Measuring perfectionism in sport, dance, and exercise: Review, critique, recommendations

Over the past 25 years, a number of multidimensional measures of perfectionism has been developed. Based on different models of multidimensional perfectionism, these measures contain different numbers of subscales, and most of the time the different subscales bear different names. This presents a confusing situation to researchers unfamiliar with the often complex details of the perfectionism literature who want to conduct research on perfectionism in sport, dance, and exercise and need to make a decision as to what measure to use to capture individual differences in multidimensional perfectionism. The aim of the present chapter is to give researchers some guidance in this decision. To this aim, the chapter will (a) review the available multidimensional measures that have been published in international peer-reviewed journals and (b) provide a critique of these measures. In addition, the chapter will provide (c) recommendations on which measures to use and guidance on which decisions researchers have to make when using these measures to capture perfectionism in sport, dance, and exercise

Perfectionism and attitudes towards doping in junior athletes

Recent theory and research suggest that perfectionism is a personal factor contributing to athletes’ vulnerability to doping (using banned substances/drugs to enhance sporting performance). So far, however, no study has examined what aspects of perfectionism suggest a vulnerability in junior athletes. Employing a cross-sectional design, this study examined perfectionism and attitudes towards doping in 129 male junior athletes (mean age 17.3 years) differentiating four aspects of perfectionism: perfectionistic strivings, perfectionistic concerns, parental pressure to be perfect, and coach pressure to be perfect. In the bivariate correlations, only parental pressure showed a positive relationship with positive doping attitudes. In a multiple regression analysis controlling for the overlap between the four aspects, perfectionistic strivings additionally showed a negative relationship. Moreover, a structural equation model examining the relationships between all variables suggested that coach pressure had a negative indirect effect on attitudes towards doping via perfectionistic strivings. The findings indicate that perceived parental pressure to be perfect may be a factor contributing to junior athletes’ vulnerability to doping, whereas perfectionistic strivings may be a protective factor

Perfectionism and burnout in junior athletes: A three-month longitudinal study

Perfectionism in sports has been shown to be associated with burnout in athletes. Whether perfectionism predicts longitudinal changes in athlete burnout, however, is still unclear. Using a two-wave cross-lagged panel design, the present study examined perfectionistic strivings, perfectionistic concerns, and athlete burnout in 101 junior athletes (mean age 17.7 years) over 3 months of active training. When structural equation modeling was employed to test a series of competing models, the best-fitting model showed opposite patterns for perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns. Whereas perfectionistic concerns predicted increases in athlete burnout over the 3 months, perfectionistic strivings predicted decreases. The present findings suggest that perfectionistic concerns are a risk factor for junior athletes contributing to the development of athlete burnout whereas perfectionistic strivings appear to be a protective factor

Athletes’ perfectionism and reasons for training: Perfectionistic concerns predict training for weight control

Exercise and training for sports are associated with a number of psychological and health benefits. Research on exercise, however, suggests that such benefits depend on the reasons why individuals participate in sport. The present study investigated whether individual differences in perfectionism predicted different reasons for training and examined four dimensions of perfectionism (perfectionistic strivings, perfectionistic concerns, coach pressure to be perfect, parental pressure to be perfect) and three reasons for training (avoidance of negative affect, weight control, mood improvement) in 261 athletes (mean age 20.9 years). Regression analyses showed that perfectionistic concerns positively predicted avoidance of negative affect and weight control, whereas perfectionistic strivings positively predicted mood improvement. The findings suggest that individual differences in perfectionism help explain why athletes train for different reasons

Confirmatory factor analysis of the Multidimensional Inventory of Perfectionism in Sport

Objectives and Method: The Multidimensional Inventory of Perfectionism in Sport (MIPS; Stoeber, Otto, & Stoll, 2006) is a commonly used measure of perfectionism in sport. However, there is limited empirical evidence supporting its subscale structure and composition. Therefore, the present study investigated the factor structure of the MIPS in a sample of 470 athletes (mean age 20.0 years). Results: Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the data supported the hypothesized four-factor structure of the MIPS, differentiating: striving for perfection, negative reactions to imperfection, parental pressure to be perfect, and coach pressure to be perfect. Conclusions: The findings suggest that the MIPS has acceptable factorial validity and therefore may be a useful measure to explore individual differences in perfectionism in sport

Discover research : Coach resource three. Overtraining and perfectionism.

Overtraining and perfectionism. This summary describes the findings of a study that examined the relationship between overtraining and perfectionism in junior athletes

Motivation mediates the perfectionism–burnout relationship: A three-wave longitudinal study with junior athletes

Perfectionism in sports has been shown to predict longitudinal changes in athlete burnout. What mediates these changes over time, however, is still unclear. Adopting a self-determination theory perspective and using a three-wave longitudinal design, the present study examined perfectionistic strivings, perfectionistic concerns, autonomous motivation, controlled motivation, and athlete burnout in 141 junior athletes (mean age 17.3 years) over 6 months of active training. When multilevel structural equation modeling was employed to test a mediational model, a differential pattern of between- and within-person relationships emerged. Whereas autonomous motivation mediated the negative relationship that perfectionistic strivings had with burnout at the between- and within-person level, controlled motivation mediated the positive relationship that perfectionistic concerns had with burnout at the between-person level only. The present findings suggest that differences in autonomous and controlled motivation explain why perfectionism predicts changes in athlete burnout over time

A confirmatory factor analysis of the performance enhancement attitude scale for adult and adolescent athletes

Objectives: The Performance Enhancement Attitude Scale (PEAS; Petróczi & Aidman, 2009) is an extensively used questionnaire to assess doping attitudes among adult and adolescent athletes. To date, however, there is limited evidence to support the structure of the PEAS with either adult or adolescent athletes. The aim of this paper was to assess the factor structure of the PEAS with adult and adolescent athletes. Design: Cross-sectional. Methods: One thousand, one-hundred and fifty-four athletes, who were aged between 12 and 68 years (M age = 21.76 years, SD = 7.68) completed the PEAS in the presence of a research assistant. We subjected the data to Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Results: The original 17-item PEAS displayed a poor model among the overall sample, and with the sub-samples of adult and adolescent athletes. The 11-item, 8-item, and 6-item versions of the PEAS, which were used in previous studies, provided a better fit than the original 17-item PEAS. The 8-item version of the PEAS demonstrated the best fit for adults, but no model exhibited a good fit with adolescent athletes. Conclusions: Scholars could consider using the 8-item version of the PEAS with adults. Our data, however, infers that researchers should use the PEAS with caution to assess doping attitudes among adolescent athletes, due to the poor model fit of all versions tested. The accurate assessment of attitudes towards doping among adolescent athletes requires questionnaires specifically designed for this population, and grounded in an appropriate theoretical framework