Sport Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale-2

Abstract

The Sport Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale-2 (Sport-MPS-2) is an extensively validated psychometric instrument engineered to measure the multidimensional facets of perfectionism specifically within competitive athletic environments. Developed by John K. Gotwals and John G. H. Dunn in 2009, the scale represents a psychometrically refined evolution of the original Sport-MPS (Dunn et al., 2006). Grounded in the multidimensional conceptualizations of perfectionism pioneered by Frost et al. (1990) and Hewitt and Flett (1991), the Sport-MPS-2 consists of 42 self-report items mapped across six distinct subscales: Personal Standards (PS), Concern Over Mistakes (COM), Perceived Parental Pressure (PPP), Perceived Coach Pressure (PCP), Doubts About Actions (DAA), and Organization (OR). Respondents evaluate each item using a 5-point Likert response scale anchored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Extensive empirical investigations demonstrate that the instrument possesses robust psychometric properties across youth, collegiate, elite, and semi-professional athletic cohorts. Confirmatory factor analyses consistently substantiate the six-factor orthogonal and oblique models, yielding satisfactory fit indices (CFI ≥ .90 to .95; SRMR ≤ .08; RMSEA ≤ .06). Subscale internal consistencies consistently reach or exceed acceptable thresholds, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging from .76 to .88 across diverse sporting disciplines. The Sport-MPS-2 has established distinguished convergent and discriminant validity against measures of competitive trait anxiety, athletic burnout, achievement goal orientations, coping mechanisms, and fear of failure. By differentiating between perfectionistic strivings (adaptive, performance-enhancing tendencies) and perfectionistic concerns (maladaptive, neurotically driven cognitions), the Sport-MPS-2 provides sport psychologists, researchers, and mental performance consultants with an indispensable diagnostic and empirical tool.

Keywords

Sport Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale-2, Sport-MPS-2, perfectionism in sport, perfectionistic strivings, perfectionistic concerns, athlete mental health, sports psychology, personal standards, concern over mistakes, psychometric evaluation

Authors

The Sport Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale-2 was developed by leading figures in contemporary sport and exercise psychology:

• John K. Gotwals, Ph.D. — Associate Professor in the School of Kinesiology and Health Sciences at Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada. Dr. Gotwals specializes in personality dynamics, perfectionism in elite sport, psychological well-being, and psychometrics. Contact: School of Kinesiology, Lakehead University, 955 Oliver Road, Thunder Bay, ON P7B 5E1, Canada. Email: [email protected].
• John G. H. Dunn, Ph.D. — Full Professor in the Faculty of Kinesiology, Sport, and Recreation at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Dr. Dunn is an internationally recognized scholar investigating perfectionism, youth athletic development, achievement motivation, and social-cognitive determinants of athletic performance. Contact: Faculty of Kinesiology, Sport, and Recreation, University of Alberta, 2-130 University Hall, Van Vliet Complex, Edmonton, AB T6G 2H9, Canada. Email: [email protected].

Purpose

Perfectionism has long been recognized as a salient personality disposition that profoundly governs cognitive appraisals, emotional reactions, behavioral regulation, and competitive performance in athletic domains (sport psychology). Historically, psychometric instruments assessing perfectionism were developed within general psychiatric or college student populations (e.g., Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale [FMPS; Frost et al., 1990]; Hewitt & Flett Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale [HFMPS; Hewitt & Flett, 1991]). However, applying general instruments to competitive sports demonstrated substantial theoretical and ecological shortcomings. Domain-general instruments failed to account for contextual nuances unique to sport—such as rigid training regimens, coach-athlete hierarchical interactions, competitive evaluations, and physical performance errors.

To bridge this methodological gap, Dunn et al. (2006) formulated the original Sport-MPS, which was subsequently modified and refined by Gotwals and Dunn (2009) into the Sport Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale-2 (Sport-MPS-2). The explicit purpose of the Sport-MPS-2 is to provide an ecologically valid, domain-specific measurement tool designed to measure six structural dimensions of perfectionism in competitive athletes. The scale systematically operationalizes both intrapersonal dimensions (self-imposed achievement criteria, self-critical tendencies, structural planning) and interpersonal dimensions (expectations and criticisms perceived to emanate from primary socialization agents: parents and coaches).

From a clinical and applied perspective, the Sport-MPS-2 serves as an essential assessment apparatus for certified mental performance consultants (CMPCs), licensed sports psychologists, and athletic support staff. It assists practitioners in identifying athletes who are at heightened risk for perfectionistic burnout, somatic and cognitive competitive anxiety, performance slumps, drop-out attrition, and depressive symptomology. In academic research, the scale allows investigators to parse out the paradoxical nature of perfectionism: determining precisely when high personal standards facilitate peak athletic performance versus when rigid cognitive distortions undermine psychological resilience, emotional recovery, and subjective well-being.

Psychological Construct

Perfectionism in sport is conceptualized not as a unitary, unidimensional personality trait, but rather as a complex multidimensional construct consisting of two higher-order dimensions: perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns. The Sport-MPS-2 assesses six lower-order facets that map across these broader orientations:

1. Personal Standards (PS)

Personal Standards captures an athlete’s tendency to set exceptionally high, rigorous standards of performance and to attach immense importance to attaining these benchmarks during training and competition. Athletes scoring high on this dimension demand excellence and superior competence from themselves, striving continuously for masterly execution. For instance, Item 33 states: “I have extremely high goals for myself in my sport.” When unaccompanied by toxic self-recrimination, personal standards constitute the adaptive core of perfectionistic strivings, facilitating disciplined training habits, autonomous achievement motivation, and elevated task commitment.

2. Concern Over Mistakes (COM)

Concern Over Mistakes reflects an athlete’s tendency to interpret mistakes in competition as catastrophic events, equating performance errors with complete failure and diminished self-worth. It assesses negative cognitive-affective reactions following suboptimal athletic outcomes. For example, Item 2 asserts: “Even if I fail slightly in competition, for me, it is as bad as being a complete failure,” and Item 10 reflects: “If I fail in competition, I feel like a failure as a person.” This dimension is the primary indicator of perfectionistic concerns and is associated with chronic pre-competitive somatic anxiety, fear of failure, choking under pressure, and performance decrements.

3. Perceived Parental Pressure (PPP)

This subscale evaluates the athlete’s perception that their parents impose unrealistically elevated competitive expectations, provide contingent affection based upon success, and apply stringent criticism when athletic output falls short of perceived familial demands. For example, Item 19 states: “I feel like I am criticized by my parents for doing things less than perfectly in competition,” and Item 11 measures: “Only outstanding performance during competition is good enough in my family.” High scores reveal externalized social pressures that undermine intrinsic motivation and exacerbate maladaptive distress.

4. Perceived Coach Pressure (PCP)

Perceived Coach Pressure captures an athlete’s subjective belief that their coach demands flawless performance, provides harsh evaluations, and harbors unyielding standards that cannot be met. Illustrated by Item 6 (“I feel like my coach criticizes me for doing things less than perfectly in competition”) and Item 22 (“I feel like I can never quite live up to my coach’s standards”), this dimension examines the relational coach-athlete dynamic. Perceptions of hypercritical coaching environments foster feelings of inadequacy, evaluation apprehension, and diminished psychological safety.

5. Doubts About Actions (DAA)

Doubts About Actions assesses the athlete’s chronic uncertainty regarding the quality, thoroughness, and efficacy of their preparation prior to competition. Athletes high in this dimension repeatedly second-guess whether their training regimens and physical readiness are sufficient to produce winning results. As articulated in Item 14 (“I rarely feel that my training fully prepares me for competition”) and Item 31 (“I rarely feel that I have trained enough in preparation for a competition”), DAA generates debilitating cognitive rumination, impairs pre-competition focus, and disrupts mental flow.

6. Organization (OR)

Organization reflects the athlete’s preference for order, structured preparation, pre-competitive routines, and systematic game planning. Exemplified by Item 5 (“On the day of competition I have a routine that I try to follow”) and Item 41 (“I set plans that highlight the strategies I want to use when I compete”), this dimension measures functional behavioral discipline. Psychometric literature often regards Organization as a peripheral facet that correlates with high achievement striving, yet remains structurally separate from the neurotic, evaluative concerns that drive psychological maladjustment.

Theoretical Framework

The architectural foundation of the Sport-MPS-2 synthesizes seminal cognitive-developmental and social-cognitive frameworks of perfectionism, primarily drawing upon the work of Frost, Marten, Lahart, and Rosenblate (1990) alongside Hewitt and Flett (1991).

Frost and colleagues originally operationalized perfectionism across six domain-general dimensions: Personal Standards, Concern Over Mistakes, Doubts About Actions, Parental Expectations, Parental Criticism, and Organization. Concurrently, Hewitt and Flett developed a tripartite interpersonal model delineating self-oriented perfectionism (imposing high standards on oneself), other-oriented perfectionism (demanding perfection from others), and socially prescribed perfectionism (perceiving that significant others demand perfection from oneself). Gotwals and Dunn (2009) synthesized these frameworks to formulate a sport-specific paradigm:

• Cognitive Mediational Model of Stress: Grounded in Lazarus and Folkman’s transactional model, an athlete’s cognitive appraisal of athletic demands dictates their emotional response. Athletes with elevated perfectionistic concerns systematically appraise competitive scenarios as threats rather than challenges, triggering psychological distress.
• Self-Determination Theory (SDT): As posited by Deci and Ryan, psychological well-being depends on satisfying basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Perceived coach and parental pressures represent controlling environments that undermine autonomy, shifting athletic engagement from intrinsic enjoyment toward introjected and external regulation.
• The Dual Process Model of Perfectionism: Contemporary psychometricians (e.g., Stoeber, 2011) classify perfectionism into two higher-order dimensions: Perfectionistic Strivings (comprising Personal Standards and Organization) and Perfectionistic Concerns (comprising Concern Over Mistakes, Doubts About Actions, Perceived Parental Pressure, and Perceived Coach Pressure). The Sport-MPS-2 was deliberately structured to cleanly discriminate between these two distinct orientations.

Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity of the Sport-MPS-2 has been validated across empirical investigations involving collegiate athletes (NCAA, Canadian U Sports), elite youth academies, national team representatives, and recreational competitors.

Construct and Structural Validity

Gotwals and Dunn (2009) established internal construct validity utilizing a multi-method, multi-analytic protocol with Canadian intercollegiate athletes (N = 383). Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) demonstrated that the 42-item six-factor model exhibited superior fit relative to rival competing models. Multiple cross-validation studies (e.g., Dunn et al., 2014; Gotwals et al., 2010; Sapieja et al., 2011) have confirmed that the measurement model remains invariant across gender cohorts and competitive tiers.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity has been established by cross-referencing the Sport-MPS-2 with external psychometric inventories:

• Competitive Trait Anxiety: The subscales measuring Concern Over Mistakes and Doubts About Actions demonstrate strong positive correlations (r = .45 to .62, p < .001) with cognitive anxiety as measured by the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2) and the Sport Anxiety Scale-2 (SAS-2). Conversely, Personal Standards typically displays weak or non-significant relationships with cognitive anxiety, but positive correlations with self-confidence.
• Athletic Burnout: Research utilizing the Athlete Burnout Questionnaire (ABQ) indicates that Perceived Coach Pressure, Parental Pressure, and Concern Over Mistakes significantly predict emotional and physical exhaustion, sport devaluation, and reduced sense of athletic accomplishment (β = .30 to .48, p < .001).
• Achievement Goal Orientations: Personal Standards correlates strongly with task/mastery goal orientations (r = .38 to .54) on the Perception of Success Questionnaire (POSQ) and the Achievement Goal Questionnaire for Sport (AGQ-S), whereas Concern Over Mistakes and Perceived Coach Pressure correlate with performance-avoidance goals (r = .35 to .51).
• Parenting Styles: Sapieja, Dunn, and Holt (2011) confirmed discriminant and criterion validity in youth soccer cohorts, demonstrating that perceptions of authoritarian parenting were uniquely linked to elevated Perceived Parental Pressure and Concern Over Mistakes, whereas authoritative parenting predicted adaptive Personal Standards.

Reliability

The Sport-MPS-2 exhibits high internal consistency and temporal reliability across literature in physical education, kinesiology, and behavioral psychology.

Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s α)

In the landmark validation study by Gotwals and Dunn (2009), the six subscales yielded the following Cronbach’s alpha coefficients:

• Personal Standards: α = .76
• Concern Over Mistakes: α = .85
• Perceived Parental Pressure: α = .78
• Perceived Coach Pressure: α = .77
• Doubts About Actions: α = .76
• Organization: α = .85

Subsequent psychometric evaluations across diverse athletic contexts (e.g., Dunn et al., 2014; Lizmore et al., 2017) have yielded comparable coefficients, with composite reliabilities frequently spanning between .75 and .89. Composite reliability values (McDonald’s ω) have likewise met the recommended > .80 threshold across structural modeling tests.

Test-Retest Reliability

Longitudinal and short-term test-retest evaluations over intervals ranging from two to six weeks have revealed intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) between .74 and .88, confirming the temporal stability of the instrument as a reliable measure of dispositional perfectionism throughout competitive athletic seasons.

Factor Analysis

The structural architecture of the Sport-MPS-2 has been evaluated through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) during preliminary item retention phases and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) during formal validation:

Confirmatory Factor Analytic Models

Gotwals and Dunn (2009) evaluated the 42-item inventory against various alternative factorial specifications. A six-factor oblique CFA model delivered acceptable parameters across standard fit indices:

• Chi-Square to Degrees of Freedom Ratio: χ²/df < 2.1
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): ≥ .91 to .94
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): ≤ .052 (90% CI [.047, .057])
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): ≤ .061

Factor Loadings and Latent Intercorrelations

Standardized factor loadings across all 42 items consistently load onto their designated latent factors (λ ≥ .50 to .84), with minimal cross-loadings. Inter-factor correlations confirm the expected theoretical clustering:

• Perfectionistic Strivings Cluster: Personal Standards and Organization correlate moderately with one another (r ≈ .45 to .55).
• Perfectionistic Concerns Cluster: Concern Over Mistakes, Doubts About Actions, Perceived Coach Pressure, and Perceived Parental Pressure demonstrate moderate to high positive intercorrelations (r ≈ .40 to .72).
• Cross-Dimension Relationships: Personal Standards displays moderate positive correlations with Concern Over Mistakes (r ≈ .30 to .42), capturing the shared variance inherent in perfectionistic goal striving, while maintaining distinct discriminant validity.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Sport Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale-2 (Sport-MPS-2)
• Construct Assessed: Multidimensional perfectionism in competitive sport (strivings, concerns, and perceived relational pressures)
• Authors: John K. Gotwals and John G. H. Dunn (2009)
• Administration Format: Self-report questionnaire (paper-and-pencil or online digital survey)
• Item Count: 42 items
• Target Population: Competitive athletes (adolescent, collegiate, semi-professional, and elite adult athletes)
• Completion Time: Approximately 8 to 12 minutes
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral/neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree)
• Subscale Item Composition:
  • Personal Standards (PS) [7 items]: 1, 8, 17, 21, 23, 33, 36
  • Concern Over Mistakes (COM) [8 items]: 2, 10, 16, 24, 28, 32, 39, 42
  • Doubts About Actions (DAA) [6 items]: 3, 12, 14, 20, 31, 37
  • Perceived Parental Pressure (PPP) [9 items]: 4, 7, 11, 15, 19, 25, 29, 38, 40
  • Perceived Coach Pressure (PCP) [6 items]: 6, 13, 22, 26, 30, 35
  • Organization (OR) [6 items]: 5, 9, 18, 27, 34, 41
• Scoring Protocol: No items are reverse-coded. Subscale scores are derived by calculating the mean or sum of all corresponding items. Higher scores reflect greater levels of the respective dimension of athletic perfectionism.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Publication: 2009 (original Sport-MPS published in 2006).
• Accessibility and Research Use: The Sport-MPS-2 is available for academic, scientific, and educational research purposes without financial charge. Dr. Gotwals and Dr. Dunn have made the instrument openly accessible to support sport psychology inquiry.
• Digital Repository Access: The instrument and its initial psychometric documentation can be accessed via institutional repositories: University of Alberta Institutional Repository (ERA: http://hdl.handle.net/10048/739).
• Commercial / Applied Licensing: Commercial distribution, inclusion in monetized digital platforms, or proprietary athletic diagnostics may require prior written permission from the copyright holders and publishers. Scholars are advised to cite the primary validation paper (Gotwals & Dunn, 2009) in all scientific outputs.

References

• Dunn, J. G. H., Causgrove Dunn, J. L., Gotwals, J. K., Vallance, J. K. H., Craft, J. M., & Syrotuik, D. G. (2006). Establishing construct validity evidence for the Sport Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 7(1), 57–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2005.04.003
• Dunn, J. G. H., Craft, J. M., Causgrove Dunn, J. L., & Gotwals, J. K. (2014). Comparing a sport-specific and a general measure of perfectionism: The Sport-MPS-2 and the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 18(2), 126–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/1091367X.2014.887640
• 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
• Gotwals, J. K., & Dunn, J. G. H. (2009). A multi-method multi-analytic approach to establishing internal construct validity evidence: The Sport Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale 2. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 13(2), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10913670902812663
• Gotwals, J. K., Dunn, J. G. H., & Wayment, H. A. (2010). An examination of perfectionism and self-esteem in intercollegiate athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 33(1), 17–40.
• Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(3), 456–470. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.456
• Lizmore, M. R., Dunn, J. G. H., & Causgrove Dunn, J. (2017). Perfectionistic strivings, perfectionistic concerns, and reactions to poor personal performances among competitive curlers. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 33, 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.08.006
• Sapieja, K. M. (2009). Perfectionism and parenting styles in male youth soccer (Master’s thesis). University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
• Sapieja, K. M., Dunn, J. G. H., & Holt, N. L. (2011). Perfectionism and perceptions of parenting styles in male youth soccer. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.33.1.20
• Stoeber, J. (2011). The dual model of perfectionism in sport: A critical review. In Sport and Exercise Psychology Research Advances (pp. 53–78). Nova Science Publishers.

Items of the Scale