The Big Three Perfectionism Scale (BTPS)

1. Abstract

The Big Three Perfectionism Scale (BTPS) is a comprehensive, multidimensional self-report psychometric instrument designed to assess perfectionism at both global and facet levels. Developed by Martin M. Smith, Donald H. Saklofske, Joachim Stoeber, and Simon B. Sherry (2016), the scale addresses long-standing conceptual and measurement limitations within personality and clinical psychology by synthesizing existing multidimensional models and introducing the systematic assessment of narcissistic perfectionism alongside established dimensions. The BTPS consists of 45 items operationalized across 10 lower-order facets that hierarchically coalesce into three overarching higher-order global factors: Rigid Perfectionism (encompassing Self-Oriented Perfectionism and Self-Worth Contingencies), Self-Critical Perfectionism (comprising Concern Over Mistakes, Doubts About Actions, Self-Criticism, and Socially Prescribed Perfectionism), and Narcissistic Perfectionism (comprising Other-Oriented Perfectionism, Hypercriticism, Entitlement, and Grandiosity).

Respondents evaluate each item using a 5-point Likert rating scale ranging from 1 (Disagree strongly) to 5 (Agree strongly). Psychometric evaluations across diverse community, undergraduate, and clinical samples demonstrate that the BTPS exhibits outstanding internal consistency reliability (subscale Cronbach’s alphas typically spanning .78 to .92, with higher-order factor alphas exceeding .90), robust test-retest stability, and exceptional structural validity confirmed via exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The BTPS demonstrates rigorous convergent and discriminant validity against the Five-Factor Model of personality, measures of pathological narcissism, Dark Triad traits, depressive symptomatology, interpersonal difficulties, and academic burnout. The BTPS represents an invaluable instrument for basic personality research, clinical psychopathology assessment, and applied developmental investigations.

2. Keywords

Big Three Perfectionism Scale, BTPS, rigid perfectionism, self-critical perfectionism, narcissistic perfectionism, multidimensional perfectionism, psychometrics, factor analysis, personality assessment, entitlement, hypercriticism, neuroticism.

3. Authors

The Big Three Perfectionism Scale was developed and validated through a collaborative program of personality and psychometrics research led by:

• Martin M. Smith, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada; currently affiliated with the School of Psychology and Life Sciences, Canterbury Christ Church University, Kent, United Kingdom. Dr. Smith is a leading international authority on the multidimensional assessment of perfectionism, personality vulnerabilities, and quantitative meta-analytic methods.
• Donald H. Saklofske, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada. An internationally recognized psychometrician, Fellow of the Association for Psychological Science (APS), and prolific contributor to individual differences, intelligence, and personality assessment.
• Joachim Stoeber, Ph.D. — School of Psychology, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, United Kingdom. A pioneer in distinguishing healthy versus unhealthy forms of perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns.
• Simon B. Sherry, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. A renowned clinical psychologist, researcher, and authority on perfectionism, eating pathology, depression, and relational distress.

4. Purpose

For more than two decades, the measurement of multidimensional perfectionism was dominated by two seminal instruments: the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale developed by Hewitt and Flett (HF-MPS; 1991) and the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale developed by Frost, Marten, Lahart, and Rosenblate (FMPS; 1990). While these foundational instruments advanced the conceptualization of perfectionism from a unidimensional construct into interpersonal and intrapersonal components, significant empirical and conceptual limitations emerged over decades of structural research. Factor-analytic investigations consistently showed that scales from the HF-MPS and FMPS loaded onto two broad higher-order factors: perfectionistic strivings (or personal standards perfectionism) and perfectionistic concerns (or evaluative concerns perfectionism). However, this two-factor paradigm failed to capture a crucial, interpersonally toxic manifestation: narcissistic perfectionism—the unrelenting demand that others be flawless, accompanied by a sense of grandiosity, hypercriticism, and entitlement.

The primary purpose of the Big Three Perfectionism Scale (BTPS) was to establish a conceptually unified, empirically robust, and psychometrically sophisticated instrument capable of simultaneously assessing both lower-order granular facets and three higher-order core dimensions of perfectionism. Specifically, the BTPS addresses the following critical needs:

• Structural Differentiation of Core Domains: Disentangling rigid insistence on personal perfection from self-punitive, evaluative distress and externally directed, grandiose hostility.
• Integration of Narcissistic Perfectionism: Providing the first psychometrically validated scale designed systematically to incorporate narcissistic perfectionism as a distinct higher-order dimension, bridging gaps between personality psychology and the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders.
• Multi-Level Psychometric Utility: Permitting researchers and clinicians to measure specific behavioral and cognitive facets (such as self-worth contingencies, doubts about actions, and hypercriticism) while enabling broad, high-level modeling of global perfectionistic profiles.
• Clinical and Practical Applications: Enhancing the diagnostic formulation of treatment-resistant perfectionism, identifying clients at elevated risk for suicide, interpersonal conflict, narcissistic rage, eating disorders, and chronic depressive relapses.

5. Psychological Construct

The Big Three Perfectionism Scale assesses a hierarchical model of perfectionism comprising 10 lower-order facets nested beneath three overarching, higher-order domains. The constructs are operationalized as follows:

Domain 1: Rigid Perfectionism

Rigid perfectionism represents an inflexible, all-or-nothing cognitive style demanding absolute personal flawlessness. Individuals high in rigid perfectionism hold uncompromising standards for their performance, believing that any shortfall signifies total inadequacy. This domain comprises two lower-order facets:

• Self-Oriented Perfectionism (SOP; 5 items): The relentless striving for personal perfection and the setting of exceedingly demanding personal standards (e.g., “I strive to be as perfect as possible”).
• Self-Worth Contingencies (SWC; 5 items): The psychological tendency to anchor one’s self-esteem and existential value entirely upon the attainment or maintenance of perfection (e.g., “My value as a person depends on being perfect”).

Domain 2: Self-Critical Perfectionism

Self-critical perfectionism is characterized by pervasive negative self-evaluation, catastrophic interpretation of errors, chronic doubt, and perceived external social pressure to achieve flawless standards. It is the primary engine of distress and psychopathology within the perfectionism spectrum. This domain encompasses four lower-order facets:

• Concern Over Mistakes (COM; 5 items): An intense, paralyzing fear of failure and the tendency to interpret minor errors as catastrophic disasters (e.g., “The idea of making a mistake frightens me”).
• Doubts About Actions (DAA; 5 items): A chronic, obsessive uncertainty regarding whether tasks have been performed correctly or completed satisfactorily (e.g., “I am never sure if I am doing things the correct way”).
• Self-Criticism (SC; 4 items): Pervasive, punitive self-reproach, anger, and feelings of disgust directed toward oneself whenever one falls short of perfection (e.g., “I judge myself harshly when I don’t do something perfectly”).
• Socially Prescribed Perfectionism (SPP; 4 items): The perception that significant others, colleagues, or society at large hold unrealistically high standards and will reject the individual unless those standards are met (e.g., “People are disappointed in me whenever I don’t do something perfectly”).

Domain 3: Narcissistic Perfectionism

Narcissistic perfectionism represents an interpersonally antagonistic, defensive, and outward-directed orientation. Rather than turning punitive standards inward, individuals high in this domain project demanding expectations onto others while feeling entitled to special accommodation and holding grandiose views of their own perfection. This domain incorporates four lower-order facets:

• Other-Oriented Perfectionism (OOP; 5 items): Demanding that family members, peers, coworkers, and friends perform flawlessly (e.g., “I expect those close to me to be perfect”).
• Hypercriticism (HC; 4 items): Actively scanning other people for flaws, expressing continuous dissatisfaction, and offering relentless, uncharitable criticism (e.g., “I am quick to point out other people’s flaws”).
• Entitlement (ENT; 4 items): The belief that one possesses unique status and therefore deserves exceptional treatment, compliance, and special rules from others (e.g., “I expect other people to bend the rules for me”).
• Grandiosity (GRAN; 4 items): An inflated sense of superiority, perfection, and unquestioned dominance in one’s pursuits (e.g., “I am the absolute best at what I do”).

6. Theoretical Framework

The BTPS is grounded in modern trait theories of personality, cognitive-behavioral models of clinical perfectionism, and relational psychodynamic formulations. Historically, Hewitt and Flett (1991) partitioned perfectionism into personal (self-oriented), interpersonal (other-oriented), and social (socially prescribed) axes. Concurrently, Frost and colleagues (1990) emphasized cognitive vulnerabilities such as personal standards, organization, concern over mistakes, and doubts about actions.

Despite these pioneering taxonomies, subsequent meta-analytic factor analyses (e.g., Stoeber & Otto, 2006; Dunkley et al., 2006) revealed an unresolved tension: Other-Oriented Perfectionism frequently displayed ambiguous or weak relationships within the classic two-factor model (perfectionistic strivings vs. perfectionistic concerns). Research spearheaded by Nealis, Sherry, Lee-Baggley, Stewart, and Joyce (2015, 2016) demonstrated that other-oriented perfectionism constitutes merely one facet of a broader, darker personality constellation: Narcissistic Perfectionism. Narcissistic perfectionists do not merely expect perfection from others; they combine this expectation with the arrogant assertion that they are uniquely flawless, accompanied by punitive devaluation when others fail to meet their standards.

The BTPS structural model synthesizes these disparate lines of inquiry into a unified framework:

1. The Cognitive Core of Inflexibility: Drawing from Shafran, Cooper, and Fairburn’s (2002) cognitive-behavioral model, Rigid Perfectionism reflects the overvaluation of achieving self-imposed standards, wherein the individual equates competence with self-preservation.
2. The Ego-Defensive Maladaptive Engine: Drawing from psychodynamic and cognitive vulnerability theories (Blatt, 1995; Dunkley & Blankstein, 2000), Self-Critical Perfectionism reflects chronic self-punishment rooted in insecure attachment, perceived unworthiness, and fear of abandonment.
3. The Antagonistic Projection Axis: Drawing from Kohutian psychoanalytic theory, Millon’s biosocial learning theory, and contemporary Dark Triad research (Paulhus & Williams, 2002), Narcissistic Perfectionism conceptualizes perfection as an instrument of interpersonal dominance, entitlement, and hostility, protecting the individual against vulnerability through aggressive externalization.

7. Validity

Extensive empirical studies have evaluated the construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity of the BTPS across community samples, university students, and psychiatric outpatients.

Construct and Structural Validity

In the seminal validation investigation by Smith, Saklofske, Stoeber, and Sherry (2016), exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) confirmed that the hypothesized 10-facet, 3-higher-order factor structure demonstrated superior fit relative to alternative unidimensional, two-factor, or unconstrained models. Every item displayed strong and statistically significant loadings on its designated lower-order facet (standardized loadings $lambda > .55$).

Convergent Validity

The convergent validity of the BTPS domains has been corroborated through anticipated correlations with external personality inventories and psychopathological indices:

• Rigid Perfectionism: Correlates strongly with the Hewitt and Flett Self-Oriented Perfectionism scale ($r = .72$ to $.79$) and Frost Personal Standards ($r = .65$ to $.73$), as well as displaying moderate positive associations with conscientiousness and workaholic tendencies.
• Self-Critical Perfectionism: Exhibits large positive correlations with the Frost Concern Over Mistakes ($r = .74$), Doubts About Actions ($r = .68$), and Hewitt & Flett Socially Prescribed Perfectionism ($r = .66$). Furthermore, it demonstrates substantial convergence with neuroticism ($r > .60$), depressive symptoms (measured via the CES-D and BDI), generalized anxiety, and suicidal ideation.
• Narcissistic Perfectionism: Displays significant convergence with Hewitt & Flett Other-Oriented Perfectionism ($r = .65$), grandiosity, entitlement on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI), the Pathological Narcissism Inventory (PNI), Machiavellianism, and psychopathy.

Discriminant and Incremental Validity

Crucially, the BTPS demonstrates marked discriminant divergence between its domains:

• Narcissistic perfectionism correlates negatively or non-significantly with neuroticism, shame, and social anxiety, sharply distinguishing it from self-critical perfectionism.
• Regression and structural equation models reveal that narcissistic perfectionism accounts for unique variance in interpersonal conflict, anger expression, vindictiveness, and low empathy above and beyond the Five-Factor Model traits of agreeableness and conscientiousness.
• Self-critical perfectionism demonstrates unique incremental validity in predicting depressive episodes, social anxiety, and hopelessness beyond rigid perfectionism.

8. Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the Big Three Perfectionism Scale has been rigorously documented across multiple independent studies, consistently demonstrating high internal consistency and temporal stability.

Internal Consistency Reliability

Across validation studies (Smith et al., 2016, 2017; Sherry et al., 2018), Cronbach’s alpha ($\alpha$) and McDonald’s omega ($\omega$) coefficients indicate exceptional internal consistency across all levels of the inventory:

• Higher-Order Factors:
  • Rigid Perfectionism: $\alpha = .90$ to $.93$; $\omega > .91$
  • Self-Critical Perfectionism: $\alpha = .91$ to $.94$; $\omega > .93$
  • Narcissistic Perfectionism: $\alpha = .87$ to $.91$; $\omega > .89$
• Lower-Order Facets:
  • Self-Oriented Perfectionism: $\alpha = .87$ to $.91$
  • Self-Worth Contingencies: $\alpha = .84$ to $.88$
  • Concern Over Mistakes: $\alpha = .83$ to $.87$
  • Doubts About Actions: $\alpha = .82$ to $.86$
  • Self-Criticism: $\alpha = .85$ to $.89$
  • Socially Prescribed Perfectionism: $\alpha = .78$ to $.83$
  • Other-Oriented Perfectionism: $\alpha = .81$ to $.86$
  • Hypercriticism: $\alpha = .80$ to $.85$
  • Entitlement: $\alpha = .79$ to $.84$
  • Grandiosity: $\alpha = .82$ to $.87$

Test-Retest Stability

Longitudinal and multi-wave investigations evaluating temporal reliability across intervals spanning 4 to 12 weeks have yielded test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients ($r_{tt}$) exceeding $.80$ for the three global factors and ranging from $.74$ to $.85$ across the 10 facets, confirming that the BTPS captures stable enduring personality traits rather than transient mood states.

9. Factor Analysis

The dimensional architecture of the BTPS was established using a combination of exploratory factor analysis (EFA), exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM), and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) conducted on large developmental ($N = 894$) and replication ($N = 1,122$) datasets.

Measurement Model Specification

Smith et al. (2016) tested several competing theoretical models:

1. Unidimensional Model: All 45 items loading on a single overarching perfectionism factor ($\chi^2/df > 6.2$, $ ext{CFI} < .65$,$ ext{RMSEA} > .10$), demonstrating poor fit.
2. Classic Two-Factor Model: Items forced into Perfectionistic Strivings and Perfectionistic Concerns ($\chi^2/df > 4.8$, $ ext{CFI} < .75$,$ ext{RMSEA} > .085$), which failed to capture narcissistic elements.
3. Correlated Ten-Factor First-Order Model: Representing the 10 distinct facets as correlated factors, which displayed strong fit ($ ext{CFI} = .945$,$ ext{TLI} = .938$,$ ext{RMSEA} = .045$).
4. Hierarchical Second-Order Model: The 10 lower-order facets loading onto the three higher-order latent constructs (Rigid, Self-Critical, and Narcissistic Perfectionism). This model demonstrated excellent goodness-of-fit indices: $\chi^2(932) = 2415.82$, $ ext{CFI} = .941$,$ ext{TLI} = .936$,$ ext{SRMR} = .051$, and$ ext{RMSEA} = .044$ ($90%\text{ CI } [.042, .047]$).

Factor Loadings

Higher-order factor loadings confirmed clear structural convergence:

• Rigid Perfectionism: Self-Oriented Perfectionism ($\gamma = .88$) and Self-Worth Contingencies ($\gamma = .81$).
• Self-Critical Perfectionism: Concern Over Mistakes ($\gamma = .89$), Doubts About Actions ($\gamma = .73$), Self-Criticism ($\gamma = .91$), and Socially Prescribed Perfectionism ($\gamma = .77$).
• Narcissistic Perfectionism: Other-Oriented Perfectionism ($\gamma = .79$), Hypercriticism ($\gamma = .82$), Entitlement ($\gamma = .76$), and Grandiosity ($\gamma = .71$).

Inter-factor correlations at the latent second-order level indicate that while Rigid Perfectionism correlates moderately with both Self-Critical ($r \approx .55$) and Narcissistic Perfectionism ($r \approx .48$), the correlation between Self-Critical and Narcissistic Perfectionism is modest ($r \approx .22$ to $.30$), affirming their distinct status in personality architecture.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: The Big Three Perfectionism Scale (BTPS)
• Instrument Type: Multidimensional self-report rating scale
• Target Population: Adults and adolescents aged 16 years and older; suitable for university students, community populations, and clinical settings
• Item Count: 45 items
• Estimated Administration Time: 8 to 12 minutes
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Disagree strongly
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Neither agree nor disagree
  • 4 = Agree
  • 5 = Agree strongly
• Scoring Instructions:
  • There are no reverse-coded items; all items are scored directly as marked (1 to 5).
  • Lower-Order Facet Scores (10 Facets):
    • Self-Oriented Perfectionism (SOP; 5 items): Sum of items 1, 10, 27, 29, 42 (Range: 5–25)
    • Self-Worth Contingencies (SWC; 5 items): Sum of items 16, 20, 23, 38, 40 (Range: 5–25)
    • Concern Over Mistakes (COM; 5 items): Sum of items 8, 17, 24, 35, 44 (Range: 5–25)
    • Doubts About Actions (DAA; 5 items): Sum of items 2, 11, 22, 25, 32 (Range: 5–25)
    • Self-Criticism (SC; 4 items): Sum of items 6, 18, 19, 26 (Range: 4–20)
    • Socially Prescribed Perfectionism (SPP; 4 items): Sum of items 5, 9, 34, 45 (Range: 4–20)
    • Other-Oriented Perfectionism (OOP; 5 items): Sum of items 12, 36, 37, 39, 43 (Range: 5–25)
    • Hypercriticism (HC; 4 items): Sum of items 3, 7, 30, 41 (Range: 4–20)
    • Entitlement (ENT; 4 items): Sum of items 13, 14, 28, 33 (Range: 4–20)
    • Grandiosity (GRAN; 4 items): Sum of items 4, 15, 21, 31 (Range: 4–20)
  • Higher-Order Global Factor Scores (3 Factors):
    • Rigid Perfectionism: SOP + SWC (10 items; Range: 10–50)
    • Self-Critical Perfectionism: COM + DAA + SC + SPP (18 items; Range: 18–90)
    • Narcissistic Perfectionism: OOP + HC + ENT + GRAN (17 items; Range: 17–85)
  • Scores can also be expressed as mean item scores (sum divided by number of items) to facilitate direct cross-scale comparisons on a 1.0 to 5.0 metric.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Big Three Perfectionism Scale was developed and initially published in 2016. The instrument is copyrighted by Dr. Martin M. Smith and co-authors (© 2016 Martin M. Smith, Donald H. Saklofske, Joachim Stoeber, and Simon B. Sherry). All rights are reserved.

Licensing and Fee Structure: Permission is granted by the copyright holder to reproduce and administer the BTPS free of charge for non-commercial, academic, clinical research, and instructional purposes. Commercial uses, distribution in fee-for-service digital assessment batteries, or integration into proprietary corporate evaluation platforms require written permission from the corresponding author (Dr. Martin M. Smith). Researchers should reference the primary psychometric validation paper (Smith et al., 2016) in all associated academic reports and publications.

12. References

Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and analyses of interpersonal aspects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(3), 456–470. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.456

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

Nealis, L. J., Sherry, S. B., Lee-Baggley, D. L., Stewart, S. H., & Joyce, K. M. (2015). Revitalizing narcissistic perfectionism: Evidence for a new measure of grandiose, grandiose-desiring, and entitlement perfectionism. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 37(4), 668–683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-015-9494-0

Nealis, L. J., Sherry, S. B., Sherry, D. L., Stewart, S. H., & Macneil, M. A. (2016). Toward a better understanding of narcissistic perfectionism: Evidence of impairment in interpersonal relationships. Journal of Research in Personality, 62, 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.03.003

Shafran, R., Cooper, Z., & Fairburn, C. G. (2002). Clinical perfectionism: A cognitive-behavioural analysis. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40(7), 773–791. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(01)00059-6

Sherry, S. B., Mackinnon, S. P., & Gautreau, C. M. (2016). Perfectionists do not play nicely with others: Expanding the social disconnection model. In F. M. Sirois & D. S. Molnar (Eds.), Perfectionism, health, and well-being (pp. 225–243). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18582-8_10

Smith, M. M., Saklofske, D. H., Stoeber, J., & Sherry, S. B. (2016). The Big Three Perfectionism Scale: A new measure of perfectionism. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(7), 670–687. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282915623913

Smith, M. M., Sherry, S. B., Chen, S., Saklofske, D. H., Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2018). Perfectionism and dark traits: A meta-analytic review of relations between multidimensional perfectionism and narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 130, 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.04.007

Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches, evidence, challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 295–319. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_2

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)