Psychological Thought

psyct.swu.bg | 2193-7281 South-West University “Neofit Rilski”

Research Article

The Tuckman Procrastination Scale:

Psychometric Features among Buenos
Aires Undergraduates
Franco Tisocco * a, Mercedes Fernández Liporace b

[a] Psychometrics Department, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina.

[b] CONICET - National Council of Scientific and Technical Research, Argentina. Department
of Psychology, Psychology Research Institute, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Abstract
Procrastination is a deleterious and increasingly pervasive phenomenon within the higher-
academic domain, and the progressive refinement of its measurement tools proves vital to
shed light and undertake this behavior. Thus, the present study examines renewed
psychometric quality features of the Tuckman Procrastination Scale within an Argentinian
sample. The sample was composed of 923 undergraduates from Buenos Aires City and its
environs (80.7% female; 18.7% male; 0.5% non-binary; Mage = 26.60; SDage = 8.25). The
Cordoban-Argentinian adaptation of the Tuckman Procrastination Scale was employed.
Content validity analysis of the scale’s items was carried out upon consideration of expert
judgments. Face validity of the instrument was analyzed via a pilot study with a subsample of
undergraduates. Subsequently, a confirmatory factor analysis of the Tuckman
Procrastination Scale structure was conducted, and the internal consistency of the resulting
factor was examined. Finally, correlations with the Academic Motivation Scale were analyzed
to provide evidence of convergent validity. Results of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis
supported an adequate fit of the Tuckman Procrastination Scale’s structure in its Cordoban-
version 15 items, while internal consistency was acceptable-to-excellent. Finally, convergent
validity evidence mostly exhibited positive associations between Procrastination and both
Amotivation and less self-determined motivational subscales of the Academic Motivation
Scale, while negative associations were observed with regards to Intrinsic Motivation
subscales.

Keyword: procrastination; Tuckman Procrastination Scale; validity; internal consistency;

undergraduates.

Psychological Thought South-West University “Neofit Rilski”

2021, Vol. 14(2), 444-466
https://doi.org/10.37708/psyct.v14i2.603
The Tuckman Procrastination Scale: Psychometric Features 445

Table of Contents
Method
Results
Discussion
Limitations
Recommendations for Future Research
Conclusion
References

Psychological Thought, 2021, Vol. 14(2), 444-466, https://doi.org/10.37708/psyct.v14i2.603

Received: 2021-03-10. Accepted: 2021-05-10. Published (VoR): 2021-10-31.
Handling Editor: Marius Drugaș, Department of Psychology, University of Oradea, Romania.
*Corresponding author at: Faculty of Social Sciencies, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina. E-mail:
francotisocco@psi.uba.ar

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Common Attribution License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Procrastination has been defined as the tendency to voluntarily put off tasks, despite
knowing the delay worsens one's performance, stemming from self-regulation failure (Steel
2007; Steel, 2010; Tuckman, 1991).

Procrastination is a highly pervasive problem within the academic domain, where reports
point towards at least half of all students incurring in this behavior (Ferrari et al., 2009;
Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). Other studies argue a progressive increase in its prevalence
over the years (Steel, 2007), which might steepen in recent times due to increasing
information-and-communication-technology usage among students (Reinecke & Hofmann,
2016). Procrastination has been linked in turn with a worsened academic performance and
psychological distress among undergraduates (Kim & Seo, 2015; Stöber & Joormann, 2001;
Tice & Baumeister 1997; Van Eerde, 2003). In both its omnipresence and its link with
adverse outcomes within the academic milieu, procrastinatory tendencies constitute a
behavioral pattern of which its amelioration proves a necessary endeavor (Ellis & Knaus,
1977).

Procrastination measurement
The vital input of the measurement of Procrastination towards aiding psychological research
on this widespread and deleterious behavior has been asserted within the literature (Fernie
et al., 2016). Moreover, reports posit that increasingly comprehensive and valid frameworks
of procrastinatory behavior are necessary (Van Eerde, 2003; Zhang et al., 2019), where the

Psychological Thought South-West University “Neofit Rilski”

2021, Vol. 14(2), 444-466
https://doi.org/10.37708/psyct.v14i2.603
Tisocco & Fernández Liporace 446

existence of ongoing debates gravitate towards how to further refine empirical measures of
Procrastination (Steel, 2010).

Currently, self-reports are the most employed and reliable procrastination measures (Zhang
et al., 2019); yet, it has been suggested that little research has been undergone in the way of
producing satisfactorily valid academic procrastination scales (McCloskey, 2011).

The most commonly known and used scales have been Lay's General Procrastination Scale
(GPS; Lay, 1986), Solomon and Rothblum's (1984) PASS scale, and the Tuckman
Procrastination Scale (TPS; Tuckman, 1991). Of these former scales, both the GPS and the
PASS were designed with either dated definitions of Procrastination in mind or with scales
that did not exclusively assess procrastinatory behaviors (McCloskey, 2011). Thus, the TPS
stands out as one of the most utilized procrastination scales within the academic domain
whose designing definition of the construct converges with recent literature delineations (Kim
& Seo, 2015; Sirois & Pychyl, 2013; Steel, 2010).

The Tuckman Procrastination Scale (TPS)

Tuckman (1991) devised and designed the TPS as a measure of the "tendency to delay or
put off doing things" (Tuckman, 1991, p.475) due to a failure of self-regulation. 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). This marked contrast
between the scale's employment and the number of psychometric quality assessment
studies implies that a more comprehensive work on the assessment of the instrument's
psychometric features is needed.

Psychological Thought South-West University “Neofit Rilski”

2021, Vol. 14(2), 444-466
https://doi.org/10.37708/psyct.v14i2.603
The Tuckman Procrastination Scale: Psychometric Features 447

From a local perspective, the TPS has been previously adapted to be used with Argentinian
population. Furlan et al. (2010) began with a 35-item version of the TPS. The authors
translated the instrument into Spanish and carried out a pilot study and an exploratory factor
analysis with Cordoban Psychology undergraduates – a city of the central part of Argentina
which gathers a significant proportion of the Argentinian population and houses one of the
country's most prominent universities. The resulting scale was comprised of 15 items. Its
one-dimensional structure exhibited a good fit in a second study, which employed a sample
of multiple career undergraduates, and displayed adequate internal reliability values (Furlan
et al., 2012).

Nonetheless, it should be noted that the studies mentioned above exclusively employed a
student sample of Argentina's Córdoba city. To warrant a more in-depth assessment of the
scale properties, studies within populations from varying regions of countries would do best
by carrying out multiple psychometric property assessment studies employing increasingly
diverse samples (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2009). Additionally, the original adaptation sample from
which both the pilot-testing and item-selection procedures were carried out was exclusively
composed of Psychology students (Furlan et al., 2010). Thus, further validation studies
would aid by exploring internal structure evidence with a broader sample of undergraduates
from additional country areas. The conjunction of these facts warrants additional analyses
which delve into the scale's psychometric properties.

Finally, the TPS is not without its criticisms – caveats have pointed towards the need for a
more solid construct validation (McCloskey, 2011), as opposed to the study where the 1-
factor structure was verified – originating from a factorial analysis of a sample of 50 students
(Tuckman, 1991). All in all, considering its vast usage history, the TPS remains an ideal
instrument for procrastination assessment within the academic domain – provided continual
psychometric quality assessment is carried out.

Moreover, possessing more extensive and increasingly diverse samples such as from
different universities and diverse areas of countries would undoubtedly strengthen previous
national findings and provide further evidence of the TPS's validity and reliability (Uzun-Özer
et al., 2013).

Procrastination and motivation

Consistent with its definition, reports have long posited that Procrastination can be
considered as arising from a motivational deficit or failure (Haghbin et al., 2012; Klassen et
al., 2008; Klingsieck et al., 2013; Senecal et al., 1995; Yurtseven & Dogan, 2019). These

Psychological Thought South-West University “Neofit Rilski”

2021, Vol. 14(2), 444-466
https://doi.org/10.37708/psyct.v14i2.603
Tisocco & Fernández Liporace 448

findings have led to an extensive line of research embedded in identifying and analyzing
individual differences linked to the tendency to procrastinate (Klingsieck et al., 2013), of
which motivation has been proven to be a key factor (Rakes & Dunn, 2010).

Self-determination theory differentiates between intrinsic and extrinsic motivational types

within a self-regulation framework. It posits behaviors varying in a continuum of self-
governance, from least to most autonomous (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1991). Autonomous
individuals –i.e., self-regulated– are more likely to display greater initiative and perform tasks
more consistently than less autonomous ones (Deci & Ryan, 1987; Vallerand, 1992). In this
sense, amotivation and extrinsic motivational forms –non-self-determined and least self-
determined forms of motivation, respectively– have been mostly associated with higher
levels of Procrastination; conversely, intrinsic motivational forms –i.e., self-determined
subtypes– have been primarily linked with lower procrastinatory tendencies (Bosato, 2001;
Brownlow & Reasinger, 2000; Burnam et al., 2014; Cavusoglu & Karatas, 2015; Cerino,
2014; Katz et al., 2014; Lee, 2005; Milgram et al., 1988; Senecal et al., 1995). The long line
of research linking self-determination types with Procrastination proves the former to be ideal
for providing convergent validity evidence regarding the TPS.

Purpose of the study

The present study sought to analyze psychometric properties of the Cordoban-Argentinian
version of the TPS (Furlan et al., 2010; Furlan et al., 2012) in the form of content, face, and
construct validity, as well as internal consistency within undergraduate students from Buenos
Aires City and its environs – Argentina. Additionally, associations between the TPS and the
Academic Motivation Scale (Stover et al., 2012; Vallerand et al., 1992) were analyzed to
provide evidence of convergent validity.

Method
Design
An instrumental and correlational study design was implemented.

Participants
Participants were recruited through convenience sampling. The sample was divided in
twofold: a first subset was composed of 5 undergraduates majoring in diverse subjects from
public universities of Buenos Aires City and its environs in Argentina (3 women; 2 men; Mage
= 25.20; SDage = 2.28). The second subset was comprised of 923 undergraduates of the
same academic background as the first sample (80.7% female; 18.7% male; 0.5% non-

Psychological Thought South-West University “Neofit Rilski”

2021, Vol. 14(2), 444-466
https://doi.org/10.37708/psyct.v14i2.603
The Tuckman Procrastination Scale: Psychometric Features 449

binary; Mage = 26.60; SDage = 8.25). The first subset was selected for a pilot study, whereas
the second was used to carry out internal structure, internal consistency, and convergent
validity analyses.

Measures
Sociodemographic Survey. Participants indicated their age, gender, and academic
background information.

Tuckman Procrastination Scale (TPS). The TPS assesses Procrastination within the
academic domain, according to the previously mentioned definition (Tuckman, 1991). The
Cordoban-Argentinian adaptation of the scale was employed (Furlan et al., 2010; Furlan et
al., 2012).

Academic Motivation Scale (AMS). The Argentinian version of the Academic Motivation
Scale was employed (Stover et al., 2012; Vallerand et al., 1992) to examine convergent
validity evidence with the TPS. This scale assesses seven academic-motivational subtypes
per Self-Determination Theory. From least to most self-determined: (a) Amotivation –A;
unregulated behavior or absence of motivation, (b) Extrinsic Motivation – External –EM-Ext;
behaviors carried out in avoidance of punishment or for the obtainment of external rewards,
(c) Extrinsic Motivation – Introjected –EM-Int; behaviors carried out in avoidance of anxiety or
guilt for not executing them or for improvement of the individual's self-esteem, (d) Extrinsic
Motivation – Identified –EM-Id; extrinsic yet abstract motives guide the selection of
behaviors, (e) Intrinsic Motivation towards Knowledge –IM-Know; the pleasure of learning
guides the execution of tasks, (f) Intrinsic Motivation towards Achievement –IM-Achieve;
refers to emergent satisfaction upon the overcoming of one's limits, and (g) Intrinsic
Motivation towards Stimulating Experiences –IM-SE; activities are performed for aesthetical,
intellectual or sensorial sensations. The scale has shown adequate reliability and evidence of
both internal and external validity regarding local university students (Stover et al., 2012;
Stover et al., 2015).

Procedure
Data collection was carried out through an online survey. Participants were recruited via
social media student groups, where a link to the survey was provided. Undergraduates gave
informed consent to participate and were simultaneously briefed regarding the confidentiality
of their responses as well as the possibility to desist from participating at any point in the
procedure. Subjects received no form of compensation for their participation in the study.

Psychological Thought South-West University “Neofit Rilski”

2021, Vol. 14(2), 444-466
https://doi.org/10.37708/psyct.v14i2.603
Tisocco & Fernández Liporace 450

Content Validity
Five experts in Educational Psychology and Psychometrics gave their judgments on the
pertinence of the TPS items regarding the assessed construct. Expert judgment was
calculated through Aiken indices.

Face Validity
5 undergraduates from Buenos Aires City and its environs underwent a pilot study of the TPS
in its Argentinian-Cordoban version. Each offered their views on the comprehensibility, clarity
and familiarity with the wording of the scale's items, the verbalized task and the response
format.

Internal Structure and Internal Consistency of the TPS

Considering the ordinal quality of the TPS items' Likert response format, a Confirmatory
Factor Analysis was carried out implementing a Diagonally-Weighted Least Squares (DWLS)
estimator deriving from a polychoric correlation matrix (Muthen & Kaplan, 1985; Kline, 2011).
The model was specified as a single latent factor labeled Procrastination explaining the total
15 items of the scale, as carried out on previous studies within the Cordoban-Argentinian
context (Furlan et al., 2012). Fit indices considered were Satorra-Bentler-scaled χ2, CFI, TLI,
RMSEA and SRMR. Moreover, the factor's internal consistency was assessed by estimation
of Cronbach's Alpha and Ordinal Alpha coefficients (Gadermann et al., 2012).

Convergent Validity
Normality assumption of Procrastination-total and Academic Motivation-subscale variables
was assessed, of which only for the Amotivation subscale of the AMS this was not
supported. Thus, Pearson's r correlation coefficients were calculated for associations of all
variables with the exception of Amotivation, of which Spearman's rho was estimated.
Correlational effect sizes were interpreted regarding values suggested by recent meta-
analytical literature (r > .10 small, r > .20 medium, r > .30 large; Gignac & Szodorai, 2016),
rather than utilizing typical cut-off criteria (e.g., Cohen, 1992), on account of
recommendations made by recent reports (Correll et al. 2020; Funder & Ozer, 2019).

Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS 25.0 software package, as well as RStudio
lavaan (Rosseel, 2012) and psych (Revelle, 2017) packages.

Psychological Thought South-West University “Neofit Rilski”

2021, Vol. 14(2), 444-466
https://doi.org/10.37708/psyct.v14i2.603
The Tuckman Procrastination Scale: Psychometric Features 451

Results
Content Analysis
Regarding content analysis, the scales' 15 items exhibited Aiken coefficients equal to or
higher than 0.80, which ensured the scale's content validity within the educational context.

Pilot Study
Following students' suggestions, changes were made to the task and several item wordings,
as well as semantic anchorage of the whole five points of the Likert scale was provided to
facilitate the response experience.

This eliminated minor confounding local-language expressions, increasingly smoothing the

response flow of the instrument. Modifications are summarized in tables 1 and 2 (Appendix).

Internal Structure Analyses

A Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed to assess the construct validity of the
procrastination model outlined in the Method section. Examination of goodness-of-fit indices
revealed a good overall fit of the one-dimensional structure. Fit indices –CFI, TLI, RMSEA
and SRMR– exhibited adequate-to-optimal values (CFI > .95, TLI > .95, RMSEA < .06,
SRMR < .08; Marsh et al., 2004). It should be noted that, despite encountering a statistically
significant chi-square value, this can be attributed to the usage of a large sample and thus
not lead in its sole examination to model rejection (Tanaka, 1987). Regarding path
coefficients pertaining to the scale's items, all were significant at p < .001 and above
acceptable parameters (>.30 Whitley & Kite, 2013). However, only one item surpassed
optimal estimation levels (>.70, R2 > .50; Kline, 2011) with other six items closely in
approximation. Fit indices, estimated path coefficients, and overall CFA structure are
summarized in Table 1 and Figure 1.

Table 1.
Tuckman Procrastination Scale Confirmatory Analysis. Fit Indices
Fit Indices
S-B χ2 df CFI TLI RMSEA [CI] SRMR
Procrastination
574.025*** 150 .957 .970 .055 [.051-.060]* .064
(DWLS Estimation)

Psychological Thought South-West University “Neofit Rilski”

2021, Vol. 14(2), 444-466
https://doi.org/10.37708/psyct.v14i2.603
Tisocco & Fernández Liporace 452

Figure 1. Tuckman Procrastination Scale - CFA Path Diagram. Note: all estimated
standardized paths were significant at p < .001

Internal Consistency Analyses

Both Cronbach and Ordinal Alpha's were estimated for the resultant Procrastination factor of
the TPS to assess its internal reliability. Cronbach's Alpha was α = .885, whereas the Ordinal
Alpha value was of .905. Moreover, information revealed no significant increase as to both
reliability indices should any items be dropped.

Convergent Validity Analyses

Pearson's r coefficients were computed to assess associations between the TPS and the
AMS subscales excluding Amotivation; Spearman's rho was computed for the latter
subscale. Statistically significant and small-to-medium size correlations were found between
the TPS and the AMS, with the exception of EM-Id and EM-Ext subscales. Correlation results
are summarized in Table 2.

Psychological Thought South-West University “Neofit Rilski”

2021, Vol. 14(2), 444-466
https://doi.org/10.37708/psyct.v14i2.603
The Tuckman Procrastination Scale: Psychometric Features 453

Table 2.
Procrastination and Academic Motivation Scale's subscales. Correlation Analyses
IM-
IM-SE IM-Know EM-Id EM-Int EM-Ext A
Achieve
Procrastination -.24*** -.19*** -.16*** -.04 .10** .00 .28***a
a
Spearman’s rho; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

Discussion

The present study aimed to offer new psychometric property analyses regarding the
Argentinian version of the TPS for university-level students, insofar as past validation studies
were circumscribed to a specific area of the country and thus reflected a need to complement
past work by employing a renewed sample of students of differing environs. Consequently,
this study provides renewed evidence as to the scale's content, face, construct and
convergent validity evidence, as well as an assessment of its internal reliability. From an
applied perspective, psychometric quality and technical properties of the scale within a
broader national area are provided. From an instrumental standpoint, evidence of the
dimensional structure of the construct is conveyed.

Decisions to maintain the TPS's Cordoban-version 15 items arisen from expert judgments
and the heeding of student suggestions ensured both the correspondence of the scale's
content regarding the measurement of the Procrastination construct in its original definition
(Tuckman, 1991) and a smoothed response experience tailored to the Buenos-Aires-city-
and-environs linguistic particularities. Internal structure analysis of the TPS confirmed an
adequate fit of the theoretically underlying model, coinciding with previous literature findings
regarding construct validity analyses of the scale (Furlan et al., 2012; Serhatoglu, 2018;
Uzun-Özer et al., 2013). Regarding item-level estimated parameters, these satisfied
minimum requirements of acceptability (Whitley & Kite, 2013) and were in turn similar to
those reported in the Cordoban-Argentinian construct validity assessment study (Furlan et
al., 2012). However, it should be noted that only item number 3 surpassed optimal parameter
criteria (Kline, 2011), with items number 1, 2, 4, 8, 10 and 15 closely approximating this. The
aggregation of these facts implies that, in terms of the scale's internal structure, evidence
points towards the satisfactory feasibility of its usage to assess procrastinatory tendencies
amidst undergraduates. However, refinement and depuration of its items may be overdue
and welcomed as an addition to the Procrastination measurement literature.

Psychological Thought South-West University “Neofit Rilski”

2021, Vol. 14(2), 444-466
https://doi.org/10.37708/psyct.v14i2.603
Tisocco & Fernández Liporace 454

The indicators above point towards evidence of an adequate representation of the theoretical
procrastination structure on an empirical level within the Buenos-Aires-City-and-environs
university-level context. These elements provide further assurance as to the viability of
assessing the Procrastination construct on the Argentinian higher-education domain.
Considering that the present study encompassed a large sample of students from within the
largest city in Argentina and further environs, this fact, in conjunction with the similarity in
results with regards to the past Argentinian report (Furlan et al., 2012), offer evidence in
favor of the representativeness and applicability of the TPS within the country. However,
notwithstanding the positive outlook that the present results may offer, future studies should
pay close attention to the instrument's item-level loadings to ensure continued robust
evidence of its internal validity.

Regarding current convergent validity results, the findings of negative associations between
procrastination and intrinsic motivation subtypes as well as positive associations regarding
procrastination and extrinsic and amotivation subscales follow literature findings in an overall
manner (Bosato, 2001; Brownlow & Reasinger, 2000; Burnam et al., 2014; Cavusoglu &
Karatas, 2015; Katz et al., 2014; Lee, 2005; Milgram et al., 2003; Seo, 2013; Yurtseven &
Dogan, 2019). It would thus appear that students who possess either an absence of
motivation or less self-determined motivational profiles also exhibit higher procrastinatory
tendencies, while for more self-regulated undergraduates Procrastination levels appear at a
low.

Notably, exceptions were the lack of statistically significant associations between the TPS
and both EM-Id and EM-Ext AMS subscales. Associations between the EM-Id AMS subscale
and Procrastination proved to be a conflicted finding in past studies (Cerino, 2014; Chang,
2014; Rebetez et al., 2015; Senecal et al., 1995), while in turn the same occurred regarding
the EM-Ext AMS subscale (Cerino, 2014; Rebetez et al., 2015). This information might
explain the absence of significant correlations hereby reported. Thus, while these factors
warrant additional attention in the future, they may not be considered a complete exception
within the existing literature. In addition to this, the absence of significant associations may
also be attributed to the profusion of dimensions of the local version of the AMS: while some
studies employed the latter scale considering 3 or 4 motivational dimensions (Cavusoglu &
Karatas, 2015; Orpen, 1998; Senecal et al., 1995), the Argentinian version exhibits a
whopping seven dimensions for which a total of 27 items are distributed along (Stover et al.,
2012). The latter fact might have been the result of an attempt to over-represent the

Psychological Thought South-West University “Neofit Rilski”

2021, Vol. 14(2), 444-466
https://doi.org/10.37708/psyct.v14i2.603
The Tuckman Procrastination Scale: Psychometric Features 455

underlying motivational theory, which may have caused motivational factors to overlap and
thus not correlate with the TPS within the present study.

In this sense, correlational analyses point towards adequate convergent validity evidence of
the TPS scale regarding motivation within the academic context, with coefficients bearing
similarity with those reported on extant literature studies. Nonetheless, further evidence of
the association between the TPS and a more diverse array of constructs will be needed to
ascertain the present findings.

Practical implications of the findings presently reported are the possibility of performing an
adequate assessment of procrastinatory tendencies of individuals currently inserted within
the higher-academic domain. Furthermore, considering the university population's
educational capacities, the furthering of validity and reliability evidence hereby presented
allows for the consideration of a self-assessment of Procrastination. Thus, a Procrastination
assessment by the students themselves would allow undergraduates to gain conscience of
their dilatory tendencies and eventually facilitate them to modify them if these prove not to be
adaptive with regards to their performance. Secondly, an effective Procrastination diagnosis
could lead to increasingly personalized and refined interventions, either individual or grouped
by academic seniority level. Moreover, an increasingly apt assessment may allow for a finer
detection of this problematic behavioral pattern; thus, it ultimately warrants the consideration
of promoting more functional educational approaches among undergraduates, which could
reduce the occurrence of procrastinatory behavior.

Limitations

The limitations of the study include the fact that the sample was not gender-balanced, which
may have altered the interpretation of results. Future studies should consider conducting
additional internal and external validity analyses with more balanced samples. Pertaining to
this, future studies might also benefit from performing factorial-invariance analyses of the
TPS with regards to both gender and academic seniority.

Additionally, analyses and respective findings stemmed from a correlational design. Future
work might do good to implement longitudinal designs; this modification may broaden the
generalization of results.

Finally, a convenience sampling method and exclusively self-report instruments were used
within the present study, facts which warrant particular attention upon interpretation of
results.

Psychological Thought South-West University “Neofit Rilski”

2021, Vol. 14(2), 444-466
https://doi.org/10.37708/psyct.v14i2.603
Tisocco & Fernández Liporace 456

Recommendations for Future Research

Admittedly, not all variants of procrastinatory behavior have been found to hold negative
connotations within the literature, as several reports within past years have found
Procrastination to be multidimensional in nature (Hensley, 2013, 2016; McCloskey, 2011).
Thus, future studies which incorporate aspects of procrastinatory tendencies not defined in a
traditional sense, such as Active Procrastination (Choi & Moran, 2009; Chu & Choi, 2005),
may shed some light on multiple facets of the construct and its measurement (Michinov et
al., 2011).

Moreover, future studies could consider analyzing and proposing a briefer version of the
TPS. This suggestion turns robust upon examination of recent literature employments of the
scale, where a combination between high internal reliability values and progressive item
reduction within studies has resulted in successful implementations of increasingly shortened
versions of the TPS (Kim et al., 2020; Meier et al., 2016; Pinxten et al., 2019; Schnauber-
Stockmann et al., 2018; Uzun-Özer et al., 2013). This in turn reflects recent literature
ventures regarding other Procrastination scales (Klingsieck & Fries, 2012; McCloskey, 2011;
Sirois et al., 2019; Yockey, 2016). In light of results regarding the internal structure analyses
conducted within the frame of this study, consideration of reduction of the TPS items with
particular attention upon items number 1, 2, 4, 8, 10 and 15 may prove an auspicious
endeavor.

Another promising avenue of research is Procrastination within online-learning environments.

Online-learning research is a growing field (Michinov et al., 2011), where efforts to analyze
procrastinatory tendencies within this framework would turn fruitful if not imperative sooner
rather than later, considering the recent outlook of education marked by quarantine and/or
social isolation, in addition to an ever-increasing use of virtual pedagogical resources
(Joosten & Cusatis, 2020).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the present study complements the existing Procrastination literature by

providing additional and robust psychometric quality evidence regarding the local applicability
of one of the construct's most utilized scales within the higher-level academic milieu. In light
of the pervasiveness of procrastinatory tendencies among students within a vast array of
nations and cultures, an increasingly refined assessment of the construct proves vital to
undertake and shed light upon this phenomenon. The present article speaks to this by

Psychological Thought South-West University “Neofit Rilski”

2021, Vol. 14(2), 444-466
https://doi.org/10.37708/psyct.v14i2.603
The Tuckman Procrastination Scale: Psychometric Features 457

offering ampler validity and reliability evidence of the TPS in the Argentinian university-level
context.

Funding
The research was funded by the University of Buenos Aires through a Ph.D. Fellowship
Grant Program.

Other Support/Acknowledgement
The authors have no support to report.

Competing Interests
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Psychological Thought South-West University “Neofit Rilski”

2021, Vol. 14(2), 444-466
https://doi.org/10.37708/psyct.v14i2.603
Tisocco & Fernández Liporace 458

References
Bosato, G. N. (2001). Time perspective, academic motivation, and procrastination. Master’s Thesis.
San José State University. [Link]

Brownlow, S., & Reasinger, R. D. (2000). Putting off until tomorrow what is better done today:
Academic procrastination as a function of motivation toward college work. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 15(5; SPI), 15-34.

Burnam, A., Komarraju, M., Hamel, R., & Nadler, D. R. (2014). Do adaptive perfectionism and self-
determined motivation reduce academic procrastination?. Learning and Individual Differences,
36, 165-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.10.009

Cavusoglu, C., & Karatas, H. (2015). Academic procrastination of undergraduates: Self-determination

theory and academic motivation. The Anthropologist, 20(3), 735-743.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2015.11891780

Cerino, E. S. (2014). Relationships between academic motivation, self-efficacy, and academic

procrastination. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 19(4).
https://doi.org/10.24839/2164-8204.JN19.4.156

Chang, H. K. (2014). Perfectionism, anxiety, and academic procrastination: The role of intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation in college students. Master’s Thesis. California State University. [Link]

Choi, J. N., & Moran, S. V. (2009). Why not procrastinate? Development and validation of a new active
procrastination scale. The Journal of Social Psychology, 149(2), 195-212.
https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.149.2.195-212

Chu, A. H., & Choi, J. N. (2005). Rethinking procrastination: Positive effects of "active" procrastination
behavior on attitudes and performance. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145(3), 245-264.
https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.145.3.245-264

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-

2909.112.1.155

Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M, E.(2009). Psychological Testing and Assessment: An Introduction to Test
and Measurement. McGraw-Hill.

Correll, J., Mellinger, C., McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (2020). Avoid Cohen’s ‘Small’,‘Medium’, and
‘Large’for Power Analysis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(3), 200-207.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.12.009

Psychological Thought South-West University “Neofit Rilski”

2021, Vol. 14(2), 444-466
https://doi.org/10.37708/psyct.v14i2.603
The Tuckman Procrastination Scale: Psychometric Features 459

Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior. Plenum.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7

Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control behavior. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 53, 1024-1037. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1024

Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1991). A motivational approach to self-Integration in personality. In R. Dienstbier
(Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Perspectives on motivation (Vol. 38, pp. 237–288).
University of Nebraska Press.

Ellis, A. & Knaus, W. (1977). Overcoming procrastination. Institute for Rational Living.

Fernie, B. A., Bharucha, Z., Nikčević, A. V., & Spada, M. M. (2016). The unintentional procrastination
scale. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 35(2), 136-149.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10942-016-0247-x

Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. L., & McCown, W. G. (1995). Assessment of academic and everyday
procrastination. In Procrastination and Task Avoidance (pp. 47-70). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0227-6_3

Ferrari, J. R., Özer, B. U., & Demir, A. (2009). Chronic procrastination among Turkish adults: Exploring
decisional, avoidant, and arousal styles. The Journal of Social Psychology, 149(3), 402-408.
https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.149.3.402-408

Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and
nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156-168.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847202

Furlan, L., Heredia, D. E., Piemontesi, S. E., Illbele, A., & Sanchez Rosas, J. (2010). Adaptación de la
escala de procrastinación de Tuckman para estudiantes universitarios [Adaptation of the
Tuckman Procrastination Scale for university-level students]. In Congreso Internacional de
Investigación y Práctica Profesional en Psicología XVII Jornadas de Investigación Sexto
Encuentro de Investigadores en Psicología del MERCOSUR. Facultad de Psicología-
Universidad de Buenos Aires. [Link]

Furlan, L. A., Heredia, D. E., Piemontesi, S. E., & Tuckman, B. W. (2012). Análisis factorial
confirmatorio de la adaptación argentina de la escala de procrastinación de Tuckman (ATPS)
[Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Argentinean adaptation of the Tuckman Procrastination
Scale (TPS)]. Perspectivas en Psicología: Revista de Psicología y Ciencias Afines, 9(3), 142-
149.

Psychological Thought South-West University “Neofit Rilski”

2021, Vol. 14(2), 444-466
https://doi.org/10.37708/psyct.v14i2.603
Tisocco & Fernández Liporace 460

Gadermann, A. M., Guhn, M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2012). Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert-type and
ordinal item response data: A conceptual, empirical, and practical guide. Practical
Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 17(1), 3.

Gignac, G. E., & Szodorai, E. T. (2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers.
Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 74-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069

Grunschel, C., Patrzek, J., & Fries, S. (2013). Exploring different types of academic delayers: A latent
profile analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 225-233.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.09.014

Haghbin, M., McCaffrey, A., & Pychyl, T. A. (2012). The complexity of the relation between fear of
failure and procrastination. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 30(4),
249-263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10942-012-0153-9

Hensley, L. (2013). The fine points of working under pressure: active and passive procrastination
among college students. Doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University. [Link]

Hensley, L. C. (2016). The draws and drawbacks of college students' active procrastination. Journal of
College Student Development, 57(4), 465-471. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2016.0045

Joosten, T., & Cusatis, R. (2020). Online Learning Readiness. American Journal of Distance
Education, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2020.1726167

Katz, I., Eilot, K., & Nevo, N. (2014). “I’ll do it later”: Type of motivation, self-efficacy and homework
procrastination. Motivation and Emotion, 38(1), 111-119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-013-
9366-1

Kim, Y. E., Brady, A. C., & Wolters, C. A. (2020). College students' regulation of cognition, motivation,
behavior, and context: Distinct or overlapping processes?. Learning and Individual
Differences, 101872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101872

Kim, K. R., & Seo, E. H. (2015). The relationship between procrastination and academic performance:
A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 82, 26-33.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.038

Klassen, R. M., Krawchuk, L. L., & Rajani, S. (2008). Academic procrastination of undergraduates:
Low self-efficacy to self-regulate predicts higher levels of procrastination. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 33(4), 915-931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.07.001

Kline, R. (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Press.

Psychological Thought South-West University “Neofit Rilski”

2021, Vol. 14(2), 444-466
https://doi.org/10.37708/psyct.v14i2.603
The Tuckman Procrastination Scale: Psychometric Features 461

Klingsieck, K. B., & Fries, S. (2012). Allgemeine prokrastination. Entwicklung und validierung einer
deutschsprachigen kurzskala der General Procrastination Scale (Lay, 1986) [Procrastination:
Development and validation of the German Short Scale of the General Procrastination Scale
(Lay, 1986)]. Diagnostica, 58, 182-193. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000060

Klingsieck, K. B., Grund, A., Schmid, S., & Fries, S. (2013). Why students procrastinate: A qualitative
approach. Journal of College Student Development, 54(4), 397-412.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2013.0060

Lay, C. H. (1986) At last my research article on procrastination. Journal of Research in Personality, 20,
474-495. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(86)90127-3

Lee, E. (2005). The relationship of motivation and flow experience to academic procrastination in
university students. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166, 5-14.
https://doi.org/10.3200/GNTP.166.1.5-15

Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing
approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and
Bentler's (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320-341.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2

McCloskey, J. (2011). Finally, My Thesis on Academic Procrastination. Master’s Thesis. University of

Texas. http://hdl.handle.net/10106/9538

Meier, A., Reinecke, L., & Meltzer, C. E. (2016). “Facebocrastination”? Predictors of using Facebook
for procrastination and its effects on students’ well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 64,
65-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.011

Michinov, N., Brunot, S., Le Bohec, O., Juhel, J., & Delaval, M. (2011). Procrastination, participation,
and performance in online learning environments. Computers & Education, 56(1), 243-252.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.025

Milgram, N. A., Sroloff, B., & Rosenbaum, M. (1988). The procrastination of everyday life. Journal of
Research in Personality, 22, 197–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(88)90015-3

Muthén, B., & Kaplan, D. (1985). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of
non‐normal Likert variables. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38(2),
171-189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1985.tb00832.x

Orpen, C. (1998). The causes and consequences of academic procrastination: A research note.
Westminster Studies in Education, 21(1), 73-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/0140672980210107

Psychological Thought South-West University “Neofit Rilski”

2021, Vol. 14(2), 444-466
https://doi.org/10.37708/psyct.v14i2.603
Tisocco & Fernández Liporace 462

Pinxten, M., De Laet, T., Van Soom, C., Peeters, C., & Langie, G. (2019). Purposeful delay and
academic achievement. A critical review of the Active Procrastination Scale. Learning and
Individual Differences, 73, 42-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.04.010

Rakes, G. C., & Dunn, K. E. (2010). The Impact of Online Graduate Students' Motivation and Self-
Regulation on Academic Procrastination. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(1).

Rebetez, M. M. L., Rochat, L., & Van der Linden, M. (2015). Cognitive, emotional, and motivational
factors related to procrastination: A cluster analytic approach. Personality and Individual
Differences, 76, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.044

Reinecke, L., & Hofmann, W. (2016). Slacking off or winding down? An experience sampling study on
the drivers and consequences of media use for recovery versus procrastination. Human
Communication Research, 42(3), 441-461. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12082

Revelle, W. R. (2017). psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research. [Link]

Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5–12
(BETA). Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02

Schnauber-Stockmann, A., Meier, A., & Reinecke, L. (2018). Procrastination out of habit? The role of
impulsive versus reflective media selection in procrastinatory media use. Media Psychology,
21(4), 640-668. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2018.1476156

Senecal, C., Koestner, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (1995). Self-regulation and academic procrastination.
The Journal of Social Psychology, 135(5), 607-619.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1995.9712234

Seo, E. H. (2013). A comparison of active and passive procrastination in relation to academic

motivation. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 41(5), 777-786.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2013.41.5.777

Serhatoğlu, S. (2018). Procrastination: Testing a Self-determination Theory-based Model. Doctoral

dissertation. Middle East Technical University. [Link]

Sirois, F., & Pychyl, T. (2013). Procrastination and the priority of short‐term mood regulation:
Consequences for future self. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(2), 115-127.
https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12011

Sirois, F. M., Yang, S., & van Eerde, W. (2019). Development and validation of the General
Procrastination Scale (GPS-9): A short and reliable measure of trait procrastination.
Personality and Individual Differences, 146, 26-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.03.039

Psychological Thought South-West University “Neofit Rilski”

2021, Vol. 14(2), 444-466
https://doi.org/10.37708/psyct.v14i2.603
The Tuckman Procrastination Scale: Psychometric Features 463

Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency and cognitive-
behavioral correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(4), 503.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.31.4.503

Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential
self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 65.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65

Steel, P. (2010). Arousal, avoidant and decisional procrastinators: Do they exist?. Personality and
Individual Differences, 48(8), 926-934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.025

Stöber, J., & Joormann, J. (2001). Worry, procrastination, and perfectionism: Differentiating amount of
worry, pathological worry, anxiety, and depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25(1),
49-60. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026474715384

Stover, J. B., de la Iglesia, G., Rial Boubeta, A., & Fernandez-Liporace, M. (2012). Academic
Motivation Scale: adaptation and psychometric analyses for high school and college students.
Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 5, 71.
https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S33188

Stover, J. B., Uriel, F., Freiberg-Hoffmann, A., & Fernandez-Liporace, M. (2015). Estrategias de
aprendizaje y motivación académica en estudiantes universitarios de Buenos Aires [Learning
strategies and academic motivation in university-level students of Buenos Aires]. Psicodebate.
Psicología, Cultura y Sociedad, 15(1), 69-92. https://doi.org/10.18682/pd.v15i1.484

Tanaka, J. S. (1987). How big is big enough?: Sample size and goodness of fit in structural equation
models with latent variables. Child Development, 134-146. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130296

Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Longitudinal study of procrastination, performance, stress,
and health: The costs and benefits of dawdling. Psychological Science, 8(6), 454-458.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00460.x

Tuckman, B. W. (1991). The development and concurrent validity of the procrastination scale.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(2), 473-480.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164491512022

Uzun-Özer, B. U., Saçkes, M., & Tuckman, B. W. (2013). Psychometric properties of the Tuckman
Procrastination Scale in a Turkish sample. Psychological Reports, 113(3), 874-884.
https://doi.org/10.2466/03.20.PR0.113x28z7

Psychological Thought South-West University “Neofit Rilski”

2021, Vol. 14(2), 444-466
https://doi.org/10.37708/psyct.v14i2.603
 Tisocco & Fernández Liporace 464

Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., Senecal, C., & Vallieres, E. F. (1992). The
Academic Motivation Scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(4), 1003-1017.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164492052004025

Van Eerde, W. (2003). A meta-analytically derived nomological network of procrastination. Personality

and Individual Differences, 35(6), 1401-1418. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00358-6

Whitley, B., & Kite, M. (2013). Principles of Research in Behavioral Science. Routledge.

Yockey, R. D. (2016). Validation of the short form of the academic procrastination scale. Psychological
Reports, 118(1), 171-179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294115626825

Yurtseven, N., & Dogan, S. (2019). Structural relationships among academic procrastination,
academic motivation, and problem solving skill in prep class college students. Pegem Journal
of Education and Instruction, 9(3), 849-876.
https://doi.org/10.14527/pegegog.2019.027

Zhang, S., Liu, P., & Feng, T. (2019). To do it now or later: The cognitive mechanisms and neural
substrates underlying procrastination. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science,
10(4), e1492. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1492

Appendix
Tuckman Procrastination Scale – task wording and response format across studies
Tuckman, 1991 Furlan, 2010; 2012 Present Study
- USA - Argentina - Argentina
Durante su carrera un estudiante Durante su carrera, un estudiante usualmente debe
debe cumplir diferentes cumplir con distintas actividades como, por
actividades de aprendizaje, como ejemplo, leer textos, resolver ejercicios, prepararse
leer textos, resolver ejercicios, para rendir, hacer y presentar trabajos prácticos, y
prepararse para rendir, redactar y demás. Las siguientes frases describen algunas
Task
Not Available presentar trabajos, etc.; y las situaciones que les pasan a los estudiantes cuando
Wording
siguientes frases describen tienen que hacer estas actividades.
algunas cosas que les pasan a los No hay respuestas correctas o incorrectas.
estudiantes cuando deben Intentá responder lo más honestamente que
realizarlas. Indica con qué puedas en relación con tu experiencia. Indicá con
frecuencia esto te ocurre. qué frecuencia estas cosas te pasan.
4-point:
that's me for
Likert sure; that's my 5-point: 5-point:
Scale tendency; that's 1=“Nunca me ocurre” to Nunca me pasa; Casi nunca me pasa; A veces me
Wording not my 5=“Siempre me ocurre”. pasa; Casi siempre me pasa; Siempre me pasa.
tendency; that's
not me for sure.

Psychological Thought South-West University “Neofit Rilski”

2021, Vol. 14(2), 444-466
https://doi.org/10.37708/psyct.v14i2.603
The Tuckman Procrastination Scale: Psychometric Features 465

Tuckman Procrastination Scale – item wording across studies

Item
Tuckman, 1991 - USA Furlan et al., 2012 - Argentina Present Study - Argentina
No.
I needlessly delay finishing Demoro innecesariamente en Demoro innecesariamente en
1 jobs, even when they're terminar trabajos, incluso cuando terminar trabajos, incluso
important. son importantes. cuando son importantes.
Pospongo el comienzo de
I postpone starting in on things Pospongo el comenzar con cosas
2 cosas que no me gusta
I don't like to do. que no me gusta hacer.
hacer.
Cuando tengo una fecha
When I have a deadline, I wait Cuando tengo una fecha límite,
3 límite, espero hasta el último
till the last minute. espero hasta el último minuto.
minuto.
I keep putting off improving my Sigo posponiendo el mejorar mis Pospongo el mejorar mis
4
work habits. hábitos de trabajo. hábitos de trabajo o estudio.
Empiezo a trabajar de
Empiezo a trabajar de inmediato,
I get right to work, even on inmediato, incluso en
5 incluso en actividades que me
life's unpleasant chores. actividades que me resultan
resultan displacenteras.
displacenteras.
Me las arreglo para encontrar Me las arreglo para encontrar
I manage to find an excuse for
6 excusas para no hacer algunas excusas para no hacer
not doing something.
cosas. algunas cosas.
I put the necessary time into Destino el tiempo necesario a las Dedico el tiempo necesario a
7 even boring tasks, like actividades aunque me resulten las actividades aunque me
studying. aburridas. resulten aburridas.
I'm a time waster now but I Derrocho mucho tiempo y me Derrocho mucho tiempo y me
8 can't seem to do anything parece que no puedo hacer nada parece que no puedo hacer
about it. al respecto. nada al respecto.
Cuando algo me resulta muy
When something's not worth Cuando algo me resulta muy difícil
9 difícil de abordar, pienso en
the trouble, I stop. de abordar, pienso en postergarlo.
postergarlo.
I promise myself I'll do Me propongo que haré algo y Me propongo que haré algo y
10 something and then drag my luego no logro comenzarlo o luego no logro empezarlo o
feet. terminarlo. terminarlo.
Cuando hago un plan de
Whenever I make a plan of Siempre que hago un plan de
11 trabajo o de estudio, lo
action, I follow it. acción, lo sigo.
sigo.
Desearía encontrar una
I wish I could find an easy way Desearía encontrar una forma fácil
12 forma fácil de ponerme en
to get myself moving. de ponerme en movimiento.
movimiento.
Aunque me enoje conmigo
Even though I hate myself if I Aunque me enoje conmigo cuando
mismo/a cuando no hago las
13 don't get started, it doesn't get no hago las cosas, no logro
cosas de la facultad, me
me going. motivarme.
cuesta motivarme.
Termino las actividades
I always finish important jobs Siempre termino las actividades
14 importantes con tiempo de
with time to spare. importantes con tiempo de sobra.
sobra.
I get stuck in neutral even Aunque sé que es importante Aunque sé que es importante
15 though I know how important it comenzar con una actividad, me comenzar con una actividad,
is to get started. cuesta arrancar. me cuesta arrancar.

About the Authors

Franco Tisocco Psychologist, Ph. D. Fellow, is an Assistant Professor at the University of
Buenos Aires, Argentina. He serves currently as an Assistant researcher at the Psychology
Research Institute of the University of Buenos Aires, while undergoing through his Ph. D.
dissertation work.

Psychological Thought South-West University “Neofit Rilski”

2021, Vol. 14(2), 444-466
https://doi.org/10.37708/psyct.v14i2.603
Tisocco & Fernández Liporace 466

Mercedes Fernández Liporace Psychologist, Ph. D., is a Full Professor at the University of
Buenos Aires, Argentina. Currently, she serves as Head Researcher on Psycometrics at the
University of Buenos Aires and as Senior Researcher at CONICET (National Council of
Scientific and Technical Research - Argentina). She is the author of numerous articles and
has compiled several books on psychological assessment.

Corresponding Author's Contact Address [TOP]

Psychology Research Institute

Department of Psychology
University of Buenos Aires,
Lavalle 2353, C1052AAA,
Buenos Aires, Argentina.
E-mail: francotisocco@psi.uba.ar

Psychological Thought South-West University “Neofit Rilski”

2021, Vol. 14(2), 444-466
https://doi.org/10.37708/psyct.v14i2.603
 © 2021. This work is published under
http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ (the “License”).
Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this
content in accordance with the terms of the License.