Perfectionists' Appraisal of Daily Hassles and Chronic Headache
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationships between daily hassles, perfectionism, and the experience of chronic headache among university students. BACKGROUND: Headaches are very common among university students. It has been found that a higher number of hassles reported by students is associated with an increase in headache activity. It has also been suggested that individuals higher in perfectionism appraise more situations as hassles, and that this dispositional characteristic may constitute a risk factor for the experience of chronic headaches. METHODS: A total of 291 university students completed three questionnaires: (1) the Headache Assessment Questionnaire that was utilized to obtain information on headache occurrence and its features, (2) the Brief College Student Hassles Scale, and (3) the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale. RESULTS: A total of 18 students (6.2%) met the 2004 IHS criteria for chronic headaches, 179 (61.5%) met the criteria for frequent headaches, and 69 (23.7%) met the criteria for infrequent headaches. Students with chronic headaches reported significantly more stress, as measured by daily hassles. They also exhibited higher levels of perfectionism. The number of hassles reported was a significant predictor of headache frequency, intensity, and duration. Analyses also revealed that perfectionism was a significant predictor of headache frequency and intensity. CONCLUSIONS: The present study indicates that there is a relationship between perfectionism and chronic headache in university students, with those higher in perfectionism experiencing more frequent headaches. This investigation confirmed the relationship between daily hassles and chronic headache in this population. The results also suggest that perfectionists may generate their own stress through their tendency to appraise more situations as hassles. This, in turn, may explain their tendency to experience chronic headaches.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".