Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Properties of the Scale of Perfectionism and Excellencism (SCOPE) for Brazilian Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is considerable discussion in the scientific literature about whether perfectionism is beneficial, harmful, or unnecessary. The Scale of Perfectionism and Excellencism (SCOPE) was developed to assess the pursuit of perfection as opposed to the pursuit of excellence. This study aimed to investigate the validity indicators of the internal, external, convergent, and discriminant structures, as well as the reliability of the SCOPE for Brazilian adults. Two cross-sectional studies with convenience samples were conducted. The results of the confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses in Study 1 (n = 1,814) indicated suitable fit indices for the scale (χ2 = 600.585, df = 208, p < .001, χ2 /df = 2.887, CFI = .984, TLI = .982, RMSEA = .059 (90 % CI [.056, .062])), suggesting a two-factor structure (perfectionism and excellencism). Low positive correlations were observed between perfectionism/excellencism and general psychiatric symptoms, and a low negative correlation between perfectionism and life satisfaction. Perfectionism was a negative predictor of life satisfaction, whereas excellencism was a positive predictor of both psychiatric symptoms and life satisfaction. Study 2 (n = 432) supports the convergent validity of perfectionism and discriminant validity of excellencism with Hewitt and Flett’s Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale. When controlling for perfectionism, excellencism remains positively associated with self-oriented perfectionism (SOP), but the correlation with socially prescribed perfectionism (SPP) disappears. Controlling for excellencism, the association between perfectionism and SOP and SPP remains significant, though somewhat smaller in magnitude. This study provides favorable evidence for using SCOPE among Brazilian adults and valuable insights into the constructs of excellencism and 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".