(.20**) (.10) (.51**) (.38**) (.14*) (.17**) (.28**) (.34**)

Note. Neuroticism and Conscientiousness scores are from the NEO Five Factor Inventory. Correlations using the original, full item sets are given in
parentheses. Parental Perceptions consists mainly of Parental Criticism items. Maladaptive Perfectionism is the sum of scores on the Doubts About Actions,
Parental Perceptions (Parental Criticism for full-scale computations), Concern Over Mistakes, and Socially Prescribed Perfectionism scales. Adaptive
Perfectionism is the sum of scores on the Personal Standards, Organization and Self-Oriented Perfectionism scales. BDI ⫽ Beck Depression Inventory;
HF ⫽ Hewitt & Flett; MPS ⫽ Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale; Univ. ⫽ University sample (n ⫽ 288); Clin. ⫽ Clinical sample (n ⫽ 412); Med.
school ⫽ Medical students (n ⫽ 96).
* p ⬍ .05, two-tailed. ** p ⬍ .01, two-tailed.

perfectionism could be successfully shortened through selective
reduction of the number of items. The correlational findings sug-
gest that construct-related validity is not compromised in the brief
measures of perfectionism. The study also provided empirical
support for composite MPS indices of negative or maladaptive
perfectionism and positive or adaptive perfectionism. This dem-
onstrated ability is a valuable one given the recent emphasis in
differentiating “good” and “bad” perfectionism (e.g., Terry-Short,
Owens, Slade, & Dewey, 1995) and that the MPS instruments were
not specifically designed for this purpose.
References
Adler, A. (1956). The neurotic disposition. In H. L. Ansbacher & R. R.
Ansbacher (Eds.), The individual psychology of Alfred Adler (pp. 239 –
262). New York: Harper.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical man-
ual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL:
Smallwaters Corporation.
Bandalos, D. L. (1993). Factors influencing cross-validation of confirma-
tory factor analysis models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28, 351–
374.
Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression: Clinical, experimental and theoretical
aspects. New York: Harper & Row.
Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive
therapy of depression. New York: Guilford Press.
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Garbin, M. G. (1988). Psychometric properties
of the Beck Depression Inventory: Twenty-five years of evaluation.
Clinical Psychology Review, 8, 77–100.
Bentler, P. M. (1988). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 107, 238 –246.
Brown, E. J., Heimberg, R. G., Frost, R. O., Makris, G. S., Juster, H. R.,
& Leung, A. W. (1999). Relationship of perfectionism to affect, expec-
tations, attributions, and performance in the classroom. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology, 18, 98 –120.
Cattell, R. B. (1977). A more sophisticated look at structure: Perturbation,
sampling, role, and observer trait-view theories. In R. B. Cattell & R. M.
Dreger (Eds.), Handbook of modern personality theory (pp. 166 –220).
New York: Wiley.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory
(NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional
manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Enns, M. W., & Cox, B. J. (1999). Perfectionism and depression symptom
severity in major depressive disorder. Behaviour Research and Ther-
apy, 37, 783–794.
Enns, M. W., & Cox, B. J. (2002). The nature and assessment of perfec-
tionism: A critical analysis. In G. Flett & P. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfection-
ism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 33– 62). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Enns, M. W., Cox, B. J., & Borger, S. C. (2001). Correlates of analogue
and clinical depression: A further test of the phenomenological conti-
nuity hypothesis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 66, 175–183.
Enns, M. W., Cox, B. J., Sareen, J., & Freeman, P. (2001). Adaptive and
maladaptive perfectionism in medical students: A longitudinal investi-
gation. Medical Education, 35, 1034 –1042.
 MULTIDIMENSIONAL PERFECTIONISM SCALES
Fan, X., & Wang, L. (1998). Effects of potential confounding factors on fit
indices and parameter estimates for true and misspecified SEM models.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 701–735.
Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development
and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological As-
sessment, 7, 286 –299.
Frost, R. O., Heimberg, R. G., Holt, C. S., Mattia, J. I., & Neubauer, A. L.
(1993). A comparison of two measures of perfectionism. Personality
and Individual Differences, 14, 119 –126.
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimen-
sions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449 – 468.
Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfec-
tionism. Psychology, 15, 27–33.
Haynes, S. N., Richard, D. C. S., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content validity
in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
methods. Psychological Assessment, 7, 238 –247.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social
contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psycho-
pathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456 – 470.
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., Turnbull-Donovan, W., & Mikail, S. F. (1991).
The Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale: Reliability, validity, and
psychometric properties in psychiatric samples. Psychological Assess-
ment, 3, 464 – 468.
Hollender, M. H. (1965). Perfectionism. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 6,
94 –103.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1986). LISREL VI: Analysis of linear
structural relationships by maximum likelihood, instrumental variables,
and least squares methods. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
Lilienfeld, S. O. (1997). The relation of anxiety sensitivity to higher and
lower order personality dimensions: Implications for the etiology of
panic attacks. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 539 –544.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit
indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size.
Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391– 410.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., Balla, J. R., & Grayson, D. (1998). Is more ever
too much? The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor
analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 181–220.
373
Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O. (1998). Psychological testing:
Principles and applications (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Parker, W. D., & Adkins, K. K. (1995). A psychometric evaluation of the
Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale. Journal of Psychopathology and
Behavioral Assessment, 17, 323–334.
Parker, W. D., & Stumpf, H. (1995). An examination of the Multidimen-
sional Perfectionism Scale with a sample of academically talented chil-
dren. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 13, 372–383.
Purdon, C., Antony, M. M., & Swinson, R. P. (1999). Psychometric
properties of the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism scale in a clinical
anxiety disorders sample. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55, 1271–
1286.
Raykov, T. (1998). On the use of confirmatory factor analysis in person-
ality research. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 291–293.
Rheaume, J., Freeston, M. H., Dugas, M. J., Letarte, H., & Ladouceur, R.
(1995). Perfectionism, responsibility, and obsessive– compulsive symp-
toms. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33, 785–794.
Stober, J. (1998). The Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale revis-
ited: More perfect with four (instead of six) dimensions. Personality and
Individual Differences, 24, 481– 491.
Stumpf, H., & Parker, W. D. (2000). A hierarchical structural analysis of
perfectionism and its relation to other personality characteristics. Per-
sonality and Individual Differences, 28, 837– 852.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd
ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
Terry-Short, L. A., Owens, R. G., Slade, P. D., & Dewey, M. E. (1995).
Positive and negative perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 18, 663– 668.
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). The reliability coefficient for maximum
likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1–10.
Received September 28, 2000
Revision received March 27, 2002
Accepted April 4, 2002 䡲