Domain-specific other-oriented perfectionism

Many researchers claim that perfectionism, both self-oriented and other-oriented, can manifest itself more in certain specific domains than in others [21–23]. The studies on domain-specific other-oriented perfectionism conducted so far suggest that people may have domains in which this aspect of perfectionism is more salient. Other-oriented perfectionism is analyzed in these studies, though, as a general attitude towards other people who belong to various domains of life. Mitchelson and Burns [24] investigated 67 mothers and found that other-oriented perfectionism tended to be more visible in the workplace (e.g. I have high expectations of the people who are important to me at work) than at home (e.g., I have high expectations of the people who are important to me at home), yet other-oriented perfectionism at home still correlated with higher parental distress. In turn, Dunn, Dunn, and McDonald [25] observed that young athletes were characterized by a higher level of general other-oriented perfectionism in the sports domain (e.g. In sport I have high expectations of the people who are important to me) than in the educational domain (e.g. In school I have high expectations of the people who are important to me). Although such studies deepen significantly our knowledge about the role of other-oriented perfectionism, they also have serious limitations. They focus on various domains (e.g. sport, work, family), and not on concrete individuals with whom perfectionists interact in these domains. This does not enable us to look into the dynamics of specific relations that the perfectionist creates with significant others, because in the work environment, for example, the perfectionist encounters many different people: managers, subordinates, colleagues, etc. In fact, the same applies to every other domain in which the perfectionist enters into social interactions, including the domain of family life in which we have a number of different individuals: a partner, children, own parents, siblings. In order to fully understand the role of other-oriented perfectionism, we have to adopt a more specific approach, one that focuses on specific individuals towards whom perfectionistic expectations are formulated. This approach is found in studies on partner-oriented or dyadic perfectionism. Research into partner-oriented perfectionism suggests that a strong expectation of perfection from a partner is connected with lower satisfaction from the relationship, lower engagement in relations and a lower propensity to forgive the partner his/her mistakes [14, 16, 18]. However, Shea, Slaney, and Rice [13] postulate that partner-oriented perfectionism should be considered with reference to three different dimensions: High Standards (setting high expectations for a partner, expecting perfection from the partner), Order (expecting that a partner will be well-organized and ordered), and Discrepancy (the perception that a partner consistently fails to meet the high standards that one has set for him/her). The main assumption of this approach is that people formulate specific, sometimes very high, expectations of their partners (High Standards and Order) and monitor the degree of their implementation (Discrepancy). Studies based on this multidimensional approach indicate that the three dimensions of partner-oriented perfectionism proposed by Shea, Slaney, and Rice [13] are indeed characterized by a distinct specificity, suggesting that the one-dimensional approach has only limited application, because it turns out that it is not the setting of high standards for the partner in itself that causes conflicts and low satisfaction with the relationship, but rather the high perceived degree of discrepancy between his/her high standards and the perceived degree of their attainment by the partner. Therefore, it is not only a matter of what these expectations are, but whether the partner, in the eyes of the perfectionist, lives up to them. This is why the dimension of Discrepancy is the main predictor of difficulties in a romantic relation, whereas High Standards and Order, when controlling for Discrepancy, can even be positively connected with the quality of the relationship [13, 15, 17], which suggests that these two dimensions belong to the adaptive aspects of perfectionism [26].

To measure these three dimensions of partner-oriented perfectionism, the Dyadic Almost Perfect Scale (DAPS [13]) was developed. The approach proposed by Shea, Slaney, and Rice [13] was also applied in the present study, however it was extended to the parental dyad, because it was assumed that in the case of children such an attitude is also possible. Parents can formulate perfectionistic expectations towards their children (high standards and order) and monitor the degree of their attainment (discrepancy), similarly to in the romantic domain. We can suppose also that the effects of perfectionism on the parental relation are similar to those observed in the case of the romantic relationship. If the child does not meet the parents’ high expectations (higher Discrepancy), it can lead to an increase in parental stress, a lack of satisfaction with parenthood, and feeling burdened by this role. This prediction remains in line with the results of a recent study conducted by Piotrowski [27], in which it turned out that the higher the mother’s general other-oriented perfectionism, the stronger is her conviction that becoming a parent was a mistake. As Piotrowski suggests, the mother’s unrealistic expectation that her child will meet her high standards can constitute a source of strong tensions and frustration and, as a result, it can cause disappointment with the parental role.

Research problem and hypotheses

The study was dedicated to the investigation of the specificity of other-oriented perfectionism in the context of a relation with a partner (partner-oriented perfectionism) and with a child (child-oriented perfectionism). Due to the lack of questionnaires enabling a multidimensional measurement of child-oriented perfectionism, one of the prerequisites of the study became the preparation of a questionnaire for measuring this facet of other-oriented perfectionism. For this purpose, the items from the Dyadic Almost Perfect Scale (DAPS [13]) were modified so that they enabled the measurement of child-oriented perfectionism. This scale was called the Children Dyadic Almost Perfect Scale (C-DAPS).

The following hypotheses were tested in the study:

1. It was predicted that the dimensions of partner-oriented perfectionism (High Standards, Order, and Discrepancy) would be positively, but not strongly, correlated with the dimensions of child-oriented perfectionism, and that partner- and child-oriented perfectionism would be linked to a higher level of narcissism. Such results could suggest that child-oriented perfectionism can have similar roots to partner-oriented perfectionism but also possess its own specificity.
2. On the basis of past studies on domain-specific other-oriented perfectionism [24, 25], it was predicted that there could occur differences in respect of levels of High Standards, Order, and Discrepancy regarding the partner and the child (within-subject comparisons). Due to the lack of earlier studies on child-oriented perfectionism, it was difficult to formulate an unequivocal hypothesis about the direction of these differences. Therefore, this hypothesis was treated as an area for exploration.
3. It was also predicted that the discrepancy between expectations and the degree of their attainment by the child would be a specific predictor of difficulties in parenthood, even when controlling for narcissism [see 11] and partner-oriented perfectionism. Analogically, it was assumed that the discrepancy between expectations and the degree of their fulfillment by the partner would be a better predictor of subjectively perceived problems in the sphere of the intimate relationship. Confirmation of this hypothesis would support the thesis about the legitimacy of measuring child-oriented perfectionism and the thesis about the person specificity of other-oriented perfectionism [25]. In the case of High Standards and Order, it was predicted that by controlling for Discrepancy, they would not be associated with difficulties in the romantic and the parental domain, or that they would be negatively linked to them, confirming the thesis about the potentially adaptive function of perfectionistic strivings [26].

Participants and procedure

Before the study was conducted a power analysis was performed with the use of G*Power 3.1.9.4 software [28] in order to determine the minimum required sample size for a linear regression analysis with about 10 predictors that was expected to be performed (narcissism, the three dimensions of the DAPS, the three dimensions of the C-DAPS, and the potential controlled variables). Smith et al. [7] reported in their meta-analysis that a mean effect size for a relationship between other-oriented perfectionism and narcissism is from .16 (for narcissistic vulnerability) to .31 (for narcissistic grandiosity), and Stoeber [18] found similar effects for the relationship between partner-oriented perfectionism and relationship satisfaction. Based on these observations, it was calculated that about 100 participants were needed to detect an effect size of .30, with alpha level of .05 and a power of .95.

The survey was conducted online. There was only one measurement point in this cross-sectional study. In order to reach participants, the researcher availed himself of his private contacts and the snowball method. The participants were informed about the aim of the research and signed a consent form to participate. The inclusion criteria were having at least one child older than three, being currently in an intimate relationship (it was not verified whether the partner was the mother/father of the child), and being no more than 40 years old (a maximum age limit was used as it would provide the opportunity to study people who were still involved in their children’s lives to a significant extent).

A total of 515 individuals participated, however, 56 of them were excluded as they did not finish the survey or were older than 40. Eventually, 459 individuals (264 women and 195 men), between the age of 21 and 40 (M = 33.88, SD = 4.39), were included in the final sample. The investigated individuals had from one (34.2%) to four (1.5%) children. The youngest children were 6 months old, while the oldest were 21 years of age, but the vast majority of the investigated parents had children in the preschool and early elementary school age (mode = 3.0 years, median = 5.0 years, M = 5.89, SD = 3.29). The mean age at which the participants had become parents for the first time was M = 26.55, SD = 4.03 (median = 27.0, mode = 28.0), which is close to mean values in the Polish population. Some 78% of the participants were married, whereas 22% were in informal relationships. The mean duration of romantic relationships was M = 9.56 years, median = 9.0, SD = 4.61. The financial position of the investigated individuals was quite good: 46.4% of the participants stated that they do not have any financial problems and their financial situation is good, 49.7% reported that they sometimes have some financial problems, but their financial situation is quite average, and only 3.9% of the subjects stated that they have serious financial problems and that their financial situation is bad.

Measures

Analytic strategy

The analysis was preceded by an evaluation of the factor structure of the Polish version of the C-DAPS as it was the first use of this scale. Confirmatory factor analysis, assessing the fit of the three-factor solution, was applied. Because of the deviation of the multivariate distribution from the normal distribution, the Sattora-Bentler scaled chi-square test [32] was used, a lower value of which indicates a better model fit. The evaluation of the structure of the C-DAPS was conducted on the entire sample (N = 459), and separately in the groups of women and men. Three indices of model fit were applied [33]: comparative fit index (CFI), the value of which should be higher than 0.95 (less strict rule of thumb is .90); root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the value of which should be lower than .06 (or 0.08 when we use the less strict approach); and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), the value of which should not be higher than 0.08. Measurement invariance between women and men was also analyzed to determine whether the structure of the C-DAPS is similar across gender. In order to determine invariance, gradually stricter equality constraints were tested [34]: configural invariance (equality of the factor structure), metric invariance (equality of the factor loadings), and scalar invariance (equality of the item intercepts). The factor structure and the measurement invariance were investigated with the use of Mplus 7.3. Subsequently, Pearson’s r correlations between all the analyzed variables were performed separately for women and men. In the next step, the differences between women and men in respect of the analyzed variables, using MANOVA analysis, were assessed. Next, within-subject comparisons between partner-oriented perfectionism and child-oriented perfectionism among women and men were conducted, in order to evaluate whether the participants had different expectations towards the partner and the child. For this purpose, repeated-measures MANOVA was applied. Subsequently, multivariate regression analysis was conducted in order to identify specific relationships between the analyzed variables. In the first step, a few controlled variables, including narcissism, were introduced to the model (narcissism was controlled for as it was seen as important to assessing whether child-oriented perfectionism enables explanation of additional variance beyond the earlier reported links); in the second step, the three dimensions of partner-oriented perfectionism were added, and in the third step the three dimensions of child-oriented perfectionism were introduced into the model in order to assess whether this construct enables explanation of an additional variance in the difficulties in the areas of the romantic and the parental relation. In the last step, the interaction terms between gender and perfectionism were included in order to analyze whether gender moderated the analyzed relationships. Four regression models were tested; criterion variables were relationship stress, relationship conflicts, childrearing stress, and parental role restrictions. The analysis of correlations, mean differences and regression was conducted with the use of SPSS 25.

The Children Dyadic Almost Perfect Scale (C-DAPS): Psychometric properties in a Polish sample

The CFA conducted on the entire sample showed that the assumed three-factor model of the C-DAPS was not sufficiently fitted to the data, SBS-X² (N = 459, d f = 296) = 1176.10, p < .001, CFI = .85, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .08. Separate analyses conducted in the groups of women and men also led to analogical conclusions. Admittedly, the obtained results were almost identical to the fit parameters in the original DAPS [13]; nonetheless, it was decided to take a closer look at the potential causes of this situation. First of all, it turned out that items: 3, 16, and 21 (all reverse-coded) from the Discrepancy subscale had small factor loadings and were weakly correlated with the total scale score (rs about .20‒.30). After excluding these three items from the analysis the model fit increased, although it was still below the acceptance level. Modification indices showed, however, that two pairs of items should be correlated: items 5 and 25 from the Standards subscale, and 10 and 26 from the Discrepancy subscale. After applying these changes, the fit parameters rose to the acceptable level, SBS-X² (N = 459, df = 225) = 770.61, p < .001, CFI = .90, RMSEA = .07, SRMR = .08. Separate analyses conducted among women and men led to identical conclusions (women: CFI = .90, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .07; men: CFI = .91, RMSEA = .07, SRMR = .08). Admittedly, residual correlations break certain assumptions of CFA, yet taking into consideration the fact that the fit of the original version of the DAPS was also below the level usually deemed sufficient [13], it was hard to expect that the modified version would turn out to be much better fitted. On the other hand, the introduced changes were slight. All correlated items came from the same subscales and were similar in respect of their linguistic form. Taking into consideration the result of the CFA, items 3, 16, and 21 were excluded from the analysis similarly to the case of the DAPS. The values of the factor loadings for the remaining 23 items in the entire sample varied between .47 and .88. Cronbach’s alpha for the version composed of 23 items turned out to be high: Standards .86, Order .82, Discrepancy .94. The results of the measurement invariance between women and men are presented in Table 1. Configural invariance was confirmed; however, when additional constraints were added (metric and scalar invariance) the full invariance was not obtained as indicated by ΔCFI (a value higher than .01, in this case .017, indicates that the metric model was significantly less fitted than the configural model) and ΔSRMR (a value higher than .03, in this case .034, indicates that the metric model was significantly less fitted than the configural model). However, it should be noted that the changes in CFI and SRMR were only slightly above the acceptance levels. In the next step, the partial invariance was tested. Modification indices suggested (values over 20) that the three factor loadings (items 1, 12, and 26) and the four item intercepts (items 10, 11, 12, and 22) should be released from being equal. When these modifications were implemented, the differences between the configural, metric, and scalar models indicated acceptable partial invariance across gender (ΔCFI < .01, ΔRMSEA < 0.15, ΔSRMR < 0.03).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Measurement invariance across gender.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236870.t001

In order to assess whether children-oriented perfectionism could be considered an additional, besides partner-oriented perfectionism, aspect of perfectionism, it was decided to evaluate the fit of two additional models: (1) a three-factor model in which items of the corresponding subscales of the DAPS (23 items) and the C-DAPS (23 items) loaded the same factor (error variances of individual items were not allowed to correlate): Global High Standards (items from the DAPS and the C-DAPS), Global Order, and Global Discrepancy; and (2) a six-factor model in which the subscales of the DAPS and the C-DAPS constituted correlated but independent factors (error variances of individual items were not allowed to correlate). In the case of the global three-factor model, fit was very poor: SBS-X² (N = 459, df = 979) = 4710.84, p < .001, CFI = .71, RMSEA = .09, SRMR = .11, whereas in the case of the six-factor model, although characterized by a model fit slightly below the values usually considered to be acceptable, SBS-X² (N = 459, df = 967) = 2499.73, p < .001, CFI = .88, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .08, it was much better fitted than the model with three global factors. We can acknowledge, therefore, that partner-oriented and child-oriented perfectionism are constructs that are associated with each other, but are quite separate.

Correlations between analyzed variables

In Table 2, the correlations between High Standards, Order, and Discrepancy in the romantic and the parental domain are presented. In the group of women, all subscales of the two questionnaires, the DAPS and the C-DAPS, were positively correlated. Among men, these relationships were similar, except for two differences. In the DAPS, Order and Discrepancy were not correlated, whereas in the C-DAPS, Order and Discrepancy were negatively correlated.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Correlations between the analyzed variables in women and men.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236870.t002

In women and men, the level of narcissism correlated positively with Standards and Discrepancy, both in the romantic and the parental perfectionism domains. In the group of women, narcissism turned out to be positively, although weakly, correlated with Order in the two domains, while in the group of men there was no correlation between narcissism and Order.

The results from the DAPS Standards and the DAPS Discrepancy were more strongly positively correlated with difficulties in the romantic relationship than in the parental relation, both in women and in men. The results of the DAPS Order were very weakly, or were not at all, connected with difficulties in either of these domains. In the case of the subscales of the C-DAPS, it turned out that they correlated weakly with difficulties in the romantic relation and correlated in a similar way to the dimensions of the DAPS with difficulties in the parental relation. The results among women and men were similar in this respect.

Additionally, correlations between the analyzed variables and the age of the participants, the age of their children, and the number of children they had were assessed. In the vast majority of cases, the correlations were insignificant. It turned out, however, that with age the level of parents’ narcissism tended to be lower (r = -.22 in women and r = -.16 in men); the older the children were, the lower was the level of conflicts with the partner (r = -.12) and parental role restrictions among women (r = -.16) and parental stress among men (r = -.15). In the group of women, the number of children was also negatively correlated with the results on the DAPS High Standards scale (r = -.14) and the DAPS Order scale (r = -.14).

Gender differences

In the next step, women and men were compared in respect of the analyzed variables: narcissism and the three dimensions of partner-oriented perfectionism and the three dimensions of child-oriented perfectionism. A significant, relatively strong multivariate effect of gender was observed: Wilks’ λ = .73, F (11, 447) = 14.82, p < .001, η² = .27. The results of the univariate analysis are presented in Table 3. Men obtained significantly higher results in respect of narcissism, the C-DAPS Standards, the DAPS and C-DAPS Discrepancy, relationship conflicts, and parental role restrictions. Women, in turn, were characterized by a higher level of the DAPS Order and childrearing stress. There were no gender differences in respect of the DAPS Standards, the C-DAPS Order, and stress in intimate relationships.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 3. Differences between women and men in respect of the analyzed variables.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236870.t003

Within-subject mean comparisons

In order to verify whether the participants differed in respect of partner-oriented and child-oriented perfectionism, a repeated-measures MANOVA was conducted. The results showed significant within-subject multivariate effects among women, Wilks’ λ = .64, F (3, 261) = 48.71, p < .001, η² = .36, and men, Wilks’ λ = .84, F (3, 192) = 14.82, p < .001, η² = .16. The univariate comparisons are displayed in Table 4. Among women, in the case of each pair of variables, significantly higher results were obtained in the romantic domain. The strongest effect could be observed in the case of the Discrepancy subscale. Among men, differences in perfectionism in the two domains were smaller and not always the same as among women. First of all, High Standards in the romantic and the parental domain did not differ from each other. Secondly, men obtained a higher result on the Order scale in the parental domain. When it comes to Discrepancy, in men, as in women, a higher result was observed in the romantic domain.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 4. Within-subject comparisons between partner dyadic perfectionism and children dyadic perfectionism.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236870.t004

Narcissism, partner-oriented perfectionism, and child-oriented perfectionism as specific predictors of difficulties in the romantic and parental domains

The next step was the analysis of specific relationships between narcissism, partner-oriented perfectionism, and child-oriented perfectionism, and difficulties in the romantic and the parental relations. For this purpose, four separate regression models were conducted. Considering the weak but significant relationships between some of the analyzed variables and the participants’ age and the age and number of their children, and significant gender differences, these variables were controlled for by introducing them into the regression models in the first step along with narcissism. In the second step, the three dimensions of the DAPS, and in the third step the three dimensions of the C-DAPS were added, and in the fourth step six interaction terms (gender and the six perfectionism dimensions) were introduced. The criterion variables were, respectively: relationship stress, relationship conflicts, childrearing stress, and parental role restrictions. All VIF values were below 4, suggesting that multicollinearity did not strongly affect the results. The results of the regression analyses in the form of standardized beta values are presented in Table 5.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 5. The results of regression analyses.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236870.t005

Among the variables controlled for in the first step, narcissism was the strongest predictor of relationships stress, childrearing stress, and parental role restrictions. Several weak relationships were observed for gender, as was reported earlier, and children’s age (parental stress and role restrictions were higher when the child was younger).

When the DAPS dimensions were introduced in the second step, in all four regression models, the relationship between narcissism and the criterion variables decreased, especially in the cases of the two partner-related variables. In the case of relationship conflicts the link with narcissism even became insignificant. In general, these observations suggest that partner-oriented perfectionism could mediate, partially or fully, the influence of narcissism on relational and parental difficulties. While DAPS high standards and order were not significantly related to any of the criterion variables, DAPS discrepancy was positively and significantly related to all of them. However, the links with the two relationship-related variables (relationship stress and relationship conflicts) were strong (betas .62‒.64), while the links with the parenthood-related difficulties turned out to be small to moderate (betas .22‒.32).

When the dimensions of child-oriented perfectionism were introduced in the third step, it turned out that they were not related to romantic relationship difficulties and did not explain an additional part of the variance of these variables. However, the results were different for parental difficulties. In the case of childrearing stress, its relationship with DAPS discrepancy became insignificant, and only C-DAPS discrepancy proved to be a significant predictor of this variable among perfectionism dimensions. Adding child-oriented perfectionism also enabled the additional variance in the criterion variable to be explained. In the case of parental role restrictions, the results were similar, except the link with DAPS discrepancy remained significant, albeit diminished. In both the cases of childrearing stress and parental role restrictions, child-oriented discrepancy was the strongest predictor among those analyzed. The relationships between child-oriented perfectionism and parental difficulties were small to moderate (betas .21‒.29), and the variance explained by all predictors was 15%‒30%. As regards high standards and order, both in the partner and children domains, it turned out that despite their significant bivariate correlations with the criterion variables, main effects of these factors were not present when the other dimensions were controlled for.

As a correlational analysis and a gender difference analysis showed that women and men differed in respect of the analyzed constructs, gender was included in the regression analysis as a potential moderator of the relationships between perfectionism and the difficulties in relational and parental functioning. In Table 5, the interaction terms that turned out to be significant are presented. Subsequent analyses conducted in order to understand these interactions showed that several aspects of partner- and child-oriented perfectionism could differently influence the functioning of women and men. While expecting order from a partner or a child was not a significant predictor of the criterion variables in the whole sample (step 3), it turned out that it was related to relationship conflicts in the subsample of women. Interestingly, expecting order from a partner (DAPS Order) was associated with a lower level of relationship conflicts (β = -.18, p < .05), but expecting order from a child was related to a higher intensity of conflicts with a partner (β = .19, p < .05). Also, partner-oriented and child-oriented discrepancy seem to have a different meaning for women and men. Childrearing stress in women was not related to partner-oriented discrepancy at all, but in men this relationship was positive and quite strong (β = .42, p < .05). Conversely, childrearing stress in women was much more strongly related to child-oriented discrepancy (β = .32, p < .001) than in men (β = .13, ns). As regards parental role restrictions, the results showed that their positive association with partner-oriented discrepancy observed in step 3 was significant only for men (β = .38, p < .001). In sum, the interaction analysis added several significant observations. While the level of partner-oriented and child-oriented perfectionism in parents, in general, influenced their functioning in a similar way (e.g. discrepancy is related to more familial difficulties), we also observed that social and emotional effects of other-oriented perfectionism in a family context are gender-specific to some extent.

Finally, it should be noted that the analyzed predictors explained more variance of the relational variables (relationship stress: 46%, and relationship conflicts: 45%) than the parental variables (childrearing stress: 19%, and parental role restrictions: 30%).

Limitations of the study

Although the present study yields new knowledge, the results obtained have to be analyzed in the context of certain limitations. First of all, the presented results come from a cross-sectional study. In particular, the relationships between perfectionism in different domains and difficulties in the romantic and in the parental sphere need to be verified in a longitudinal study. Secondly, the reported study was the first one to measure perfectionism oriented specifically at children, which makes it necessary to replicate it and verify its results. Thirdly, perfectionism and familial difficulties were measured only with the use of the questionnaire method and only from the perspective of the investigated individual. As a result, it was not possible to observe a dyadic interaction and a possible mutual relationship between partner-oriented and child-oriented perfectionism in couples. Further research should assess this dyadic aspect more deeply, with different sources of information and both self-report and objective indicators of perfectionism. The results also need to be verified in studies that will involve more family members, for example parents and children. Fourthly, the study only investigated pathological narcissism at the general level, without differentiating between its grandiose and vulnerable aspect, which would be worth doing in future studies. As the study was conducted in Poland, a central European country, there is a need to replicate it in other cultural contexts, as it could limit the generalizability of the findings. Fifthly, the study used a convenience sample that might have an effect on the validity and generalizability of the results. Finally, the statistical parameters of the C-DAPS (i.e. factor structure and measurement invariance) were only acceptable and the presented scale seems to possess both advantages and disadvantages of the APS and DAPS [13, 43]. Therefore, in future studies, the psychometric properties of the C-DAPS should be carefully evaluated further, especially in cultures other than Polish. It is also recommended that further studies should be conducted on child-oriented perfectionism in order to assess the reliability and utility of this construct.