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

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.

Irrational Delay Revisited: Examining Five Procrastination Scales in a Global Sample

“…2 In the next iteration of modification indices analysis, a path from PPS factor implemental delay and item 9 was suggested. This item (“I find myself running out of time”) has previously been argued to be conflated with the busyness construct and not procrastination per se ( Steel, 2010 ; Svartdal et al, 2016 ) and recommended for deletion from procrastination scales. Deleting it improved overall fit, RMSEA = 0.062, CFI = 0.974, SRMS = 0.028.…”

“…As for the IPS, this scale attempts to measure a single construct, “irrational delay” ( Steel, 2010 ). Research has subsequently confirmed this (e.g., Svartdal et al, 2016 ), although the three reversed items of the scale (items 2, 6, and 9) seem to measure the construct somewhat less optimally compared to the others and have even been suggested to load on a different factor ( Rozental et al, 2014 ).…”

“…Neither of these suggestions addressed the fact that the PPS consists of items from three established procrastination scales, each set of items tapping into somewhat different aspects of problematic delay (e.g., decisional and implemental). Hence, Svartdal et al (2016) , in a European study with 2893 student and employee participants from six countries, examined the hypothesis that the PPS might measure multiple aspects. Confirmatory factor analyses indicated poor fits for the two-factor solutions discussed, as well as for a one-factor solution implied by Steel (2010) , but a good fit for a three-factor solution addressing decisional delay (PPS items 1–3), implemental delay (items 4–8), and lateness/timeliness (items 9–12).…”

“…The first purpose of the present study was to examine the possibility that the PPS addresses three rather different facets of procrastination ( Svartdal et al, 2016 ), and that the middle five items of the PPS correspond to IPS in measuring “irrational” delay. As the GPS seems to measure this construct also, the full GPS as well as reduced versions were examined.…”

A Multivariate Investigation into Academic Procrastination of University Students

“…It is observed that the mean APS score is highest for the age group less than 20 and second highest for the age group 21 -25. Svartdal et al [13] and Steel & Ferrari [14] observed that as age increases, the level of procrastination decreases. Similar, results were observed in the current study as well, which showed that age and overall APS scores are negatively correlated to each other, which implies that as age increases procrastination decreases.…”