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

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 exhibiting a deadline action pacing style. Many of the self-report measures of procrastination exhibited poor factor structures. 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.

拖延症是一种慢性且普遍存在的问题；然而，新兴的研究工作引发了关于自我报告的拖延症与任务参与行为衡量指标之间关系强度的疑问。本研究评估了10种自我报告拖延症评估工具的内部一致性、同时效度、预测效度和心理测量特性，这些评估工具是基于从242名学生处收集的回应进行的。通过相关性分析和聚类分析，将参与者在每个自我报告工具上的得分进行了相互比较。使用Lasso估计法来测试自我报告得分预测两种延迟行为衡量指标（完成学习所需天数；进度控制风格）的能力。自我报告工具表现出强烈的内部一致性和适中的同时效度水平。一些自我报告指标能够预测完成学习所需的天数。没有自我报告指标能够预测表现出截止日期行动进度控制风格的行为。许多拖延症的自我报告指标表现出较差的因素结构。这些结果表明，研究人员在选择自我报告指标时应谨慎行事，并且有必要进行进一步研究，以确定导致自我报告与延迟行为衡量指标之间不一致性的驱动因素。