Psychometric refinement of the study-related perfectionism scale in Chinese adolescents: fairness and longitudinal evidence for a four-item concerns-focused adaptation (SPS-4-CV)

Background Academic perfectionistic concerns are distinct from perfectionistic strivings, yet existing brief study-related measures often conflate these facets and lack rigorous evaluation of measurement fairness. Using the Study-related Perfectionism Scale (SPS) as a starting point, we psychometrically refined and evaluated a concerns-focused four-item Chinese version (SPS-4-CV) among Chinese adolescents. Methods A total of 1,126 junior middle school students were recruited using a three-independent-sample design. Sample 1 ( N = 331, online) was used for item screening; Sample 2 ( N = 333, paper-and-pencil) for exploratory factor analysis (EFA); and Sample 3 ( N = 461, holdout) for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and fairness analyses. Polychoric EFA and WLSMV CFA were used to analyze ordinal data. Measurement invariance and Differential Item Functioning (DIF) were tested across gender and grade. A subset of Sample 3 ( N = 133) completed a 7-week retest to assess test-retest reliability and longitudinal measurement invariance. Results In Sample 3, ordinal CFA supported a robust unidimensional structure with excellent fit [χ 2 (2) = 2.07, p = 0.355; CFI = 0.999, TLI = 0.999, RMSEA = 0.009, SRMR = 0.017]. Standardized factor loadings ranged from 0.60 to 0.73. Scalar measurement invariance (equal loadings and thresholds) was supported across gender and grade. DIF analyses revealed no substantial bias, with negligible effect sizes (max Δ NagelkerkeR 2 = 0.015). Internal consistency was acceptable (ordinal α = 0.754, ω total = 0.755). Test-retest reliability was moderate ( ICC = 0.560). Longitudinal analyses supported configural and metric invariance, as well as partial scalar invariance (partial threshold stability) over 7 weeks. Conclusion The concerns-focused four-item Chinese version of the SPS (SPS-4-CV) is a psychometrically sound measure supported by rigorous evidence of internal structure, fairness (DIF), and longitudinal stability. It is suitable for research and group comparisons in educational settings and may serve as a brief indicator of potential academic perfectionistic concerns. While useful for screening, it is not intended for clinical diagnosis without further external validation.