Development and validation of the Koreans' Attitudes toward Perfectionism Scale (KAPS)

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study aimed to develop and validate a reliable instrument for assessing attitudes toward perfectionism among Koreans. To this end, two studies were conducted.
In Study 1, 1,541 adult men and women in Korea participated in an open-ended survey designed to accurately capture the understanding of attitudes towards perfectionism among Koreans. Participants were asked to describe their attitudes towards their own and others' perfectionism. Next, Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), a topic modeling method, was then used to examine the constructs of Koreans’ attitudes toward perfectionism. The data suggested five factors of attitudes toward perfectionism: a positive attitude toward one’s own perfectionism, a positive attitude toward others’ perfectionism, a negative attitude toward one’s own perfectionism, a negative attitude toward others’ perfectionism, and an ambivalent attitude toward perfectionism.
In Study 2, a preliminary 37-item scale was constructed and tested on a sample of 542 adult Korean men and women. An exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) study was conducted to investigate the factor structure of the Korean Attitudes toward Perfectionism Scale (KAPS), which supported the final 34-item scale and its 5-factor solution. Furthermore, the construct validity of the scale was re-evaluated by comparing model fits of different models. The findings showed that the factor structure of the KAPS was better characterized by the 5-factor model (correlated factors model). Consequently, it was shown that it is more acceptable to use the individual scores of the sub-factors rather than their total scores when applying the scale. The Rasch model of item response theory (IRT) was then used to assess the appropriateness of individual items. In addition, convergent validity, discriminant validity, criterion-related validity, and incremental validity were evaluated.
The study’s innovative attempt to develop an attitudes toward perfectionism scale that is based in the Korean cultural context and rigorously validated serves as what makes it significant overall. Furthermore, specific attitudes towards perfectionism indicate guarantee as an emphasis for counseling interventions meant to address various psychological problems associated with perfectionism and to develop therapeutic approaches. In this respect, the KAPS is expected to have a great deal for application. Finally, the potential applications of the KAPS and the limitations of the study were discussed.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 연구는 한국인의 완벽주의 태도를 평가할 수 있는 신뢰롭고 타당한 척도를 개발하고 타당화하는 데 연구의 목적이 있다. 이를 위해 두 개의 연구를 수행하였다.
연구 1에서는 한국인의 완벽주의 태도의 구성개념을 실제에 가깝게 파악하기 위해, 대한민국 성인 남녀 1,541명에게 개방형 설문을 실시하여 자신 및 타인의 완벽주의에 대한 태도를 기술하도록 하였다. 그 다음, 수집된 응답자료에 대해 토픽 모델링(topic modeling) 기법 중 잠재 디리클레 할당(Latent Dirichlet Allocation; LDA) 분석을 통해 한국인의 완벽주의 태도 구성개념을 확인하였다. 그 결과, 완벽주의에 대한 태도의 다섯 가지 요인으로, ‘자신의 완벽주의에 대한 긍정적 태도’, ‘타인의 완벽주의에 대한 긍정적 태도’, ‘자신의 완벽주의에 대한 부정적 태도’, ‘타인의 완벽주의에 대한 부정적 태도’, ‘완벽주의에 대한 양가적 태도’가 도출되었다.
연구 2에서는 37개의 예비문항을 개발하였고, 대한민국 성인 남녀 542명을 대상으로 완벽주의 태도를 평가하였다. 먼저 한국인의 완벽주의 태도 척도의 요인구조를 파악하기 위해 탐색적 구조방정식 모형(Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling; ESEM) 분석을 실시한 결과, 최종적으로 34문항으로 구성된 5요인 구조가 지지되었다. 나아가 여러 모형들의 모형적합도 비교를 통해 척도의 구성개념 타당도를 재검증한 결과, 5요인 모형이 다른 모형들에 비해 완벽주의 태도 척도의 요인 구조를 더 잘 설명하는 것으로 나타나 척도 활용 시 하위요인들의 총점보다는 개별 점수를 사용하는 것이 적절함을 확인하였다. 다음으로, 문항반응이론(Item Response Theory; IRT)의 Rasch 모형을 적용하여 개별 문항의 적절성을 확인하였고, 척도의 타당도를 검증하기 위해 수렴 타당도, 변별 타당도, 준거 타당도 및 증분 타당도를 평가하였다.
본 연구는 엄격한 척도 개발 및 타당화 절차를 토대로 한국 문화의 특수성을 반영한 완벽주의 태도 척도를 개발한 최초의 시도라는 점에서 의의가 있다. 나아가, 실무적인 측면에서도 완벽주의와 관련된 여러 심리적 문제에 개입하거나 치료적 방략을 세분화하는데 완벽주의에 대한 태도는 상담 개입의 초점으로서 유망하며, 그러한 측면에서 본 연구에서 개발한 완벽주의 태도 척도의 활용 가능성이 기대된다. 끝으로, 한국인의 완벽주의 태도 척도의 활용방안 및 연구의 제한점을 논의하였다.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• List of Figures
• ·························································································
• v
• List of Tables
• ··························································································
• vi
• Abstract
• ··································································································
• viii
• I. Introduction
• ··························································································
• 1
• 1. Research Background
• ···········································································
• 1
• 2. Research Purpose
• ···············································································
• 11
• II. Theoretical Background
• ··········································································
• 13
• 1. Perfectionism
• ·····················································································
• 13
• 1.1. Definitions of Perfectionism
• ·······························································
• 13
• 1.2. Perfectionism and Mental Health
• ··························································
• 18
• 1.3. Sociocultural Influences on Perfectionism and Attitudes toward Perfectionism
• ·······
• 19
• 1.3.1. The Impact of Parental Child-rearing Attitudes on the Development of Perfectionism in Adulthood
• ····
• 19
• 1.3.2. Interdependent Self-Schema and the Development of Perfectionism
• ·········
• 22
• 2. Major Theories of Attitude
• ·····································································
• 25
• 2.1. Attitude
• ··························································································
• 25
• 2.2. Theory of Reasoned Action: TRA
• ························································
• 26
• 2.3. Theory of Planned Behavior: TPB
• ·······················································
• 28
• 2.4. Attitudes toward Perfectionism
• ····························································
• 29
• 3. Perfectionism Assessment
• ·······································································
• 37
• 3.1. Overseas Perfectionism Scales
• ·····························································
• 37
• 3.1.1. Burns Perfectionism Scale
• ·····························································
• 37
• 3.1.2. Perfectionism Cognition Inventory
• ···················································
• 37
• 3.1.3. Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale
• ·······································
• 38
• 3.1.4. Hewitt Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale
• ·····································
• 40
• 3.1.5. Positive and Negative Perfectionism Scale
• ········································
• 41
• 3.1.6. Almost Perfect Scale
• ···································································
• 42
• 3.1.7. Perfectionism Questionnaire
• ···························································
• 44
• 3.2. Perfectionism Scales Developed and Utilized in Korea
• ·····························
• 46
• 3.3. Attitudes toward Perfectionism Scale
• ····················································
• 47
• III. Study 1: Analysis of the Constructs of the Koreans’ Attitudes toward Perfectionism
• ······
• 50
• 1. Method
• ······························································································
• 50
• 1.1. Data Collection
• ···············································································
• 50
• 1.2. Data Pre-processing
• ··········································································
• 51
• 1.3. LDA Topic Modeling
• ·······································································
• 52
• 2. Results
• ······························································································
• 54
• 2.1. Overall Characteristics of the Present Data
• ············································
• 54
• 2.2. Results of LDA Topic Modeling
• ··························································
• 56
• 3. Discussion
• ··························································································
• 61
• IV. Study 2: Development and Validation of the KAPS
• ····································
• 64
• 1. Method
• ······························································································
• 65
• 1.1. Development of Measurement Items
• ·····················································
• 65
• 1.1.1. A Preliminary pool of items
• ··························································
• 65
• 1.1.2. Content Validity Assessment
• ··························································
• 66
• 1.2. Validation of Measurement Items
• ·························································
• 66
• 1.2.1. Participants
• ···············································································
• 67
• 1.2.2. Procedures and Analysis
• ·······························································
• 68
• 1.2.3. Measurements
• ············································································
• 69
• 2. Results
• ······························································································
• 74
• 2.1. Results of Initial Item Selection
• ··························································
• 74
• 2.2. Content Validity Assessment
• ······························································
• 74
• 2.3. Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM) Analysis
• ·······················
• 75
• 2.3.1. Basic Analysis of Questionnaire Items
• ·············································
• 75
• 2.3.2. Assessment of Data Factorability
• ····················································
• 77
• 2.3.3. Determining the Number of Factors and Model Selection
• ····················
• 77
• 2.3.4. First Round of Exploratory Rotation for 5-Factor Model (37 items)
• ·······
• 79
• 2.3.5. Second Round of Exploratory Rotation for 5-Factor Model (34 items)
• ····
• 82
• 2.3.6. ESEM and Measurement Error Correlations
• ······································
• 87
• 2.3.7. Revalidation of the Construct Validity
• ·············································
• 91
• 2.4. The Rasch Model for Item Analysis
• ····················································
• 96
• 2.4.1. Assessment of Response Categories
• ················································
• 96
• 2.4.2. Assessment of Item Fitness
• ···························································
• 98
• 2.4.3. Person-Item Map
• ·········································································
• 101
• 2.4.4. Finalization of the Items and Factor Structure of the KAPS
• ·················
• 104
• 2.5. Validity Assessment
• ·······································································
• 106
• 2.5.1. Correlations Between Sub-factors of the KAPS
• ··································
• 106
• 2.5.2. Reliability Assessment
• ··································································
• 107
• 2.5.3. Convergent and Discriminant Validity
• ········································
• 108
• 2.5.4. Criterion-related Validity
• ·······························································
• 112
• 2.5.5. Incremental Validity
• ·····································································
• 113
• 3. Discussion
• ··························································································
• 117
• V. General Discussion
• ················································································
• 127
• References
• ································································································
• 136
• Appendices
• ······························································································
• 169
• Abstract in Korean
• ····················································································
• 193