Is Perfectionism Categorical or Dimensional? A Taxometric Analysis

Abstract

Considerable debate exists within the perfectionism literature regarding whether perfectionism is most accurately conceptualized as a dimensional or categorical construct. Specifically, some researchers have viewed perfectionism as a continuous construct, with extreme scores being associated with negative psychological outcomes (e.g., obsessive–compulsive disorder, eating disorders, etc.). In contrast, others have argued that two distinct forms of perfectionism exist (i.e., adaptive vs. maladaptive perfectionism) that are associated with both positive and negative outcomes. The purpose of this study was to examine the latent structure of perfectionism using taxometric procedures to determine whether perfectionism is most accurately conceptualized as taxonic (categorical) or dimensional (continuous). We applied four taxometric procedures (maximum eigenvalue [Waller & Meehl, 1998], maximum covariance [Meehl & Yonce, 1996], mean above minus below a cut [Meehl & Yonce, 1994], and latent-mode factor analysis [Waller & Meehl, 1998]) to perfectionism data collected from 2 large nonclinical samples. Results provided convergent evidence for a dimensional conceptualization of perfectionism across samples, perfectionism measures, and statistical procedures. We discuss the implications of these findings for the theory, assessment, and investigation of perfectionism are discussed.

Notes

¹One PI and one MPS–F indicator did not meet the minimum validity criteria (1 SD). We dropped these indicators and reran taxometric analyses. However, the exclusion of these indicators did not noticeably change plot shapes or the overall interpretability of findings. Thus, to reduce confusion and ease interpretability of findings, all figures and tables include all of the original PI and MPS–F indicators.