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 innovative, original psychological instrument developed specifically to assess perfectionistic concerns among university students. Utilizing a vignette/scenario format, the task presents hypothetical situations drawn from both academic and non-academic daily life settings.

Following each scenario, participants are offered three distinct types of interpretations: perfectionistic concern, adaptive, and maladaptive (non-perfectionistic). The core perfectionistic interpretations were derived from the concern-over-mistakes subscale of the FMPS-D. The primary objective of the AST-PC is to quantify specific forms of interpretation biases related to perfectionism. The development included a parallel neutral scenarios task (AST-N) used as a control. Initial studies across two independent student samples supported a three-dimensional factor structure and demonstrated acceptable preliminary reliability and validity, though further studies are needed to establish temporal stability and sensitivity to clinical interventions.

Keywords

Perfectionistic Concerns, Interpretation Bias, Adaptive Interpretation, Maladaptive Interpretation, Academic Settings, University Students, Factorial Validity, Perfectionism, College Students, Interpretive Bias, Vignette Measure.

Authors

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

Purpose

The primary purpose of the AST-PC is the targeted assessment of interpretation biases specifically linked to perfectionistic concerns in college and university students. This measurement focuses on how individuals interpret ambiguous situations encountered in academic environments and everyday life settings.

The task is designed to be sensitive to the cognitive patterns associated with perfectionism, differentiating interpretations that reflect excessive concern over mistakes and failure (perfectionistic concern interpretations) from those that are adaptive or generally maladaptive but not rooted in perfectionism.

Construct

The AST-PC specifically measures the construct of Interpretation Bias within the context of perfectionistic concerns. Interpretation bias refers to the cognitive tendency to habitually interpret ambiguous information or events in a manner consistent with a specific underlying psychological vulnerability—in this case, the extreme fear of failure and negative evaluation characteristic of perfectionism.

The scale operationalizes this bias by examining the differential likelihood ratings of three interpretation types: Perfectionistic Concern (reflecting high concern over mistakes and social disapproval), Adaptive Interpretation (reflecting resilience, positive coping, or realistic appraisal), and Maladaptive Interpretation (reflecting general negativity, annoyance, or externalizing blame, but not specifically perfectionistic themes).

Validity

The Construct Validity of the AST-PC was established through multiple regression analyses across its parallel versions (A and B). These analyses indicated that the perfectionistic concern interpretations were uniquely and significantly associated with the construct of concern over mistakes, a critical component of maladaptive perfectionism.

This unique association persisted even when controlling for general negative or non-perfectionistic maladaptive interpretations. Furthermore, additional regressions confirmed that perfectionistic concern interpretations were uniquely predicted by concern over mistakes, independently of other forms of perfectionism, such as doubts about actions or adherence to personal standards. These consistent findings suggest that the AST-PC successfully isolates the cognitive bias specific to perfectionistic concerns, independent of general negative affectivity.

Reliability

Internal consistency was reported specifically for the related control instrument, the Ambiguous Scenario Task for Neutral Scenarios (AST-N). For the AST-N, the reliability was considered acceptable for the negative interpretations (Cronbach’s α = 0.66) and positive interpretations (Cronbach’s α = 0.61).

However, the neutral interpretations of the AST-N demonstrated low internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.42). The authors suggested that this low figure indicates potential inconsistency and instability in participants’ ratings of emotionally neutral interpretations across the different scenarios presented in the control task, necessitating caution when interpreting scores from that specific subscale.

Factor Analysis

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed on the AST-PC data collected from two independent student samples to assess the dimensional structure of the instrument. The results strongly supported a three-dimensional model corresponding to the three distinct interpretation types: perfectionistic concern, adaptive interpretation, and maladaptive interpretation.

For AST-PC, Version A, the final model, consisting of 18 selected interpretation items, showed a good model fit (χ²=162.069, p=0.002, CFI=0.923, RMSEA=0.062). This three-factor model provided a statistically better fit to the data than a one-factor model. Similarly, the Factor structure of the AST-PC, Version B, also demonstrated a good model fit (CFI=0.937, RMSEA=0.045) after excluding a few interpretation items with low factor loadings. These consistent findings across both versions confirmed the factorial validity of the instrument.

Instrument

Test Type: Original

Format: Vignette/Scenario. Each scenario is presented in random order, immediately followed by the three interpretations (perfectionistic concern, adaptive, maladaptive), which are also presented in random order within the scenario. Participants rate the likelihood of reacting in that way using 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. Data was collected from two independent student samples.

Test Methodology: Test Validity, Construct Validity, Test Reliability, Internal Consistency, Factor Analysis, Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Authors (Detailed)

Author ORCID Identifier:

• Limburg, Karina: orcid.org/0000-0002-4061-8679
• Takano, Keisuke: orcid.org/0000-0003-0406-8654

Affiliation Email addresses:

• Cludius, Barbara: [email protected] (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

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 Use: 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) Vignette/Scenario

The AST-PC includes 18 interpretation items in total, divided across three factors: Perfectionistic concern, Adaptive interpretation, and Maladaptive interpretation. The full test items are available in the Supplemental Material (Pages 1-6) of the original publication (2023-49768-001).

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).