Assessing Between- and Within-Person Reliabilities of Items and Scale for Daily Procrastination: A Multilevel and Dynamic Approach.

IF 3.5 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Assessment Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-18 DOI:10.1177/10731911241235467
Xiaohui Luo, Yueqin Hu, Hongyun Liu
{"title":"Assessing Between- and Within-Person Reliabilities of Items and Scale for Daily Procrastination: A Multilevel and Dynamic Approach.","authors":"Xiaohui Luo, Yueqin Hu, Hongyun Liu","doi":"10.1177/10731911241235467","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Intensive longitudinal data (ILD) has been collected to capture the dynamic fluctuations of procrastination; however, researchers have typically measured daily procrastination by modifying trait measures (e.g., adding a time reference \"today\") without adequately testing their reliabilities. The main purpose of this study was to use an advanced approach, dynamic structural equation modeling, to assess the between- and within-person reliabilities of a widely used six-item measure of daily procrastination. A total of 252 participants completed retrospective measures of various types of trait procrastination and daily measures of procrastination over 34 consecutive days. The results showed that the entire scale for daily procrastination and five of its six items had high between- and within-person reliabilities, but one item had much lower reliabilities, suggesting that this item may be inappropriate in everyday contexts. Furthermore, we found moderate to strong associations between the latent trait factor of procrastination and trait measures of procrastination. In addition, we identified substantial between-person variation in person-specific reliabilities and explored its relevant factors. Overall, this study assessed the reliabilities of a daily measure of procrastination, which facilitated future studies to obtain more reliable and consistent results and to better estimate the reliability of ILD.</p>","PeriodicalId":8577,"journal":{"name":"Assessment","volume":" ","pages":"61-76"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"88","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911241235467","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Intensive longitudinal data (ILD) has been collected to capture the dynamic fluctuations of procrastination; however, researchers have typically measured daily procrastination by modifying trait measures (e.g., adding a time reference "today") without adequately testing their reliabilities. The main purpose of this study was to use an advanced approach, dynamic structural equation modeling, to assess the between- and within-person reliabilities of a widely used six-item measure of daily procrastination. A total of 252 participants completed retrospective measures of various types of trait procrastination and daily measures of procrastination over 34 consecutive days. The results showed that the entire scale for daily procrastination and five of its six items had high between- and within-person reliabilities, but one item had much lower reliabilities, suggesting that this item may be inappropriate in everyday contexts. Furthermore, we found moderate to strong associations between the latent trait factor of procrastination and trait measures of procrastination. In addition, we identified substantial between-person variation in person-specific reliabilities and explored its relevant factors. Overall, this study assessed the reliabilities of a daily measure of procrastination, which facilitated future studies to obtain more reliable and consistent results and to better estimate the reliability of ILD.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估日常拖延症的项目和量表在人与人之间和人与人之间的可靠性:多层次动态方法。
为了捕捉拖延症的动态波动,人们收集了大量纵向数据(ILD);然而,研究人员通常通过修改特质测量(例如,添加 "今天 "这一时间参照)来测量日常拖延症,而没有充分测试其可靠性。本研究的主要目的是采用一种先进的方法--动态结构方程模型,来评估一种广泛使用的六项目日常拖延症测量方法在人与人之间和人与人之间的可靠性。共有 252 名参与者在连续 34 天内完成了对各种拖延特质的回顾性测量和日常拖延测量。结果显示,整个日常拖延量表及其六个项目中的五个项目在人与人之间和人与人之间的信度都很高,但有一个项目的信度要低得多,这表明该项目在日常情境中可能并不合适。此外,我们还发现拖延的潜在特质因子与拖延的特质测量之间存在中度到高度的关联。此外,我们还发现了人与人之间在特定信效度上的巨大差异,并探讨了其相关因素。总之,本研究评估了拖延症日常测量的信度,这有助于今后的研究获得更可靠、更一致的结果,并更好地估算 ILD 的信度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Assessment
Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
2.60%
发文量
86
期刊介绍: Assessment publishes articles in the domain of applied clinical assessment. The emphasis of this journal is on publication of information of relevance to the use of assessment measures, including test development, validation, and interpretation practices. The scope of the journal includes research that can inform assessment practices in mental health, forensic, medical, and other applied settings. Papers that focus on the assessment of cognitive and neuropsychological functioning, personality, and psychopathology are invited. Most papers published in Assessment report the results of original empirical research, however integrative review articles and scholarly case studies will also be considered.
期刊最新文献
The Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory: Psychometric Properties and Symptom Comparisons in Women With and Without Brain Injuries Due to Intimate Partner Violence. Measuring Process Factors of Fluid Reasoning Using Multidimensional Computerized Adaptive Testing. A Network Analysis of Digital Clock Drawing for Command and Copy Conditions. Assessing Between- and Within-Person Reliabilities of Items and Scale for Daily Procrastination: A Multilevel and Dynamic Approach. Development and Initial Validation of a Momentary Cannabis Craving Scale Within a Homogeneous Sample of U.S. Emerging Adults.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1