Post on 18-Jun-2020
transcript
Interpretive ReportPaul L. Hewitt, Ph.D. & Gordon L. Flett, Ph.D.
Copyright © 2004 Multi-Health Systems Inc. All rights reserved.P.O. Box 950, North Tonawanda, NY 14120-09503770 Victoria Park Ave., Toronto, ON M2H 3M6
This Interpretive Report is intended for the sole use of the test administrator and is not to be shown or presented to the respondent or any other party.
Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale
The Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS) assesses levels of multidimensional perfectionism inadults. This report provides information about the client’s scores and how they compare with the scoresof a normative sample. See the MPS Technical Manual (published by MHS) for more information aboutthe MPS and the interpretation of its results. This computerized report is an interpretive aid and should not be given to clients or used as the solecriterion for clinical diagnosis or intervention. Administrators are cautioned against drawing unsupportedinterpretations. Combining information from this with information gathered from other psychometricmeasures, as well as from interviews and discussions with the client, will give the practitioner or serviceprovider a more comprehensive view of the client than might be obtained from any one source. Thisreport is based on an algorithm that produces the most common interpretations for the scores that havebeen obtained. Administrators should review the client’s responses to specific items to ensure that thesegeneric interpretations apply. This report compares Sarah Smith’s subscale scores to individuals in a normal population. See theAppendix for comparisons to a clinical population.
Introduction
Subscale T-ScoresThe following graph displays Sarah Smith’s T-scores for each of the three MPS subscales: Self-Oriented,Other-Oriented, and Socially Prescribed perfectionism. The error bars in the graph below represent the95% confidence interval for each subscale score. For information on the calculation of confidenceintervals, see the MPS Technical Manual.
MPS Interpretive Report for Sarah Smith Page 2
MPS Interpretive Report for Sarah Smith Page 3
Summary of Subscale ScoresThe following table summarizes Sarah Smith’s scale scores and gives general data about how SarahSmith compares to the group norms. Please refer to the MPS Technical Manual for more information onthe interpretation of these results. An in-depth analysis of the implications of the subscale scores followslater in the report.
MPS Interpretive Report for Sarah Smith Page 4
MPS Subscales: Elevated ResponsesThe following graph shows the number of items for which Sarah Smith answered toward the endpoint of“Strongly Agree;” that is, after reverse scoring, ratings of 6 or 7 were given. These may represent itemsof vulnerability or concern for the client. The answers are grouped by MPS subscales.
Examination of Subscale ScoresSelf-Oriented Subscale: T-Score = 58Moderately Elevated. This subscale consists of 15 items that assess the level of Self-Orientedperfectionism. Self-Oriented perfectionists require themselves to be perfect in many if not all pursuits.The perfectionistic behaviors that derive from the self are directed toward the self. The score on thissubscale suggests that Sarah Smith has moderately elevated levels of Self-Oriented perfectionism andmay demonstrate some vulnerability.
Socially Prescribed Subscale: T-Score = 63Elevated. This subscale consists of 15 items that assess the level of Socially Prescribed perfectionism.Socially Prescribed perfectionists believe that others have unrealistic standards for their behaviors, andthat others will be satisfied only when these standards are attained. The score on this subscale suggeststhat Sarah Smith has an elevated level of Socially Prescribed perfectionism and may demonstratemarked pathological outcomes and vulnerabilities.
Other-Oriented Subscale: T-Score = 57Moderately Elevated. This subscale consists of 15 items that assess the level of Other-Orientedperfectionism. Other-Oriented perfectionists exhibit behaviors similar to Self-Oriented perfectionists, butin this case, the focus of the behavior is on others. They generally have unrealistic expectations forothers and place great importance on whether others attain these expectations. The score on thissubscale suggests that Sarah Smith has moderately elevated levels of Other-Oriented perfectionism andmay demonstrate some vulnerability.
Analysis of Subscale Score PatternsSarah Smith has moderately elevated scores for Self-Oriented and Other-Oriented perfectionism, andhas an elevated Socially Prescribed perfectionism score.Problems Associated with Elevated Self-Oriented, Other-Oriented, and SociallyPrescribed PerfectionismThe following descriptions relate to people with elevated scores on all three scales. Note that theSelf-Oriented and Other-Oriented subscales were only moderately elevated, and Sarah Smith may onlyexhibit milder vulnerabilities in these areas.
Problems Associated with Elevated Self-Oriented PerfectionismPeople who score highly on Self-Oriented perfectionism often evidence perfectionistic behavior thatrelates to, or is directed toward, the self. Individuals who have high levels of Self-Oriented perfectionismoften have very high and/or unrealistic expectations for themselves and place or express an inordinateimportance on successfully attaining these standards. They strive compulsively toward their goals andstandards and constantly demand perfection from themselves in most, if not all, aspects of theirfunctioning.Problems Associated with Elevated Other-Oriented PerfectionismPeople with elevated Other-Oriented scores often evidence perfectionistic behavior that relates to or is
Individuals who score high on all three dimensions usually demonstrate multiple and major problems in avariety of domains of functioning. For example, these individuals will experience the outcomes relevantfor each of the independent perfectionism subscales (profound depression, anxiety, anger, suicidaltendencies, intimate, and work-related interpersonal problems), but in addition, will experience chaoticand highly stressful lives. Stressors in the achievement and social domains are created by thesesindividuals, and the negative impact of stressful occurrences is enhanced dramatically by theperfectionistic behavior. Moreover, interpersonal relationships tend to be very stormy, and boundaryissues are a constant problem. For these individuals, performance is equated with worth and concerns.Fears over identity issues are never far from the surface. Not surprisingly, because no one can ever liveup to the demands, intimate relationships are few and far between. Problems associated with elevatedscores on each specific subscale are described next.
MPS Interpretive Report for Sarah Smith Page 5
MPS Interpretive Report for Sarah Smith Page 6directed not toward the self, but toward others. The “others” can be spouses, children, and co-workers,as well as any other individuals known or unknown to the Other-Oriented perfectionist. Individuals whohave high levels of Other-Oriented perfectionism have very high and/or unrealistic expectations forothers. They place or express an inordinate importance on others successfully attaining these standards.Problems Associated with Elevated Socially Prescribed PerfectionismPeople who score highly on the Socially Prescribed subscale perceive that other people haveperfectionistic standards and expectations for their own behavior and that other people (or groups ofpeople or society as a whole) expect or want them to be perfect. It is important to note that thisperception may or may not be a an accurate judgement of others’ expectations. Self-worth for theindividual with high levels of Socially Prescribed perfectionism is dependent on meeting perceived others’expectations and standards and gaining their approval and acceptance.
MPS Interpretive Report for Sarah Smith Page 7
Correlates of Elevated Perfectionism Subscale ScoresThe following information consists of perfectionism correlates, including maladjustment correlates (thesemay reflect concurrent symptoms or symptoms the perfectionist is vulnerable to), interpersonalcorrelates, achievement correlates, physical correlates, and personality correlates that are relevant forthose scoring highly on a particular dimension of perfectionism. Any number of correlates in this guidelinemay be present—the occurrence of specific correlates does not exclude others.
Correlates of Elevated Self-Oriented PerfectionismPhysicalCorrelates
AchievementCorrelates
InterpersonalCorrelatesMaladjustment Correlates Personality
CorrelatesAchievementhassles
Coping (emotionoriented)
Less positiveemotional coping
Anger Dehabilitatingstress
Activity
Achievementstriving
Demand forapproval
Obsessive/CompulsiveDisorder
Anorexia nervosa Frequency of stress Anger-hostility
CompetitivenessDysfunctionalattitudes
ParanoiaAnxiety Anxiety
Fear of failureEmotionalsensitivity
PhobiasChronic depressionsymptoms
Assertiveness
High selfexpectations
Interpersonalhassles
Privateself-consciousness
Compulsive Authority(narcissism)
ImpatienceInterpersonalsensitivity
PsychoticismDemand forapproval
Conscientiousness
Importance of goalsNo admission ofneed for help
Publicself-consciousness
Fears of feelingangry
Desire for control
Importance ofperformance
Other-directed"shoulds"
Self-blameFears of loss ofcontrol
Entitlement(narcissism)
Importance ofsocial goals
Professionaldistress
Self-directed"shoulds"
Fears of makingmistakes
Frustrationreactivity
Less goalsatisfaction
Socialexpressiveness
Self-disappointmentFrustrationreactivity
Gregariousness
Less happinessSeverity ofdepressionsymptoms
Guilt Less attitudeflexibility
Lowself-involvement
SomatizationHighself-expectations
Neuroticism
Mastery (personalprojects)
Suicidal ideationHopelessness Personal control
OvergeneralizationSuicide thoughtsHostility Self controlPerservationTotal irrationalityHypomania Self efficacySpeed to completetasks
Unipolar depressionLess globalself-esteem
Type A cognitions
MPS Interpretive Report for Sarah Smith Page 8
Correlates of Elevated Other-Oriented PerfectionismPhysicalCorrelates
AchievementCorrelates
InterpersonalCorrelates
MaladjustmentCorrelates Personality Correlates
Drug useExtremecompetitiveness
AssertivenessAwfulizing beliefs Activity Lessagreeableness
Reports of allergiesHigh minimumsocial standards
AuthoritarianismBorderline features Angry/hostile Less attitudeflexibility
Somatic anxietyLess workorientation
Coping (taskoriented)
Hypomania Antisocial Less warmth
Mastery (personalprojects)
DominanceLess positiveemotional coping
Assertiveness Narcissitic
Positive Impressionmanagement
Emotionalexpressiveness
Low frustrationtolerance
Authority(narcissism)
Passive aggressive
Self expectationsEmotionalsensitivity
Narcissism Compulsive Personal control
Less stigmatolerance
Parental distress Conscientiousness Positive emotions
Low confidence inmental healthprofessionals
Phobias Desire for control Self control
Low sexualsatisfaction
Publicself-consciousness
Dominance(narcissism)
Self efficacy
Negative socialinteractions
Self-directed"shoulds"
Entitlement(narcissism)
Type A cognitions
Other blameSelf-worth(irrational)
Exploitiveness(narcissism)
Other directed“shoulds”
Total irrationalbeliefs
Histrionic
Socialexpressiveness
Correlates of Elevated Socially Prescribed PerfectionismPhysicalCorrelates
AchievementCorrelates
InterpersonalCorrelatesMaladjustment Correlates Personality
CorrelatesAchievementhassles
Approval of othersLess parentingsatisfaction
Agoraphobia Alcohol use Avoidant
CompetitivenessDemand forapproval
Less selfacceptance
Anger Biobehavioralmanifestations ofstress
Borderline
Fear of failureDysfunctional helpseeking attitudes
LonelinessAnorexiasymptomatology
Emotionalmanifestation ofstress
Cynicism
Fear of negativeevaluations
Emotional controlLow frustrationtolerance
Anxiety Frequency of stress Lessagreeableness
Frequency ofacademicprocrastination
Interpersonalhassles
Low self-esteemAwfulizing beliefs Less facilitatingstress
Less attitudeflexibility
Higher ideal socialstandards
Interpersonalsensitivity
Obsessive/Compulsive behavior
Body imageavoidance
Physiologicalmanifestation ofstress
Less compulsive
Higher minimumsocial standards
Less behavioralcoping
Overgeneralizationof failure
Bulimiasymptomatology
Somatic anxiety Less extraversion
Higherself-expectations
Less maritalsatisfaction
Parental distressCategorical thinking Less interpersonalcontrol
ImpatienceLess opennessPhobiasDeath anxiety Less self efficacy
MPS Interpretive Report for Sarah Smith Page 9
MPS Interpretive Report for Sarah Smith Page 10PhysicalCorrelates
AchievementCorrelates
InterpersonalCorrelatesMaladjustment Correlates Personality
CorrelatesImportance ofsocial goals
Less stigmatolerance
Privateself-consciousness
Depression Less social efficacy
Less goalsatisfaction
Low confidence inmental healthprofessionals
Psychoticdepression
Dysthymia Neuroticism
Less happinesswhile performing
Low emotionalexpressiveness
Psychotic thinkingEmotionalexhaustion
Passive aggressive
Less perceivedconfidence
Low help seekingPsychoticismFears of adapting tocollege life
Schizoid
Less publicspeakingcompetence
Negative socialinteractions
Publicself-consciousness
Fears of criticism Schizotypal
Less workorientation
Other blameSelf-criticismFears of failure Type A cognitions
Overgeneralizations (standards)
Other directed"shoulds"
Self-directed"shoulds"
Fears of feelingangry
Perservation(standards)
Others as shamersSelf-worth(irrational)
Fears of lookingfoolish
ProcrastinationShynessShameFears of loss ofcontrol
Viewingprocrastination as aproblem
Social Diversion(Coping)
SomatizationFears of makingmistakes
Social sensitivitySuicide attemptsFears of people inauthority
Submissivebehavior
Suicide riskFeelings of socialinadequacy
Suicide thoughtsHopelessnessSuperstitiousthinking
Hostility
Total irrationalbeliefs
Hypomania
Less lifesatisfaction
Item Response Table
*These items require reverse coding for interpretation. See the MPS Technical Manual for moreinformation about reversed-score items.
This table lists Sarah Smith's responses to each item.
Response Key: Item responses are based on a continuum: 1 = “Strongly Disagree” to 7 = “StronglyAgree.”Response FrequenciesThe following chart indicates the frequency with which Sarah Smith endorsed each of the sevenresponse options (reverse scoring is considered).
MPS Interpretive Report for Sarah Smith Page 11
Comparison to Clinical NormsThe following graph displays Sarah Smith’s T-scores for each of the three MPS subscales, as comparedto a clinical population. The error bars in the graph below represent the 95% confidence interval for eachsubscale score. Please see the MPS Technical Manual for more information on this sample.
Appendix
End of ReportDate Printed: August 31, 2004
MPS Interpretive Report for Sarah Smith Page 12