Validation of the Other-Oriented Perfectionism Subscale-Junior Form in Spanish adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date, the Other-Oriented Perfectionism Subscale-Junior Form (OOP-Jr) has only been validated in Canadian adolescents. The aim of this study, therefore, was to validate a Spanish version of the OOP-Jr. The sample was composed by 681 Spanish students aged 12 to 17 (M = 14.20, SD = 1.42), of which 329 were boys (48.3 %), 374 were girls (50.4 %) and 9 were considered as others (1.3 %). Confirmatory Factor Analysis supported the unifactorial model containing 10 items based on the original subscale. The Spanish version of the OOP-Jr reported excellent internal reliabilities (α = .90, ω = .93). Moreover, it showed an adequate discriminant validity since correlational analysis revealed significant associations between other-oriented perfectionism, negative affect, and teamwork in a positive and negative sense, respectively. According to the maladaptive outcomes in terms of affectivity and teamwork, it is recommended that other-oriented perfectionism be monitored and addressed from an early age. Thus, the Spanish version of the OOP-Jr proposed in this study is the only valid and reliable tool developed to assess this perfectionistic dimension in Spanish-speaking adolescents.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".