Validation of the Chinese Version of the Procrastination at Work Scale

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to validate the Chinese version of the Procrastination at Work Scale (PAWS), a recently developed scale aimed at assessing procrastination in the work context. We translated the PAWS into Chinese and conducted exploratory factor analysis on participants in sample A (N = 236), resulting in a two-factor solution consistent with the original PAWS. In sample B (N = 227), confirmatory factor analysis showed that a two-factor, bifactor model fit the data best. Configural, metric, and scalar invariance models were tested, which demonstrated that the Chinese version of the PAWS did not differ across groups by gender, age, education, or job position. Validity testing demonstrated that the scale relates to work engagement, counterproductive work behavior, task performance, workplace well-being, and organizational commitment. This study indicated that the Chinese version of the PAWS could be used in future research to measure procrastination at work in China.

Excessive technology use in the post-pandemic context: how work connectivity behavior increases procrastination at work

“…PAW is a stress-induced response characterized by a lack of self-regulation and, as a consequence, fear or apprehension about completing an upcoming work-related task (Metin et al ., 2016; Wang et al ., 2021a). Even though most teleworkers can maintain high-performance outputs while working remotely, they may occasionally struggle with this type of self-regulation failure (Hen et al ., 2021); implying that PAW can be a significant challenge for them, particularly in today's post-pandemic business environment (Wang et al ., 2021b).…”

“…The topic of PAW has received considerable empirical attention (Metin et al ., 2016; Wang et al ., 2021a), particularly in remote work contexts where employees have little direct managerial control. Past research has mostly looked at PAW as a self-regulatory failure, driven largely by the procrastinators' inability to harness physical and psychological resources (Sirois and Tosti, 2012).…”

Assessing measurement invariance of the SEGUE framework among Chinese and Ghanaian patients: A cross-sectional study

“…Three models, including configural, metric, and scalar were tested, and none of their fits between the two groups significantly decreased. Thus, the differences between the models were non-significant and may suggest that the overall structure of the scale and responses are valid equally across the two groups [ 32 ]. Configural invariance determines whether or not the same items accurately measure our construct across the two populations.…”

The Insubordination Scale Among Full-Time Chinese Employees: A Cross-Cultural Validation Study

“…All items were responded on a five-Likert-type scale (1 = never ; 5 = always ). Even though this scale was developed recently, its reliability and construct validity have been demonstrated in the Chinese culture and had a positive association with work engagement, task performance and organizational commitment (Wang et al, 2021). For the current study, the Cronbach’s α of total score was .92, and for each of the subscales it was .91 (soldiering) and .86 (cyberslacking).…”