Other-Oriented Perfectionism in Children and Adolescents: Development and Validation of the Other-Oriented Perfectionism Subscale-Junior Form (OOPjr)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on adults indicates other-oriented perfectionism (requiring perfection from others) is associated with various consequential outcomes independent of self-oriented perfectionism (requiring perfection of the self) and socially prescribed perfectionism (believing others require perfection of the self). However, historically, the most widely used and researched measure of trait perfectionism in children, the Child-Adolescent Perfectionism Scale (CAPS), has omitted other-oriented perfectionism. In the present study, we address this by reporting on the multisource development and validation of the first self-report measure of other-oriented perfectionism specifically intended for youths: the Other-Oriented Perfectionism Subscale-Junior Form (OOPjr). Children ( N = 107; Mage = 11.5, SD = 1.7) completed the OOPjr, CAPS, and measures of perfectionistic self-presentation, narcissism, social disconnection, depressive symptoms, and parental psychological control. Parents provided ratings of children’s self-oriented, socially prescribed, and other-oriented perfectionism. Psychometric analyses indicated the OOPjr is a homogenous and internally reliable scale that, when factor analyzed alongside the CAPS, displays measurement invariance across gender and replicates the three-factor solution found in adults. Furthermore, parent ratings of other-oriented perfectionism showed unique positive relationships with OOPjr scores, but not CAPS scores. Likewise, other-oriented perfectionism had independent positive relationships with narcissistic superiority and achievement-oriented parental psychological control, after controlling for self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism. Overall, our findings provide preliminary support for the use of the OOPjr as a measure of other-oriented perfectionism in youths.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".