Self-Report Measures of Procrastination Exhibit Inconsistent Concurrent Validity, Predictive Validity, and Psychometric Properties

Abstract

Procrastination is a chronic and widespread problem; however, emerging work raises questions regarding the strength of the relationship between self-reported procrastination and behavioral measures of task engagement. This study assessed the internal reliability, concurrent validity, predictive validity, and psychometric properties of 10 self-report procrastination assessments using responses collected from 242 students. Participants’ scores on each self-report instrument were compared to each other using correlations and cluster analysis. Lasso estimation was used to test the self-report scores’ ability to predict two behavioral measures of delay (days to study completion; pacing style). The self-report instruments exhibited strong internal reliability and moderate levels of concurrent validity. Some self-report measures were predictive of days to study completion. No self-report measures were predictive of deadline action pacing, the pacing style most commonly associated with procrastination. Many of the self-report measures of procrastination exhibited poor fit. These results suggest that researchers should exercise caution in selecting self-report measures and that further study is necessary to determine the factors that drive misalignment between self-reports and behavioral measures of delay.

Procrastination and Precrastination from the Perspective of Self‐Control

“…This is precisely because they want to quickly eliminate what they do not like. In other studies there were some students who engaged in an early action pacing style (“precrastination”), some students who engaged in a steady work pacing style (“steady work”), and some students who exhibited a deadline action pacing style (“procrastination”) (Vangsness et al, 2022; Vangsness & Young, 2020). These studies reverse the traditional finding that ways to do a task efficiently were mostly equated with minimizing costs.…”

Spanish validation of the pure procrastination scale: dimensional structure, internal consistency, temporal stability, gender invariance, and relationships with personality and satisfaction with life

“…In this regard, the various available scales may differ primarily in their theoretical foundations, the specific assessment context for which they were designed, or their technical characteristics. Vangsness et al (2022) assessed the psychometric properties of 10 procrastination measures and found that certain scales, e.g., irrational procrastination scale (IPS; Steel, 2010), pure procrastination scale (PPS; Steel, 2010), or Tuckman procrastination scale (TPS; Tuckman, 1991), displayed better psychometric properties than others, e.g., active procrastination scale (APS; Choi and Moran, 2009), adult inventory of procrastination (AIP; McCown and Johnson, 1989).…”

High Self-Efficacy and Precrastination: Task Order Choices Based on Deadline Proximity

“…While this study focused on employed adults, it's essential to explore procrastination habits, both traditional and other variants, particularly among university students (Vangsness et al, 2022;Vangsness & Young, 2020). For example, some students consistently produce reports at a steady pace, others procrastinate until just before the deadline (procrastination), and still others complete and submit their reports at an early stage (precrastination).…”