Perfectionism in university students from Chinese and European cultural backgrounds : an investigation on construct validity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perfectionism has been related to both adaptive functioning such as positive achievement striving, as well as to negative outcomes such as procrastination and depression. Numerous studies, using primarily Caucasian subjects, document a relationship between multidimensional perfectionism and depression. Few studies have examined perfectionism in samples from different cultural backgrounds. The present multidimensional conceptualization and operational definition of perfectionism remains to be tested in terms of meaningfulness and applicability to other cultural groups. Therefore the overall aim of the current study is to determine if the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Hewitt & Flett, 1991) shows evidence of construct validity in a sample of university students from Chinese cultural backgrounds. Evidence of construct validity is obtained by investigating similarities and differences between the two cultural groups in the following: the internal structure of the measure; and the relationships between the measure and other measures (concurrent validity). Differences in mean levels of perfectionism between Chinese-Canadian and European Canadian students are also investigated. Data for 191 subjects are reported for the following measures: Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Hewitt & Flett, 1991); Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Frost et al, 1990); Beck Depression Inventory (Beck et al, 1979); Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity Acculturation Scale (Suinn et al, 1987); a Background Information Sheet. Evidence of construct validity and of the previously documented relationship between socially-prescribed perfectionism and depression was found for the Chinese-Canadian sample. The current study lends support for using the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Hewitt & Flett, 1991) with Chinese-Canadian university students.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".