Cited by 99Perfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety StudiesPsychometric Methodologies and TestingAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

On the Measurement of Procrastination: Comparing Two Scales in Six European Countries

Open access
Svartdal, Frode, Pfuhl, Gerit, Nordby, Kent, Foschi, Gioel, Klingsieck, Katrin B., Rozental, Alexander, Carlbring, Per, Lindblom-Ylänne, Sari +1 more·2016·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

Procrastination is a common problem, but defining and measuring it has been subject to some debate. This paper summarizes results from students and employees (N = 2893) in Finland, Germany, Italy, Norway, Poland, and Sweden using the Pure Procrastination Scale (PPS) and the Irrational Procrastination Scale (IPS; Steel, 2010), both assumed to measure unidimensional and closely related constructs. Confirmatory factor analyses indicated inadequate configural fit for the suggested one-factor model for PPS; however, acceptable fit was observed for a three-factor model corresponding to the three different scales the PPS is based on. Testing measurement invariance over countries and students-employees revealed configural but not strong or strict invariance, indicating that both instruments are somewhat sensitive to cultural differences. We conclude that the PPS and IPS are valid measures of procrastination, and that the PPS may be particularly useful in assessing cultural differences in unnecessary delay.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01307

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The PPS has high construct validity and is validated for online use.

    “The PPS has high construct validity (Svartdal et al., 2016) and is validated for online use (Steel, 2010).”

    From Group cognitive behavioral therapy for reducing procrastination in college students: a randomized controlled trial (2026) · cites this paper as Svartdal et al., 2016

    The Introduction (Measuring Procrastination; page unavailable) describes improved convergent and divergent validity for the PPS, supporting a claim about its validity. But the Results and Discussion (Factor Structures; page unavailable) find that the original one-factor model did not fit acceptably, and the paper questions whether some PPS items measure the intended construct. Thus, describing the whole scale as having unqualifiedly high construct validity overstates the findings. The online-use clause is cited to Steel (2010), not to this source. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 61 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Aitken M. E. (1982). A Personality Profile of the College Student Procrastinator. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Svartdal, F., Pfuhl, G., Nordby, K., Foschi, G., Klingsieck, K. B., Rozental, A., Carlbring, P., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Rębkowska, K.
Affiliations
  • UiT The Arctic University of Norway (NO)
  • Paderborn University (DE)
  • Stockholm University (SE)
  • University of Warsaw (PL)
Corresponding author
Svartdal, Frode
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2016-08-31
Volume
7
Pages
1307-1307
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2511873234
Cited by
99
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2013: 1
FWCI
8.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Perfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
procrastination, Pure Procrastination Scale, measurement invariance, cross-cultural measurement, three-factor model, scale validation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review