Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (APS-R)

1. Abstract

The Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (APS-R) is a premier multidimensional self-report psychometric instrument designed to measure adaptive and maladaptive facets of perfectionism. Developed by Robert B. Slaney and colleagues (1996, 2001), the APS-R emerged from the clinical and empirical necessity to differentiate healthy striving for excellence from pathological self-critical distress. The scale comprises 23 items organized into three psychometrically robust subscales: High Standards (7 items), assessing the adoption of ambitious personal performance benchmarks; Order (4 items), indexing personal preferences for neatness, organization, and systematic structure; and Discrepancy (12 items), capturing the perceived incongruity between one’s idealized standards and actual operational performance. Items are scored on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree), although 7-point variants are also documented in comparative psychometric literature.

Extensive empirical investigations confirm the APS-R’s robust structural integrity, exceptional internal consistency, and strong criterion-related validity across diverse academic, clinical, and cross-cultural populations. Internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) regularly reach .85 to .88 for High Standards, .82 to .86 for Order, and .90 to .94 for Discrepancy. By combining High Standards and Discrepancy scores, typically via k-means cluster analysis or latent profile modeling, researchers can reliably classify individuals into three distinct profiles: Adaptive Perfectionists (high standards, low discrepancy), Maladaptive Perfectionists (high standards, high discrepancy), and Non-Perfectionists (low standards). The instrument provides deep diagnostic clarity regarding the mechanisms linking perfectionistic strivings to psychological well-being versus psychological distress, including depression, generalized anxiety, academic burnout, and imposter syndrome.

2. Keywords

Almost Perfect Scale-Revised, APS-R, perfectionism, adaptive perfectionism, maladaptive perfectionism, discrepancy, high standards, psychological assessment, psychometrics, cluster analysis, cognitive vulnerability, self-critical perfectionism, performance distress, emotional dysregulation

3. Authors

The Almost Perfect Scale-Revised was conceptualized, validated, and refined by a collaborative research team led by:

• Robert B. Slaney, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus of Counseling Psychology, Department of Educational Psychology, Counseling, and Special Education, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. Dr. Slaney spearheaded foundational theoretical and operational models clarifying the positive and pathological dimensions of perfectionism.
• Michael Mobley, Ph.D.: Associate Professor and counseling psychologist, noted for research focusing on multicultural counseling competencies, scale development, and psychometric validation within racially and ethnically diverse collegiate populations.
• Joseph Trippi, Ph.D.: Research psychologist and clinical practitioner contributing to the psychometric operationalization and statistical modeling of the original Almost Perfect Scale revisions at The Pennsylvania State University.
• Jeffrey S. Ashby, Ph.D., ABPP: Professor of Counseling and Psychological Services at Georgia State University, Co-Director of the Center for the Study of Stress, Trauma, and Resilience, and widely recognized expert on cognitive behavioral dimensions of perfectionism.
• Kevin G. Rice, Ph.D.: Professor of Counseling Psychology and Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) Faculty Scholar at Georgia State University. Dr. Rice has published extensively on structural equation modeling, measurement invariance, attachment theory, and perfectionistic typologies across developmental contexts.
• Dorothy G. Johnson, Ph.D.: Co-author of the original, unrevised Almost Perfect Scale (APS; Slaney & Johnson, 1992), which established the initial groundwork for measuring standards, order, and distress.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (APS-R) is to provide a theoretically grounded, psychometrically sound, and diagnostically discerning measure that distinguishes between positive (adaptive) and problematic (maladaptive) manifestations of perfectionism. Historically, psychological literature conceptualized perfectionism almost exclusively as an insidious, neurotic, and multidimensional liability implicated in eating disorders, obsessive-compulsive phenomena, chronic dysphoria, and completed suicide. However, empirical clinical observations demonstrated that many individuals holding exceptionally high personal standards exhibited superior academic and vocational outcomes, strong psychological adjustment, resilience, and elevated self-esteem.

The APS-R was designed to solve this theoretical dilemma by isolating the psychological source of dysfunction: the Discrepancy dimension. Rather than viewing the setting of ambitious personal standards or the maintenance of organizational discipline as inherently pathological, Slaney and colleagues argued that perfectionistic distress stems from the chronic, perceived gap between one’s standards and one’s actual accomplishments. By separating High Standards from Discrepancy, the APS-R fulfills several essential research and applied functions:

• Typological Differentiation: It operationalizes the classification of individuals into three empirically validated profiles: Adaptive (Healthy) Perfectionists, Maladaptive (Unhealthy/Neurotic) Perfectionists, and Non-Perfectionists.
• Clinical Assessment and Case Conceptualization: It enables mental health professionals to identify whether a client’s distress is driven by an uncoupling of cognitive standards from perceived self-worth, informing interventions such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), and self-compassion training.
• Academic and Occupational Research: It serves as an investigative tool in higher education and industrial-organizational psychology to examine perfectionism’s influence on academic performance, burnout, procrastination, impostorism, work engagement, and subjective career distress.
• Cross-Cultural and Developmental Tracking: It provides a validated psychometric framework to examine how cultural values (e.g., collectivism, family honor, parental expectations) modulate the expression and psychological impact of personal discrepancy.

5. Psychological Construct

The Almost Perfect Scale-Revised operationalizes perfectionism as a multidimensional construct comprising three distinct psychological dimensions:

1. High Standards (HS)

The High Standards subscale measures the extent to which an individual adopts demanding, ambitious benchmarks for personal achievement, competence, and performance across educational, vocational, and interpersonal spheres. Rather than denoting pathological rigidity, High Standards reflects healthy achievement motivation, conscientiousness, and the proactive pursuit of excellence. Representative statements include: “I have high standards for my performance at work or at school” and “I set very high standards for myself.” Individuals scoring high on this dimension consistently manifest positive goal orientations, intrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy, provided their Discrepancy levels remain low.

2. Order (O)

The Order subscale gauges the individual’s predilection for neatness, structural organization, systematic methodology, and personal discipline. It captures behaviors such as keeping environments tidy, scheduling, and maintaining structured lifestyle patterns. Example items include: “I am an orderly person” and “I like to always be organized and disciplined.” While originally hypothesized to be a foundational component of perfectionism, psychometric analyses demonstrate that Order functions largely as an auxiliary, stylistic trait. It correlates positively with the broader trait of Conscientiousness within the Five-Factor Model of personality, but it plays a secondary role in distinguishing adaptive from maladaptive perfectionists.

3. Discrepancy (Disc)

The Discrepancy subscale is the conceptual centerpiece of the APS-R and constitutes the defining mechanism of maladaptive perfectionism. Discrepancy operationalizes the chronic, distressing perception that one is consistently falling short of one’s self-imposed high standards. It is characterized by persistent self-criticism, dissatisfaction with genuine accomplishments, cognitive frustration, and feelings of inadequacy. Representative items include: “My best just never seems to be good enough for me” and “I am hardly ever satisfied with my performance.” Elevated Discrepancy reflects an evaluative bias wherein achievements are minimized and perceived deficits are magnified, generating chronic cognitive dissonance and emotional distress.

Perfectionistic Typologies Derived from the APS-R

Through the simultaneous evaluation of High Standards and Discrepancy, the APS-R permits the derivation of three distinct clinical and empirical groups:

• Adaptive Perfectionists: Defined by high scores on High Standards and low scores on Discrepancy. These individuals set ambitious targets but experience pride and self-efficacy upon working toward them. When they experience failure, they display cognitive flexibility, attributing outcomes to modifiable factors rather than core global inadequacy.
• Maladaptive Perfectionists: Characterized by high scores on High Standards combined with elevated scores on Discrepancy. These individuals demand absolute perfection from themselves while maintaining an enduring perception of inadequacy. This combination produces heightened vulnerability to emotional distress, shame, social anxiety, and academic burnout.
• Non-Perfectionists: Characterized by low scores on High Standards, irrespective of their Discrepancy levels. These individuals do not endorse stringent benchmarks of excellence as central organizing principles of their identity or daily self-evaluation.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual foundation of the Almost Perfect Scale-Revised is grounded in clinical and cognitive personality theory, evolving through a lineage of theoretical milestones:

Hamachek’s Dual-Process Model

The theoretical framework of the APS-R draws directly from Don Hamachek’s seminal 1978 paper, which categorized perfectionism into “normal” (adaptive) and “neurotic” (maladaptive) forms. Hamachek posited that normal perfectionists set high goals, derive authentic pleasure from striving, appreciate personal limitations, and permit themselves latitude for errors. Conversely, neurotic perfectionists set unreachable goals, are motivated by intense fear of failure rather than hope of success, and judge their self-worth exclusively through flawless task execution. Slaney and colleagues operationalized Hamachek’s normal perfectionism via the High Standards subscale and neurotic perfectionism via the Discrepancy subscale.

Integration with Blatt’s and Hewitt & Flett’s Formulations

The APS-R synthesizes perspectives from other dominant models of perfectionism, notably Sidney Blatt’s psychodynamic-cognitive model and Paul Hewitt and Gordon Flett’s multidimensional framework:

• Blatt’s Self-Critical Perfectionism: Blatt identified self-critical perfectionism as an introjective vulnerability marked by harsh self-scrutiny, chronic feelings of unworthiness, and fear of losing approval. The APS-R Discrepancy subscale shows strong convergence with Blatt’s Depressive Experiences Questionnaire (DEQ) self-criticism factor.
• Hewitt & Flett’s Multidimensional Model: Hewitt and Flett distinguished between Self-Oriented, Other-Oriented, and Socially Prescribed Perfectionism. The APS-R High Standards subscale mirrors the proactive motivation of Self-Oriented Perfectionism, whereas Discrepancy reflects the chronic evaluative stress common in Socially Prescribed Perfectionism.
• Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS): The APS-R parallels Randy Frost’s distinction between Personal Standards/Organization (adaptive components) and Concern over Mistakes/Doubts about Actions (maladaptive components).

Cognitive-Behavioral Discrepancy Theory

From a cognitive-behavioral perspective, the APS-R operationalizes self-discrepancy mechanisms analogous to E. Tory Higgins’s Self-Discrepancy Theory. Higgins demonstrated that perceived conflicts between the “actual self” and the “ideal self” induce dejection-related emotions (e.g., sadness, depression), whereas conflicts between the “actual self” and the “ought self” precipitate agitation-related emotions (e.g., anxiety, tension). The APS-R Discrepancy subscale directly captures this actual-ideal/actual-ought cognitive divergence, measuring the enduring affective and evaluative fallout of perceived performance shortfalls.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the APS-R has been extensively substantiated through construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related empirical investigations across diverse populations.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity is evidenced by the clear statistical and functional separation between High Standards and Discrepancy. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses consistently validate the tripartite latent structure. While High Standards and Discrepancy exhibit low to modest intercorrelations (typically ranging between r = -.05 and r = .20), both demonstrate robust, distinct relations with external clinical variables, confirming that they represent functionally independent dimensions of psychological functioning.

Convergent Validity

Empirical studies demonstrate strong convergent relationships with established psychometric scales:

• Discrepancy: Correlates strongly and positively with the Concern over Mistakes (r = .60 to .75) and Doubts about Actions (r = .55 to .68) subscales of the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS), as well as Hewitt and Flett’s Socially Prescribed Perfectionism (r = .45 to .60). Furthermore, Discrepancy displays substantial positive correlations with Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) scores (r = .48 to .62), trait anxiety measures (STAI; r = .50 to .65), somatic distress, and suicidal ideation.
• High Standards: Correlates strongly with the FMPS Personal Standards subscale (r = .65 to .78) and Hewitt and Flett’s Self-Oriented Perfectionism (r = .60 to .72). High Standards correlates positively with generalized self-efficacy (r = .40 to .55), positive affect, optimism, and academic GPA.
• Order: Correlates robustly with the FMPS Organization subscale (r = .70 to .82) and the Conscientiousness domain of the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; r = .45 to .60).

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is supported by the contrasting relational profiles of the subscales. High Standards is largely unrelated or negatively related to depressive symptoms, hopelessness, and general psychological distress once Discrepancy is statistically controlled. Conversely, Discrepancy demonstrates strong divergent validity against measures of positive psychological adjustment, displaying significant negative correlations with self-esteem (Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; r = -.50 to -.68), life satisfaction (SWLS; r = -.40 to -.55), and emotional stability.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

In academic environments, cluster-analytic comparisons demonstrate that Adaptive Perfectionists consistently report higher cumulative GPAs, lower academic procrastination, and superior coping strategies relative to both Maladaptive Perfectionists and Non-Perfectionists. In clinical contexts, Discrepancy longitudinally predicts therapy termination distress, treatment resistance in depression, recurrent depressive relapse, and elevated risks of eating pathology, validating its utility as a prognostic screening marker.

8. Reliability

The APS-R exhibits exceptional reliability across various sampling paradigms, including university undergraduates, working adults, clinical outpatients, and international cross-cultural cohorts.

Internal Consistency

Extensive studies report high internal consistency across all three subscales, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients routinely exceeding standard psychometric thresholds (α > .80):

• High Standards (7 items): Internal consistency values typically range from α = .85 to .89. The subscale exhibits well-balanced item-total correlations (ranging from .52 to .74), demonstrating that its items capture high achievement expectations without redundant item phrasing.
• Order (4 items): Cronbach’s alpha values range from α = .82 to .86. Despite containing only 4 items, the subscale exhibits average inter-item correlations between .50 and .62, reflecting a tight, coherent construct.
• Discrepancy (12 items): Internal consistency estimates consistently range between α = .90 and .94. Corrected item-total correlations range from .58 to .78, demonstrating high homogeneity in measuring the subjective experience of falling short of personal standards.

Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

Investigations into the temporal stability of the APS-R confirm that its dimensions operate as stable personality traits over extended intervals. Slaney et al. and subsequent longitudinal evaluations by Rice and colleagues established test-retest reliability coefficients over periods ranging from three weeks to six months:

• High Standards: Test-retest correlation coefficients range from r = .74 to .86 across 3-to-12-week evaluation windows.
• Order: Test-retest correlation coefficients range from r = .78 to .88, confirming stable organizational habits over time.
• Discrepancy: Test-retest stability coefficients range from r = .72 to .84. Although Discrepancy behaves primarily as a stable cognitive disposition, it also displays sensitivity to significant life transitions and targeted cognitive-behavioral interventions, showing marked decreases following successful therapeutic treatment.

9. Factor Analysis

The factorial validity of the APS-R has been confirmed across exploratory and confirmatory psychometric evaluations.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During scale development, Slaney et al. (1996, 2001) conducted iterated principal axis factoring and principal components analysis with oblique rotations (Promax and Oblimin) on undergraduate cohorts. These analyses demonstrated a clear three-factor solution accounting for approximately 52% to 60% of the total variance:

• Factor 1 (Discrepancy): Accounted for the largest proportion of common variance (~32–38%). All 12 items loaded cleanly (factor loadings ranging from .55 to .83) without problematic cross-loadings on other factors.
• Factor 2 (High Standards): Accounted for ~12–16% of the variance, with its 7 items loading between .54 and .79.
• Factor 3 (Order): Accounted for ~6–9% of the variance, with 4 items exhibiting high, distinct loadings between .68 and .86.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent investigations utilizing Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) with maximum likelihood and robust estimation methods have validated this three-factor measurement model against competing single-factor and two-factor formulations. Across multiple national and international samples, the three-factor model demonstrates strong goodness-of-fit indices:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Values consistently fall between .92 and .96, indicating strong relative fit compared to baseline independence models.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Coefficients regularly range from .91 to .95.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Estimates typically range between .045 and .062 (with 90% confidence intervals well within acceptable limits), reflecting minimal approximation error.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Values consistently remain below the .06 benchmark.

Measurement Invariance

Rigorous multigroup confirmatory factor analyses (MGCFA) have established full or partial measurement invariance (configural, metric, and scalar invariance) across diverse demographic strata:

• Gender Invariance: Structural equivalence has been documented between male and female cohorts, confirming that gender-based score differences reflect authentic construct variation rather than differential item functioning (DIF).
• Racial and Cultural Invariance: Studies led by Mobley et al. (2005) and Wang and colleagues demonstrated that the APS-R maintains structural equivalence across African American, Asian American, European American, and Hispanic collegiate populations, as well as in translated cross-national adaptations (e.g., Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Italian, and Turkish versions).

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational administration, structural attributes, and scoring paradigms of the Almost Perfect Scale-Revised are structured as follows:

• Test Type: Self-report psychological assessment / multidimensional personality rating scale.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (routinely utilized in collegiate, community, and clinical settings).
• Total Item Count: 23 items.
• Response Scale: 6-point Likert-type response format anchored as follows:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Slightly Disagree
  • 4 = Slightly Agree
  • 5 = Agree
  • 6 = Strongly Agree
• Subscale Item Composition:
  • High Standards (HS): 7 items (Items 1, 5, 8, 12, 14, 18, 22) — Theoretical range: 7 to 42.
  • Order (O): 4 items (Items 2, 4, 7, 10) — Theoretical range: 4 to 24.
  • Discrepancy (Disc): 12 items (Items 3, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23) — Theoretical range: 12 to 72.
• Reverse-Scored Items: None. All 23 items are scored in a direct, positive direction, simplifying scoring and reducing respondent confusion.
• Scoring and Indexing Procedures:
  • Raw Summed Scores: Calculated by adding the numeric values endorsed for the items belonging to each respective subscale.
  • Mean Scores: Derived by dividing each subscale’s raw total by its number of items (producing an intuitive 1–6 metric).
  • Typology Identification: Subscale totals are analyzed via k-means cluster analysis or standard empirical cutoffs on High Standards and Discrepancy to categorize participants into Adaptive Perfectionists, Maladaptive Perfectionists, or Non-Perfectionists.
• Short Form (SAPS): An empirically validated 8-item short form developed by Rice, Richardson, and Tueller (2014) is also available for high-volume survey protocols, retaining 4 High Standards items (Items 8, 12, 14, 22) and 4 Discrepancy items (Items 11, 16, 20, 23).

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Development: 1996 (unreleased formal manual revision); formally published in journal format in 2001 (Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, & Ashby).
• Copyright & Intellectual Property: Copyright © 1996, 2001 Robert B. Slaney, Kevin G. Rice, Michael Mobley, Joseph Trippi, and Jeffrey S. Ashby.
• Permissions and Availability: The authors placed the Almost Perfect Scale-Revised in the public academic domain for non-commercial educational, scientific, and clinical research purposes. Researchers and practitioners may administer the scale without licensing fees, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution is maintained and the scale items are neither altered nor monetized.
• Commercial Applications: Commercial utilization, integration into proprietary corporate assessment batteries, or fee-for-service digital assessment platforms requires explicit written permission from the copyright holders.

12. References

The foundational theoretical and psychometric literature validating the APS-R includes the following publications:

• Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14(5), 449–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01172967
• Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 15(1), 27–33.
• Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in deficits and psychopathology: Validation of the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(3), 456–468. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.59.3.456
• Mobley, M., Slaney, R. B., & Rice, K. G. (2005). Cultural validity of the Almost Perfect Scale-Revised for African American college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(4), 629–639. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.4.629
• Rice, K. G., Richardson, C. E., & Tueller, S. (2014). The Short Form of the Revised Almost Perfect Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96(3), 368–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.838172
• Rice, K. G., & Slaney, R. B. (2002). Clusters of perfectionists: Two studies of emotional adjustment and academic achievement. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 35(1), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2002.12069045
• Slaney, R. B., & Johnson, D. G. (1992). The Almost Perfect Scale (Unpublished manuscript). The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
• Slaney, R. B., Mobley, M., Trippi, J., Ashby, J. S., & Johnson, D. G. (1996). The Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (Unpublished manuscript). The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
• Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., & Ashby, J. S. (2002). A programmatic approach to measuring perfectionism: The Almost Perfect Scales. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 63–88). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10458-003
• Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., Mobley, M., Trippi, J., & Ashby, J. S. (2001). The Revised Almost Perfect Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34(3), 130–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2001.12069030
• Wang, K. T., Yuen, M., & Slaney, R. B. (2009). Perfectionism, depression, loneliness, and life satisfaction: A study of high school students in Hong Kong. The Counseling Psychologist, 37(2), 249–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000008315975

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)