Revisiting the structural and nomological validity of the Zimbardo time perspective inventory

Davis, Mark A.; Ortiz, Daniel Arturo Cernas

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.037

Cited by 29 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It has been shown that the different dimensions of time perspective correlate with different aspects of well-being. The past-negative dimension has been shown to correlate with happiness (Drake et al, 2008), satisfaction with life (Podlogar and Bajec, 2011;Zhang and Howell, 2011), positive and negative affect (Podlogar and Bajec, 2011) and vitality, resilience and hope (Davis and Ortiz, 2017). Past-positive correlates with happiness (Drake et al, 2008), satisfaction with life (Podlogar and Bajec, 2011), positive affect (Podlogar and Bajec, 2011) and with vitality, resilience and hope (Davis and Ortiz, 2017).…”

Section: Time Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The past-negative dimension has been shown to correlate with happiness (Drake et al, 2008), satisfaction with life (Podlogar and Bajec, 2011;Zhang and Howell, 2011), positive and negative affect (Podlogar and Bajec, 2011) and vitality, resilience and hope (Davis and Ortiz, 2017). Past-positive correlates with happiness (Drake et al, 2008), satisfaction with life (Podlogar and Bajec, 2011), positive affect (Podlogar and Bajec, 2011) and with vitality, resilience and hope (Davis and Ortiz, 2017). Present-hedonistic correlates with happiness (Drake et al, 2008), satisfaction with life (Podlogar and Bajec, 2011;Zhang and Howell, 2011), positive affect (Podlogar and Bajec, 2011) and vitality and hope (Davis and Ortiz, 2017).…”

Section: Time Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Relationship between time perspective and job satisfaction

Bajec

2018

IJHRDM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ContentsIJHRDM will publish original work advancing theoretical constructs (including concepts, models, algorithms, methods, etc.), field and laboratory based experimental evaluations of such theoretical constructs and policy initiatives, case studies, state-of-the-art reviews, commentaries on policies, meeting and conference reports, book reviews and notes, and other significant news relevant to the discipline. From time-to-time, IJHRDM will devote special issues to pressing roblems in human resources development and management.

show abstract

Section: Time Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Time Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Relationship between time perspective and job satisfaction

Bajec

2018

IJHRDM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Regarding dimensionality, replication of the five‐factor model has been problematic. For example, Davis and Ortiz () reported less than desirable fit indices for the five‐factor model (comparative fit index [CFI] = .88, root‐mean‐square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .07) on a sample of college students. In addition, the number of factors and relationships among the factors with outcomes varies depending on the population (Ryack, ).…”

Section: General Time Perspective Scales (Past Present and Future Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The 56‐item original ZTPI is the most frequently used time perspective scale, consisting of five moderately correlated factors (past‐negative, present‐hedonistic, future, past‐positive, and present‐fatalistic). Nearly 20 years after the introduction of the ZTPI, Davis and Ortiz (, p. 98) recently stated that “support for the five‐factor structure remains tentative” and “conclusions about its structural validity are premature.” Continuing validation studies across the globe reveal numerous psychometric weaknesses, including lack of face validity, low factor loadings, high intercorrelations among the five factors, failure to replicate the five‐factor structure, low internal consistency reliability, poor model fit, and high correlations with existing constructs (e.g., conscientiousness and locus of control). Shorter versions of the ZTPI (e.g., 15–36 items) have not generally shown significant psychometric improvement, and low internal consistency reliability has been a persistent problem.…”

Section: General Time Perspective Scales (Past Present and Future Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How have we, do we, and will we measure time perspective? A review of methodological and measurement issues

Mohammed

Marhefka

2019

J Organ Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Despite the demonstrated importance of time perspective on key outcomes, its growing popularity, and its wide reach in terms of samples and disciplines, the construct has been plagued with definitional and measurement problems since its inception. Given the historical and current confusion regarding both conceptualization and operationalization, the purpose of this article is to provide an overview of methodological and measurement issues related to time perspective. Clearly, definitional and measurement clarity are critical for the success of future research. Through integrating the fragmented and eclectic time perspective literature fraught with ambiguity, we help to clarify measurement options and their psychometric evidence for future researchers. Specifically, we provide an in‐depth comparison of four (and their offshoots) commonly used, scale‐based measures of time perspective with respect to their dimensional content, psychometric properties, and validation evidence. We end with recommendations for time perspective research.

show abstract

Another way to measure balanced time perspective: Development and validation of the Time Perspective Inventory

Li,

Lyu,

Mello

2024

PsyCh Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The existing scales for measuring balanced time perspective (BTP) have limitations, such as poor‐fitting structures or a complex calculation method. Based on previous studies, we conceptualize BTP as an individual's overall positive outlook on the past and future and mindfully living in the present. The present study aimed to develop the Time Perspective Inventory (TPI) for Chinese adults, determine its psychometric properties, and examine a simple calculation method for generating a score to represent BTP. In study 1, a 7‐factor structure of TPI – Past Positive, Past Negative, Mindful Present, Present Hedonistic, Present Excessively Task‐oriented, Future Positive, and Future Negative – was established through exploratory (sample 1, N = 529) and confirmatory (sample 2, N = 577) factor analyses. Findings supported the internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and criterion‐related validity of the TPI. We proposed using the score difference between positive time perspectives and negative time perspectives to calculate the BTP. Findings showed that the correlations between BTP and subjective well‐being indicators and anxiety were higher than among individual dimensions of TPI. Study 2 (sample 3, N = 713) compared the effects of the TPI and the Chinese version of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI‐C) on well‐being indicators and anxiety. Results indicated that the variance of life satisfaction, positive affect, negative affect, and anxiety explained by BTP measured with TPI was higher than deviation from BTP (DBTP) measured with ZTPI‐C. Together, the TPI yields reliable and valid BTP scores among Chinese adults.

show abstract

Revisiting the structural and nomological validity of the Zimbardo time perspective inventory

Cited by 29 publications

References 21 publications

Relationship between time perspective and job satisfaction

Relationship between time perspective and job satisfaction

How have we, do we, and will we measure time perspective? A review of methodological and measurement issues

Another way to measure balanced time perspective: Development and validation of the Time Perspective Inventory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About