The Big Three Perfectionism Scale: Validation of the Polish Version
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Big Three Perfectionism Scale (BTPS) was created to integrate different aspects of perfectionism, including the newly conceptualized concept of narcissistic perfectionism. The goal of our two studies ( N = 1341) was to examine the psychometric properties of the Polish adaptation of the BTPS, supporting the validity and portability of the measure. The studies were conducted among people who had a child, thus contributing to a better understanding of parental perfectionism, one of the key factors influencing parental well-being and a child’s functioning. Our analyses included investigating the structure of the scale, intercorrelations between subscales, reliability, and convergent validity by correlating BTPS scores with other measures of perfectionism and correlates of psychopathology (borderline symptoms) and parental difficulties (parental stress and parental burnout). Results supported the structure of the original BTPS. As predicted, confirmatory factor analysis indicated that items comprising the Polish adaptation of the questionnaire, like the original version, measure three related but specific aspects of perfectionism: rigid perfectionism, self-critical perfectionism, and narcissistic perfectionism. The three dimensions were also found to be specifically related to the difficulties experienced by parents. Further, the Polish version of the BTPS was found to have good internal reliability and validity. Our results from two independent Polish samples suggest that the Polish version of the BTPS is a psychometrically robust measure of perfectionism for assessing the three perfectionism factors.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".