Purposeful delay and academic achievement. A critical review of the Active Procrastination Scale

Abstract

A plethora of studies have shown that procrastination is associated with deleterious consequences. Recently, some authors argued that for some students, purposefully delaying tasks might be a beneficial strategy that is positively related with desired outcomes. To measure purposeful delay, the Active Procrastination Scale (APS), developed by Choi and Moran (2009), discriminates between four subcomponents (i.e., outcome satisfaction, preference for pressure, intentional decision and ability to meet deadlines). The objective of the present study is threefold: (1) to corroborate the factor structure of the original APS instrument; (2) to empirically examine whether purposeful delay is associated with better achievement; and (3) to identify a subpopulation of students for whom purposefully delaying tasks is an effective strategy. Using a large sample of 1605 science and engineering students, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) supported a three-factor rather than a four-factor structure of the APS. Furthermore, results of the regression analyses showed no evidence for the beneficial effect of purposeful delay on student achievement. Finally, we were unable to identify a particular type of student for whom purposefully delaying tasks resulted in increased achievement. Critical considerations on the construct validity of the APS are discussed in greater detail.

Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization of Academic Procrastination

“…However, most of the articles start from a single point of view, and some scholars focus on its relationship with other strategies or factors (Aznar-Diaz et al, 2020 ; Limone et al, 2020 ; Gao et al, 2021 ), such as its relationship with self-regulated strategies (Ziegler and Opdenakker, 2018 ), academic achievement (Batool, 2020 ), and life satisfaction (Çikrikçi and Erzen, 2020 ). Some scholars focus on interventions to reduce academic procrastination (Hanger et al, 2019 ; Krispenz et al, 2019 ), and a few studies focus on reviewing the literature on the subject matter (Pinxten et al, 2019 ; Wernecke et al, 2019 ; Svartdal et al, 2020 ). The present literature is found to be lacking in a comprehensive review of academic procrastination and the highlights of the topic in recent years.…”

The Tuckman Procrastination Scale: Psychometric Features Among Buenos Aires Undergraduates

“…The scale has subsequently been amply used as a measure of Procrastination due to its compatibility with the construct's most recent convergence of definitions of procrastinatory tendencies as deriving from a self-regulatory deficit (Grunschel et al, 2013), as well as its ease-of-use and interpretation (Uzun-Özer et al, 2013). Of particular note, it has been addressed as measuring either general or typical Procrastination (Pinxten et al, 2019;Stöber & Joorman, 2001;Zhang et al, 2019) and procrastination tendencies circumscribed to the academic domain (Ferrari et al, 1995;Grunschel et al, 2013;Kim & Seo, 2015;Uzun-Özer et al, 2013).…”

“…Regarding the scale's construct validity, studies reported 1-factor models that exhibited adequate fit. However, in many instances, the number of items retained within the Procrastination factor decreased, out of 16 original items (Tuckman, 1991) to 14 (Serhatoglu, 2018;Uzun-Özer et al, 2013) or even 9 (Pinxten et al, 2019;Kim et al, 2020). Notably, the number of studies that examined construct validity of the scale lacks in comparison to the instrument's vast history of use (Kim & Seo, 2015;McCloskey, 2011).…”

Better late than early? Reviewing procrastination in organizations

“…Among the variety of contexts that procrastination has been examined subsequent to the work of Choi and colleagues (Chu and Choi, 2005; Choi and Moran, 2009), the academic setting in particular seems to be among the most prolific (Balkis and Duru, 2018; Burns et al , 2000; Cao, 2012; Corkin et al , 2011; Grunschel et al , 2016; Kim et al , 2017; Kim and Seo, 2015; Michinov et al , 2010; Zacks and Hen, 2018; Pinxten et al , 2019; Wessel et al , 2019). When examining online learning environments, Michinov et al (2010) reported that procrastinators are less successful in the online setting via reduced participative efforts, though the authors acknowledged that they did not distinguish between passive vs active procrastinators, and suggested future research in this realm to better distinguish between the effectiveness of these two forms of procrastinators.…”