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

• Published in: Frontiers in psychology Vol. 13; p. 784471
• Main Authors: Vangsness, Lisa, Voss, Nathaniel M., Maddox, Noelle, Devereaux, Victoria, Martin, Emma
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland Frontiers Media S.A 24.02.2022
• Subjects: concurrent validity; pacing styles; predictive validity; procrastination; Psychology; psychometrics; self-report measures; predictive validity; psychometrics; pacing styles; concurrent validity; self-report measures; procrastination
• ISSN: 1664-1078; 1664-1078
• DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.784471

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.