MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406211573 · doi:10.1177/07342829241313089

Development and Validation of the Perfectionism Literacy Questionnaire

2025· article· en· W4406211573 on OpenAlexaff
Marianne E. Etherson, Andrew P. Hill, Michael C. Grugan, Daniel J. Madigan, Martin M. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychoeducational Assessment · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPerfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMental health literacyPerfectionism (psychology)Confirmatory factor analysisMental healthPersonalityLiteracyExploratory factor analysisClinical psychologyHealth literacyIntervention (counseling)PsychometricsSocial psychologyStructural equation modelingMental illnessPsychiatryHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Perfectionism is a multidimensional personality characteristic associated with mental health problems. However, its features are commonly misunderstood, and many people are unaware of the risks it can pose. This study aimed to develop the first self-report measure of perfectionism literacy. That is, the degree of knowledge someone has about perfectionism, its features and consequences, and when and where to seek help if needed. The Perfectionism Literacy Questionnaire (PLQ) was validated over four stages using four samples of community adults ( N = 1078 total; M age = 37.17 years). In stage one, we generated a pool of items. In stage two, we used exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to derive a 29-item, seven-factor measure. In stage three, we assessed relationships between the PLQ, perfectionism, and attitudes toward help-seeking for mental health support and found the PLQ is distinguishable from these constructs. In stage four, we examined whether the PLQ was responsive to change following an educational video on perfectionism. We found tentative evidence that minimal intervention can increase perfectionism literacy. Our findings suggest that the PLQ is valid and reliable and may be useful for educational purposes and primary prevention of mental health problems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.372 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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