On the Measurement of Procrastination: Comparing Two Scales in Six European Countries.

Frode Svartdal,Gioel Foschi,Kaja Rębkowska,Katrin B Klingsieck,Kent Nordby,Per Carlbring,Alexander Rozental,Sari Lindblom-Ylänne,Gerit Pfuhl

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01307

Abstract

Procrastination is a common problem, but defining and measuring it has been subject to some debate. This paper summarizes results from students and employees (N = 2893) in Finland, Germany, Italy, Norway, Poland, and Sweden using the Pure Procrastination Scale (PPS) and the Irrational Procrastination Scale (IPS; Steel, 2010), both assumed to measure unidimensional and closely related constructs. Confirmatory factor analyses indicated inadequate configural fit for the suggested one-factor model for PPS; however, acceptable fit was observed for a three-factor model corresponding to the three different scales the PPS is based on. Testing measurement invariance over countries and students–employees revealed configural but not strong or strict invariance, indicating that both instruments are somewhat sensitive to cultural differences. We conclude that the PPS and IPS are valid measures of procrastination, and that the PPS may be particularly useful in assessing cultural differences in unnecessary delay.

Highlights

When talking about goals, plans, intentions, and the intention-action-gap, it does not take long for the word procrastination to come up
Pure Procrastination Scale Three factor models have been suggested for the PPS: a onefactor model (Steel, 2010), a two-factor model with PPS items 1–8 (“voluntary delay”) and items 9–11 (“observed delay”), ignoring item 12 (Rebetez et al, 2014), and a two-factor model with items 4–8 and items 1–3 and 9–12
Using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), we evaluated the different translations of two well-established procrastination scales, the PPS and Irrational Procrastination Scale (IPS) (Steel, 2010) in order to assess their factor structures

Summary

Introduction

Plans, intentions, and the intention-action-gap, it does not take long for the word procrastination to come up. 66), is a common phenomenon that seems to be omnipresent in everyday life. It is widely studied in different disciplines of psychology. Research on procrastination has somewhat exploded in the last decades, leading to a variety of approaches to defining and measuring it. The goal of the study was to compare the psychometric properties of two procrastination scales; examining factorial structure, internal consistency, item–test correlations, and convergent and discriminant validity, and to compare the scales across nations and between students and employees. Before going into the details of the study, we first characterize the phenomenon of procrastination and present a short overview of the state of the art in measuring procrastination

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion