Consideration of future consequences (CFC): Validation and proposition of an ultra-short scale

Vilar, Roosevelt; Milfont, Taciano L.; Araújo, Rafaella de Carvalho Rodrigues; Coelho, Gabriel Lins de Holanda; Soares, Ana Karla Silva; Gouveia, Valdiney Velôso

doi:10.1007/s12144-020-00840-y

Cited by 11 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To reduce the number of items, we considered a range of criteria that are commonly used in the literature (e.g., Coelho et al, 2018 ; Edelen & Reeve, 2007 ; Peters, Sunderland, Andrews, Rapee, & Mattick, 2012 ; Rauthmann, 2013 ; Vilar, Milfont, Araújo, Coelho, & Gouveia, 2018 ). It is recommended that items should neither be too easy nor too difficult, have high item–total correlations, high discrimination, not be redundant with other items, and substantially contribute to the scale (informativeness).…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Very Efficient Assessment of Need for Cognition: Developing a Six-Item Version

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The need for cognition refers to people’s tendency to engage in and enjoy thinking and has become influential across social and medical sciences. Using three samples from the United States and the United Kingdom ( N = 1,596), we introduce a six-item short version of the Need for Cognition Scale (NCS-18). First, we reduced the number of items from 18 to 6 based on the items’ discrimination values, threshold levels, measurement precision (item information curve), item–total correlations, and factor loadings. Second, we confirmed the one-factor structure and established measurement invariance across countries and gender. Finally, we demonstrated that while the NCS-6 provides significant time savings, it comes at a minimal cost in terms of its construct validity with external variables such as openness, cognitive reflection test, and need for affect. Overall, our findings indicate that the NCS-6 is a parsimonious, reliable, and valid measure of need for cognition.

show abstract

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Very Efficient Assessment of Need for Cognition: Developing a Six-Item Version

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are still controversial psychometric findings regarding the implementation of CFC-14. Whereas the findings of some confirmatory factor analyses replicated the two-factor model in the CFC-14, supporting the distinction between CFC-Future and CFC-Immediate in domain-specific CFC-14 scales ( Nigro et al, 2016 ; Vásquez-Echeverría et al, 2018 ; Murphy et al, 2020 ; Vilar et al, 2020 ), the other investigations suggested a two-factor model as the best solution for the 13-items ( Acuña et al, 2020 ) or 6-items ( Murphy et al, 2020 ) versions. Nevertheless, Petrocelli (2003) claimed no consistent results among the studies due to the limited sample size.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…More specifically, the trade-off between immediate desires and distant future benefits of a potential behavior is thoroughly ruminated while a person is deciding whether to engage in a certain behavior ( Rappange et al, 2009 ). It is used to predict an individual’s act ( Vilar et al, 2020 ) and examine a person’s future awareness ( Oliver Schwarz, 2007 ). Despite the effort, previous studies put into attempting to develop the measurement of this future-oriented cognitive construct, the CFC scale, originally developed by Strathman et al (1994) , has achieved massive attention and satisfying results in terms of internal consistency, construct reliability, and validity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, some CFC psychometric studies found the acceptable fit indices for a one-factor model ( Crockett et al, 2009 ; Hevey et al, 2010 ; Toepoel, 2010 ). Several studies, however, validated the CFC 12-item scale into a two-factor structure with a combination of CFC-Future (CFC-F) and CFC-Immediate (CFC-I) and demonstrating better fit ( Joireman et al, 2008 ; Rappange et al, 2009 ; McKay et al, 2016 ; Vilar et al, 2020 ). Joireman et al (2008) argued that the original CFC scale reflects a concern for both distant and immediate consequences of an individual’s action and it is more reliable if the underlying construct is divided into two sub-factors (CFC-F and CFC-I).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The results of past studies revealed the significance of validating the scale in different contexts as a wide range of studies conducted to investigate the CFC scale psychometric properties are among western developed countries ( Rappange et al, 2009 ; McKay et al, 2016 ). The findings in non-western population settings are scarce, and little study has been done to support the scale structure validity ( Vilar et al, 2020 ). Therefore, to get valid and generalizable findings, previous psychometric studies suggested that psychology scales should be sensitive to different cultures and valid psychometrically ( Yaghoobzadeh et al, 2019 ; She et al, 2021b ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Consideration of Future Consequences Scale Among Malaysian Young Adults: A Psychometric Evaluation

She¹,

Fomani

2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The consideration of future consequences (CFC) determines the extent to which individuals consider the potential future outcomes of their current behavior. The significance of assessing the CFC scale’s validation in different contexts has been acknowledged by the previous studies. While the majority of the studies have been conducted in western countries, no study has been conducted in Malaysia. The aim of the current study was to validate a Malaysian version of the CFC scale among Malaysian young adults.Methods: The methodological cross-sectional approach was adopted in this study. The study recruited 529 young adults (age range from 25 to 40) who fulfilled the inclusion criteria of the paper survey. Construct validity was assessed using content validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. Cronbach’s alpha, McDonald’s omega, and average inter-item correlation (AIC) were used to assess the scale’s internal consistency. Also, composite reliability (CR) and maximal reliability (MaxR) were used to assess the construct reliability. Measurement invariance was tested across gender.Results: The findings of the exploratory factor analysis indicated that the Malaysian version of the CFC scale has a two-factor structure (i.e., CFC-Future and CFC-Immediate) with 10-item explaining 61.682% of the total variance. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported the two-factor structure of the CFC scale with good construct validity. The internal consistency and CR were acceptable. [The Cronbach’s alpha, McDonald’s omega, and CR for CFC-I were 0.901 (CI 95%: 0.881–918), 0.901, and 0.887, respectively. Also, these parameters for CFC-F were 0.867 (CI 95%: 0.838–891), 0.868, and 0.867, respectively].Conclusion: We found acceptable psychometric evidence for the 10-item two-factors CFC scale used in the context of young adults in Malaysia. The validated instrument can be used in future studies to assess young adults’ CFC tendency and CFC-related behavior in Malaysia.

show abstract

Consideration of future consequences: evidence of weekly fluctuations and domain-specificity in association with health, academic, and work outcomes

Alvarez-Nuñez

Vásquez-Echeverría²,

Antino³

2022

Curr Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Consideration of future consequences (CFC): Validation and proposition of an ultra-short scale

Cited by 11 publications

References 50 publications

The Very Efficient Assessment of Need for Cognition: Developing a Six-Item Version

The Very Efficient Assessment of Need for Cognition: Developing a Six-Item Version

The Consideration of Future Consequences Scale Among Malaysian Young Adults: A Psychometric Evaluation

Consideration of future consequences: evidence of weekly fluctuations and domain-specificity in association with health, academic, and work outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About