MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980085942 · doi:10.1177/0734282919878553

The Big Three Perfectionism Scale–Short Form (BTPS-SF): Development of a Brief Self-Report Measure of Multidimensional Perfectionism

2019· article· en· W2980085942 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Anita Feher, Martin M. Smith, Donald H. Saklofske, Rachel A. Plouffe, Claire A. Wilson, Simon Sherry

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychoeducational Assessment · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPerfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityWestern University
FundersWestern University
KeywordsPsychologyConfirmatory factor analysisPerfectionism (psychology)Structural equation modelingClinical psychologyAnxietyScale (ratio)Construct validityPersonalityPsychometricsSocial psychologyPsychiatryStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Big Three Perfectionism Scale (BTPS) is a 45-item self-report measure of perfectionism with three overarching factors: rigid, self-critical, and narcissistic perfectionism. Our objective was to create a brief version of the BTPS, the Big Three Perfectionism Scale–Short Form (BTPS-SF). Sixteen items were selected, and confirmatory factor analysis using a large sample of Canadian university students ( N = 607) revealed the BTPS-SF had acceptable model fit. Moreover, the BTPS-SF displayed strong test–retest reliability. The relationships of the BTPS-SF factors with depression, anxiety, stress, emotional intelligence, personality, resiliency, and elements of subjective well-being also suggested adequate criterion validity. Overall, results suggest the BTPS-SF represents an efficient, easily administered, and novel means of assessing multidimensional perfectionism.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations95
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychoeducational AssessmentSame topicPerfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety StudiesFrench-language works237,207