Ambiguous Scenario Task for Perfectionistic Concerns (AST-PC) Vignette/Scenario

Abstract

The Ambiguous Scenario Task for Perfectionistic Concerns (AST-PC; Cludius et al., 2023) is an original instrument designed to assess perfectionistic concerns in university students. It utilizes a vignette/scenario format, presenting hypothetical academic and non-academic daily life scenarios followed by three types of interpretations: perfectionistic concern, adaptive, and maladaptive (but not perfectionistic). The interpretations related to perfectionistic concerns were based on the concern-over-mistakes subscale of the FMPS-D. The AST-PC aims to specifically measure forms of interpretation biases in perfectionism. A neutral scenarios task (AST-N) with a parallel structure was also developed as a filler or control, consisting of emotionally neutral scenarios followed by positive, negative, and neutral interpretations not related to perfection. Both the AST-PC and AST-N have two parallel versions, each comprising 5 academic and 5 daily life scenarios. Data for the AST-PC was collected from two independent student samples. Factor analysis supported a three-dimensional structure. The study reported acceptable reliability and validity. The authors noted that additional validation studies are required to establish the temporal stability of the task scores and their sensitivity to experimental induction and clinical intervention.

Keywords

Perfectionistic Concerns; Interpretation Bias; Adaptive Interpretation; Maladaptive Interpretation; Academic Settings; Non-Academic Daily Life Settings; University Students; Factorial Validity; Perfectionism; College Students; Interpretive Bias; Vignette Measure; State Trait Level Measures

Authors

Cludius, Barbara; Hummel, Julia; Limburg, Karina; Woud, Marcella L.; Takano, Keisuke

Purpose

The AST-PC was designed to assess forms of interpretation biases in perfectionism among college students, specifically, perfectionistic concerns for ambiguous scenarios from academic and non-academic daily life settings.

Validity

Construct Validity: The results of multiple regression analyses indicated that for the parallel versions of the AST-PC, the perfectionistic concern interpretations were uniquely associated with concern over mistakes, even after controlling for non-perfectionistic maladaptive and negative interpretations. Similarly, additional regressions showed that perfectionistic concern interpretations were uniquely predicted by concern over mistakes, even after controlling for other forms of perfectionism, such as doubts about actions and personal standards. These findings suggest that the AST-PC indeed reflects perfectionistic concerns, and that this association cannot be explained merely by the negative valence of the interpretations.

Reliability

Internal Consistency: Reliability was acceptable for the negative and positive interpretations of the AST-N (Cronbach’s α = 0.66 and 0.61), but not for neutral interpretations (α = 0.42). This low internal consistency suggests that participants’ ratings of neutral interpretations were inconsistent and unstable across the scenarios.

Factor Analysis

Confirmatory Factor Analysis:

• AST-PC, Version A: The final model with 18 selected interpretation items showed a good model fit (χ²=162.069, p=0.002, CFI=0.923, RMSEA=0.062, AIC=8105.107). Additionally, this three-factor model fit the data better than the one-factor model.

• Factor structure of the AST-PC, Version B: The full model with three latent factors for the perfectionistic concern, adaptive, and maladaptive interpretations showed a good model fit after excluding interpretation items that had low factor loading (χ²=201.981, p=0.026, CFI=0.937, RMSEA=0.045, AIC=9978.062). These results demonstrated factorial validity.

Instrument: Ambiguous Scenario Task for Perfectionistic Concerns (AST-PC)

• Test Type: Original

• Format: Vignette/Scenario. Each scenario is presented in random order, immediately followed by one of the three interpretations (presented in random order within a scenario). For each type of interpretation, participants rate the likelihood on a 9-point scale (1 = very unlikely, 9 = very likely).

• Language Available: English, German

• Population Group: Human; Male; Female

• Age Group: Adulthood (18 yrs & older)

• Population Details: Respondents: University Students. Location: Germany.

• Test Methodology: Test Validity; Construct Validity; Test Reliability; Internal Consistency; Factor Analysis; Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Authors

• Author ORCID Identifier:

  • Limburg, Karina: orcid.org/0000-0002-4061-8679

  • Takano, Keisuke: orcid.org/0000-0003-0406-8654

• Affiliation:

  • Cludius, Barbara: LMU Munich Department of Psychology

  • Hummel, Julia: LMU Munich Department of Psychology

  • Limburg, Karina: LMU Munich Department of Psychology

  • Woud, Marcella L.: Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Faculty of Psychology Mental Health Research and Treatment Center

  • Takano, Keisuke: LMU Munich Department of Psychology

• Email:

  • Cludius, Barbara: [email protected]

• Files: No data is Available

• Correspondence Address: Cludius, Barbara: LMU Munich, Department of Psychology, Division of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Leopoldstrasse 13, Munich, Germany, 80802, [email protected]

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Permissions: May use for Research/Teaching

• Fee: No

• Commercial: No

• Test Year: 2023

References

Cludius, B., Hummel, J., Limburg, K., Woud, M. L., & Takano, K. (2023). Development and validation of the Ambiguous Scenario Task for Perfectionistic Concerns for university students. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 79, 1–10. doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2022.101811

Items of the Ambiguous Scenario Task for Perfectionistic Concerns (AST-PC)

• Number of items: This task includes 18 interpretation items in total.

• Factors and Subscales:

  • Factors: Perfectionistic concern; Adaptive interpretation; Maladaptive interpretation.

• Test Items Available: Yes

• Test Location: 2023-49768-001, Supplemental Material, Pages 1-6

Ambiguous Scenario Task for Perfectionistic Concerns (AST-PC)

1. Task Instruction (presented to participants)

Welcome to the next part of the study. Brief descriptions of situations are presented below. Please read each description carefully. It will stay on the screen for a few seconds. After this, you will be offered three response options one after the other. For each of the three possible reactions, we ask you to indicate how likely you are to react in that way on a scale. Please try to not think for too long before you make up your mind. We are interested in your first impression. There is no right or wrong.

2. Scenarios and Interpretations

2.1 Academic Scenarios (Perfectionistic Concerns)

Version A

Ac 1: I have written an exam and already know that I answered a question incorrectly.
PC: This means that I failed.

Ac 4: In a seminar we had to submit an assignment. Not mine, but a fellow student’s solution was presented as a very good model solution.
PC: I hate not being the best at this.

Version B

Ac 1: Last week I gave an incorrect answer that a fellow student corrected in a well-attended lecture. Today I have to attend this lecture again.
Ad: I am looking forward to it anyway since a new topic will be discussed today.
Ma: I cannot stand this know-it-all.

Ac 4: When creating the online survey for my bachelor’s thesis, I made a mistake that the participants can see.
Ad: The participants probably didn’t even notice the mistake.
Ma: I am annoyed that I can no longer fix the error.

2.2 Daily-life Scenarios (Perfectionistic Concerns)

Version A

DL 1: I bought the wrong ticket on the bus which was more expensive than necessary.
PC: I am annoyed by my inattention.

DL 2: I am interviewed for a part-time position, but someone else is hired.
PC: That means that I am worth less as a person.

DL 3: If I’m not good all the time…
PC: …I will not be respected by others.

DL 4: I told my boss that I can complete a task the next day. But then I didn’t manage to finish the task.
PC: I am hopeless as a person.

Version B

DL 1: I don’t notice until noon that I had been wearing a t-shirt with a stain since that morning.
Ad: Probably nobody noticed.
Ma: I am annoyed that my detergent does not seem to be good enough anymore.

DL 2: I have a doctor’s appointment and I’m 10 minutes late.
Ad: This is actually quite handy because you always have to wait quite long there.
Ma: Public transport is once again totally unreliable.

DL 3: I would like to quickly wrap the present for a friend before I go to her birthday party, but I have no more wrapping paper at home.
Ad: I wrap the gift in newspaper instead and tie a bow around it.
Ma: I’m annoyed by my roommate who must have used it up again.

DL 4: I mispronounce a colleague’s name when talking to my boss.
Ad: I assume that my boss wasn’t listening too closely anyway.
Ma: For better or worse, I guess, I have to take the time to practice the names.

Note: AST-PC Version A: Ac = Academic scenarios; DL = Daily life scenarios; PC= Perfectionistic concern; Ad = Adaptive; Ma = Maladaptive interpretations. Perfectionistic concern (items Ac 1, PC; Ac 4, PC; DL 1, PC; DL 2, PC; DL 3, PC; DL 4, PC); Adaptive (items Ac 1, Ad; Ac 4, Ad; DL 1, Ad; DL 2, Ad; DL 3, Ad; DL 4, Ad); Maladaptive (items Ac 1, Ma; Ac 4, Ma; DL 1, Ma; DL 2, Ma; DL 3, Ma; DL 4, Ma). AST-PC Version B: Perfectionistic concern (items Ac 1, PC; Ac 4, PC; AC 5, PC; DL 1, PC; DL 2, PC; DL 3, PC; DL 5, PC); Adaptive (items Ac 1, Ad; Ac 4, Ad; Ac 5, Ad; DL 1, Ad; DL 2, Ad; DL 3, Ad; DL 5, Ad); Maladaptive (items Ac 1, Ma; Ac 4, Ma; Ac 5, Ma; DL 1, Ma; DL 2, Ma; DL 3, Ma; DL 5, Ma).