Content uploaded by Martial Van der Linden
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Martial Van der Linden on Feb 07, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Validation of a French version of the Pure Procrastination Scale (PPS)
Marie My Lien Rebetez
a,
⁎, Lucien Rochat
a,b
, Philippe Gay
a,b, c
, Martial Van der Linden
a,b,d
a
Cognitive Psychopathology and Neuropsychology Unit, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
b
Swiss Center for Affective Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
c
Haute Ecole Pédagogique du Valais, St-Maurice, Switzerland
d
Cognitive Psychopathology Unit, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
Abstract
Procrastination is a widespread phenomenon that affects everyone's day-to-day life and interferes with the clinical treatment of several
psychopathological states. To assess this construct, Steel (2010) developed the Pure Procrastination Scale (PPS), a short scale intended to
capture the general notion of dysfunctional delay. The aim of the current study was to present a French version of this questionnaire. To this
end, the 12 items of the PPS were translated into French and data were collected from an online survey in a sample of 245 French-speaking
individuals from the general population. The results revealed that one item had problematic face validity; it was therefore removed.
Exploratory and confirmatory analyses performed on the resulting 11-item version of the French PPS indicated that the scale was composed
of two factors (“voluntary delay”and “observed delay”) depending on a common, higher-order construct (“general procrastination”). Good
internal consistency and test–retest reliability were found. External validity was supported by specific relationships with measures of
personality traits, impulsivity, and subjective well-being. The French PPS therefore presents satisfactory psychometric properties and may be
considered a reliable and valid instrument for research, teaching and clinical practice.
© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Procrastination, or to “voluntarily delay an intended
course of action despite expecting to be worse off for the
delay”[1], is conceptualized as a self-regulatory failure
[1–6], representative of low consciousness and high impul-
siveness (more specifically, high lack of perseverance, that is,
difficulties remaining focused on a task that may be boring or
difficult) [7]. A widespread phenomenon that affects every-
one's day-to-day life, procrastination has been associated with
negative consequences for performance, financial and career
success [8], physical health [9], mood and self-esteem [10],
subjective well-being [11], and the therapeutic process in
several psychopathological states [4].
However, there is still no clear consensus on how
procrastination should be measured, as reflected in the wide
variety of self-report measures of procrastination that exist. In
this context, Steel [12] conducted an online survey including
three key procrastination scales (Adult Inventory of Procras-
tination, AIP; Decisional Procrastination Questionnaire, DPQ;
General Procrastination Scale, GPS) [13–15] to highlight the
core items of procrastination. Factor analyses (exploratory and
confirmatory) revealed one factor that consistently explained
most of the variance in the three scales and that contained items
from all of them. On the basis of the top-loading items of this
factor, a 12-item scale called the Pure Procrastination Scale
(PPS) was developed. This short scale was intended to capture
dysfunctional delay and showed high internal consistency
(α= .92). In addition, it showed better convergent validity with
another measure of procrastination (Irrational Procrastination
Scale, IPS) [16], a measure of impulsivity (Susceptibility to
Temptation Scale, STS) [16], and a measure of subjective well-
being (Satisfaction with Life Scale, SWLS) [17] than the scales
upon which it was based (i.e., AIP, DPQ, and GPS). However,
the PPS's factor structure was not evaluated further.
There currently are no validated self-report measures of
procrastination in French, although accurate measures are
strongly needed to further improve the understanding, preven-
tion and treatment of procrastination. The aim of the present
study was thus to present a French version of the PPS to
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Comprehensive Psychiatry 55 (2014) 1442 –1447
www.elsevier.com/locate/comppsych
⁎Corresponding author at: Cognitive Psychopathology and Neuropsy-
chology Unit, FPSE, University of Geneva, Boulevard du Pont d'Arve, 40,
CH-1205 Geneva, Switzerland, Tel.: +41 22 379 93 44; fax: +41 22 379 93 59.
E-mail address: Marie.Rebetez@unige.ch (M.M.L. Rebetez).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2014.04.024
0010-440X/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
researchers, teachers and clinicians. More specifically, we
translated the 12 items of the PPS into French and evaluated its
factor structure, internal consistency and test–retest reliability.
We also evaluated the external validity of the French version of
the PPS by examining its relationships with measures of
personality traits, facets of impulsivity and subjective well-
being. A high level of procrastination was expected to be
specifically related to low conscientiousness (one of the
dimensions of personality), lack of perseverance (one of the
facets of impulsivity), and low subjective well-being, as
previously demonstrated in the literature [2,7,11,12].
2. Method
2.1. Participants and procedure
A total of 245 French-speaking individuals from the general
population (154 females and 91 males) participated in an
online survey. The mean age of the sample was 34.39 years
(SD = 9.54, range = 18–69) and the mean number of years of
education was 17.79 years (SD = 3.00, range = 9–26); 78%
were employed, 16% students, 3% unemployed, and 3%
retired. Participants were recruited by email through personal
contacts. The email contained information on the purpose of
the study and the consent terms, as well as a link to the survey.
The survey included personal information (socio-demographic
data), a French version of the Pure Procrastination Scale (PPS)
[12], and three supplementary questionnaires assessing person-
ality traits (short French version of the NEO-PI-R, NEO-60)
[18], impulsivity (short French version of the UPPS-P Impulsive
Behavior Scale, short UPPS-P) [19], and subjective well-being
(Satisfaction with Life Scale, SWLS) [17,20]. All participants
(n = 245) provided informed, voluntary consent and filled out
the French version of the PPS. A subgroup of 225 participants
also filled out the three supplementary questionnaires to
determine the external validity of the scale; of those 225
participants, 177 completed the French PPS twice (with an
interval of one week) to establish test-retest stability. The
study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty
of Psychology of the University of Geneva.
2.2. Instruments
The French version of the PPS [12] was developed as
follows: (a) The authors of this study translated the 12 items
of the original English version of the PPS into French; (b) an
English-French bilingual translated the French version back
into English; and (c) discrepancies between the original PPS
and the back-translation were discussed between the authors
and the back-translator until a satisfactory solution was found.
The 12 items of the PPS evaluate procrastination conceptualized
as a dysfunctional delay (e.g., “I am continually saying I'll do it
tomorrow”;“I delay making decisions until it's too late”)andare
to be answered on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = “very seldom or not
true of me”;2=“seldom true of me”;3=“sometimes true of
me”;4 = “often true of me”;5 = “very often true of true of me”).
The NEO-60 [18] is a 60-item questionnaire that assesses the five
main dimensions of personality (12 items per dimension):
neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness,
and conscientiousness. Answers are given on a Likert scale
ranging from 0 (“strongly disagree”)to4(“strongly agree”).
The UPPS-P [19] is a 20-item questionnaire that assesses five
different facets of impulsivity (four items per dimension):
negative urgency, positive urgency, (lack of) premeditation,
(lack of) perseverance, and sensation seeking. Answers are
given on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Iagreestrongly”)to4
(“I disagree strongly”). The SWLS [20] assesses subjective
well-being and is composed of five items rated on a Likert scale
ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”)to7(“strongly agree”).
3. Results
3.1. Factor structure
The data set (n = 245) was first divided through random
selection to allow two independent factor analysis techniques:
exploratory and confirmatory.
Out of the first data set of 123 participants retained for the
exploratory factor analysis (EFA), 3 had one missing value.
Pairwise deletion for missing data was used throughout the
analyses (as there were few and only randomly missing
data). The item-total correlations for the 12 items of the
French PPS ranged from .39 to .78, with a mean of .44. One
item, the 12th (“Putting things off till the last minute has cost
me money in the past”) was below the mean, suggesting that
this item did not measure the same construct as the other
items. Moreover, an examination of the score distribution
of this item revealed a floor effect (80% of participants
responding 1, “very seldom or not true of me”or 2, “seldom
true of me”to the 5-point scale for this item). Consequently, we
decided to remove item 12, assuming that this would yield a
scale with better face validity. Univariate normality was then
explored for the remaining 11 items of the French PPS by
calculating the skewness and kurtosis of each item. The results
showed that skewness ranged from −.24 to .94 and kurtosis
from −1.05 to .20, indicating no strong deviation from
normality (absolute values are considered to be extreme for
skewness greater than 3 and kurtosis greater than 20) [21].The
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy
[22] and Bartlett's test of sphericity [23] indicated that the 11
items were adequate for factor analysis (KMO = .86, Bartlett's
χ
2
= 801.08, pb.0001; a KMO between .50 and 1 and a
significant Bartlett's test of sphericity are considered appro-
priate for factor analysis) [24].
In order to determine how many factors to retain in factor
analysis, we used Velicer's minimum average partial (MAP)
test [25], which clearly suggested a two-factor structure, as
well as a parallel analysis [26], which also suggested a two-
factor structure (the first two eigenvalues of a principal
component analysis, 5.65 and 1.52, respectively, were situated
above the eigenvalues extracted from random samples).
Consequently, the correlation matrix was analyzed with an
1443M.M.L. Rebetez et al. / Comprehensive Psychiatry 55 (2014) 1442–1447
EFA computed with two factors, using the maximum
likelihood method (as the data were normally distributed),
and an oblique rotation (assuming that the factors were
correlated). This EFA explained 65% of the total variance
(factor1 = 51%andfactor2 = 14%)andallloadingswere
close to or greater than .40. Based on a factor loading cutoff
of .30 [27], factor 1 included items 1–8, and factor 2 items
9–11 (Table 1). Factor 1 was labeled “voluntary delay”;
items loading on this factor relate to the notion of voluntarily
putting off things or decisions. Factor 2 was labeled “observed
delay”; items loading on this factor relate to the observation of
running out of time, not getting things done on time, or not
being very good at meeting deadlines, which does not
necessarily imply the notion of voluntarily delaying. “Volun-
tary delay”and “observed delay”were moderately related
(r=.47,pb.001).
In the second data set of 122 participants retained for the
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), there were no missing
values. Skewness ranged from −.22 to 1.28 and kurtosis
from −1.08 to 1.18, indicating no strong deviation from
normality. We tested a higher-order factor model (Fig. 1)in
which two factors (i.e., “voluntary delay”and “observed
delay”) depended on a common, higher-order construct
labeled “general procrastination,”with a CFA using the
maximum likelihood method. This model was chosen because
its structure was able to account for the moderate relationship
between “voluntary delay”and “observed delay.”We also
tested two alternative factor models: a two-independent-factors
model and a one-factor model. Model fits were evaluated with
the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) [28]
and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) [29],
two indices claimed to be less sensitive to small misspecifica-
tions of the factor structure [30]. We also report the comparative
fit index (CFI) [31], a commonly used fit index. The com-
bination of these indices indicated an acceptable fit for the
higher-order factor model, with an RMSEA equal to .08 and an
SRMR equal to .06 (an RMSEA between .05 and .08 and an
SRMR between .05 and .10 indicate an acceptable fit) [32],as
well as a CFI equal to .94 (a value above .90 corresponds to an
acceptable fit) [27]. By contrast, the results showed that the two-
independent-factors model fits the data poorly (RMSEA = .10,
SRMR = .17, CFI = .90), as does the one-factor model
(RMSEA = .14, SRMR = .09, CFI = .81).
3.2. Test–retest reliability and construct validity
Among the 177 participants who completed the French PPS
twice, 3 had one missing value at time t, and 2 one missing
value at time t +7 days. Pearson correlations between the two
sessions were r=.87 (pb.001) for PPS-Tot, r=.86
(pb.001) for PPS-F1, and r=.81(pb.001) for PPS-F2,
whichemphasizedstrongtest–retest reliability. Among the
225 participants who filled out the three supplementary
questionnaires in addition to the French version of the PPS, 3
had one missing value for the French PPS. For the NEO-60, 1
participant had two missing values and 7 participants one
missing value. For the UPPS-P, 7 participants had one missing
value. There was no missing value for the SWLS. Means,
standard deviations, and internal consistency coefficients
(Cronbach's α) of the various questionnaires (total and/or
subscale scores) are presented in Table 2. The Cronbach's α
ranged from .77 to .90, indicating acceptable to good internal
consistency for these questionnaires (a value above .70 is
acceptable, above .80, good, and above .90, excellent) [33].
To evaluate the external validity of the French version of
the PPS, Pearson correlations were computed between the
scores of the French PPS (the total score and the subscale
scores for factors 1 and 2 were retained on the basis of the
higher-order factor model), the subscale scores of the NEO-
60, the subscale scores of the UPPS-P, and the total score of
the SWLS (Table 3). We also computed the true score
correlation (rtrue) by taking the reliability of the scales into
account (Table 3). Concerning the correlations between the
total score on the French PPS (PPS-Tot) and the external
validity measures, conscientiousness was the strongest
dimension of personality related to PPS-Tot and lack of
perseverance the strongest facet of impulsivity. A significant
correlation was also found between subjective well-being
and PPS-Tot. Concerning the correlations computed be-
tween the subscale scores of factors 1 (PPS-F1) and 2 of the
French PPS (PPS-F2) and the external validity measures, a
significant correlation was found between UPPS-P lack of
premeditation and PPS-F1 but not with PPS-F2. On the other
hand, a significant correlation was found between UPPS-P
sensation seeking and PPS-F2 but not with PPS-F1.
4. Discussion
The aim of this study was to validate a French version of the
PPS and thus provide French-speaking researchers, teachers
and clinicians with a self-report measure of procrastination.
Table 1
Loadings of the exploratory factor analysis.
# Item Factor 1 Factor 2
1 I delay making decisions until it's too late .36 .15
2 Even after I make a decision I delay acting
upon it
.65 .08
3 I waste a lot of time on trivial matters before
getting to the final decisions
.70 .08
4 In preparation for some deadlines, I often
waste time by doing other things
.67 .15
5 Even jobs that require little else except sitting
down and doing them, I find that they seldom
get done for days
.89 −.07
6 I often find myself performing tasks that I
had intended to do days before
.80 .10
7 I am continually saying “I'll do it tomorrow”.87 −.11
8 I generally delay before starting on work I
have to do
.85 −.07
9 I find myself running out of time .17 .52
10 I don't get things done on time −.09 1.04
11 I am not very good at meeting deadlines .06 .70
Values greater than .30 are in bold.
1444 M.M.L. Rebetez et al. / Comprehensive Psychiatry 55 (2014) 1442–1447
Item level, factor structure, internal consistency, test–retest
reliability and external validity were examined.
Item-level analysis of the 12 translated items of the PPS
indicated that item 12 (“Putting things off till the last minute
has cost me money in the past”) did not measure the same
construct as the other items. Indeed, while items 1–11
evaluate the general notion of dysfunctional delay, item 12
seems to capture something more specific (i.e., the financial
consequences of the delay) and was under-represented in our
sample. This item was therefore removed.
EFA indicated that the resulting 11-item version of the
French PPS was two-dimensional. CFA showed that a higher-
order factor model fit the data, whereas a two-independent-
factors model and a one-factor model did not. This implies that
the 11-item version of the French PPS is composed of two
procrastination-related factors (“voluntary delay”and
“observed delay”), which depend on a common, higher-
order construct of procrastination (“general procrastination”).
“Voluntary delay”(i.e., factor 1) relates to the notion of
voluntarily putting off actions or decisions and “observed
delay”(i.e., factor 2) to the observation of running out of time,
not getting things done on time, or not being very good at
meeting deadlines, which does not necessarily imply the
notion of voluntarily delaying.
These results suggest that the measurement of procrasti-
nation should focus on the distinction between two pro-
crastination dimensions rather than one dimension. This is in
accordance with some earlier authors who conceptualized
procrastination as a multidimensional rather than a one-
dimensional construct [34]. However, these results also
suggest that the two procrastination dimensions are moder-
ately related to each other and depend on a more general
construct of procrastination. This is in line with Steel's
statement that the PPS (although he did not strictly evaluate
its factor structure) reflects a general procrastination factor
consistent with the notion of dysfunctional delay [12].
The internal consistency of the various scales and test–
retest reliability indices were good. Specific relationships
were highlighted between the total score on the French PPS
and measures of personality traits, impulsivity, and subjec-
tive well-being. Low conscientiousness, lack of persever-
ance and low subjective well-being were closely related to a
high level of “general procrastination”(i.e., total score), as
previously demonstrated in the literature [2,7,11,12]. These
relationships indicate that the French PPS possesses good
external validity. In addition, relevant links emerged between
the subscale scores of the French PPS and the external validity
measures. More specifically, “voluntary delay”(i.e., subscale
score of factor 1) was specifically related to greater lack of
premeditation (i.e., tendency not to take into account the
consequences of an act before engaging in that act) and
“observed delay”(i.e., subscale score of factor 2) to higher
sensation seeking (i.e., tendency to enjoy and pursue activities
Fig. 1. Higher-order factor model in which factors 1 and 2 depend on a common, higher-order construct. Circles reflect latent variables; squares, manifest
variables; arrows, factor loadings. All factor loadings are statistically significant at pb.001.
Table 2
Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach's αof questionnaires.
Mean SD α
PPS
Total 2.66 .75 .89
Factor 1 2.77 .82 .89
Factor 2 2.36 .88 .79
NEO-60
Neuroticism 1.96 .75 .90
Extraversion 2.58 .56 .81
Openness to experience 2.64 .60 .82
Agreeableness 2.50 .55 .78
Conscientiousness 2.77 .54 .84
UPPS-P
Negative urgency 2.16 .67 .85
Positive urgency 2.49 .58 .77
Lack of premeditation 1.94 .05 .81
Lack of perseverance 1.69 .51 .84
Sensation seeking 2.48 .48 .85
SWLS 5.04 1.29 .86
PPS = Pure Procrastination Scale; NEO-60 = short French version of the
NEO-PI-R; UPPS-P = short French version of the UPPS-P Impulsive
Behavior Scale; SWLS = Satisfaction With Life Scale.
1445M.M.L. Rebetez et al. / Comprehensive Psychiatry 55 (2014) 1442–1447
that are exciting and openness to trying new experiences). In
other words, voluntarily putting off actions or decisions may
reflect a preference to act on the spur of the moment,
disregarding the longer-term consequences of delaying. On the
other hand, running out of time, not getting things done on
time, or not being very good at meeting deadlines may rather
arise out of a preference to pursue stimulating experiences
instead of accomplishing the task at hand. This suggests that
each PPS subscale refers to a specific, distinct content. It
should be noted here that the relationship between sensation
seeking and “observed delay”indicates that at least some
aspects of procrastination are related to arousal-based
personality traits, as suggested by Ferrari [35], for example.
However, the absence of any relationship with the other scores
on the French PPS also supports some studies indicating that
sensation seeking is not central to the construct of procrasti-
nation [12,36]. Nonetheless, the French PPS allows a choice
between the use of the total score or the more specific factor
scores, depending on the goal of the research or clinical
application (e.g., focus on the core construct of procrastination
or on more specific procrastination-related aspects such as
mechanisms associated with the sensation seeking dimension
of impulsivity).
A limitation on the study might be our sample, in which the
gender ratio was imbalanced (37% men), the mean age rather
young (m=34.39,SD = 9.54), and the mean number of years
of education rather high (m=17.79,SD = 3.00). The French
PPS should therefore be used cautiously in populations with
different demographic characteristics, and further research
should examine the validity of this questionnaire in different
samples, including clinical populations.
In conclusion, the adapted French PPS has been shown to
possess satisfactory psychometric properties and may
therefore be a valuable screening instrument for researchers,
teachers and clinicians in a French-speaking context.
References
[1] Steel P. The nature of procrastination: a meta-analytic and theoretical review
of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychol Bull 2007;133:65-94.
[2] Costa PT, McCrae RR. The NEO personality inventory-Revised.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1992.
[3] Lay CH. Explaining lower-order traits through higher-order factors: the
case of trait procrastination, conscientiousness, and the specificity
dilemma. Eur J Pers 1997;11:267-78.
[4] Pychyl TA, Flett GL. Procrastination and self-regulatory failure: an
introduction to the special issue. J Ration Emo Cogn Behav Ther
2012;30:203-12.
[5] Schouwenburg HC. Academic procrastination: theoretical notions,
measurement, and research. In: Schouwenburg HC, Lay CH, Pychyl
TA, & Ferrari JR, editors. Counseling the procrastinator in academic
settings. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2004.
p. 3-17.
[6] Tice DM, Baumeister RF. Longitudinal study of procrastination,
performance, stress, and health: the costs and benefits of dawdling.
Psychol Sci 1997;8:454-8.
[7] Dewitte S, Schouwenburg HC. Procrastination, temptations, and incentives:
the struggle between the present and the future in procrastinators and the
punctual. Eur J Pers 2002;16:469-89.
[8] Mehrabian A. Beyond IQ: broad-based measurement of individual
success potential or “emotional intelligence”. Genet Soc Gen Psychol
2000;126:133-239.
[9] Sirois F. "I'll look after my health, later": a replication and extension of
the procrastination-health model with community-dwelling adults.
Pers Individ Differ 2007;43:15-26.
[10] Van Eerde W. A meta-analytically derived nomological network of
procrastination. Pers Individ Differ 2003;35:1401-18.
[11] Sirois FM, Tosti N. Lost in the moment? An investigation of
procrastination, mindfulness, and well-being. J Ration Emo Cogn Behav
Ther 2012;30:237-48.
[12] Steel P. Arousal, avoidant and decisional procrastinators: do they
exist? Pers Individ Differ 2010;48:926-34.
[13] McCown W, Johnson J. Validation of the Adult Inventory of
Procrastination. Paper presented at: The 97th Annual Convention of
the American Psychological Association; New Orleans, LA; 1989.
[14] Mann L, Burnett P, Radford M, Ford S. The Melbourne Decision
Making Questionnaire: an instrument for measuring patterns for coping
with decisional conflict. J Behav Decis Making 1997;10:1-19.
Table 3
Observed and true score correlations between external validity measures and PPS scores.
PPS-Tot PPS-F1 PPS-F2
r(95% CI) rtrue r(95% CI) rtrue r(95% CI) rtrue
NEO-60
Neuroticism .38⁎(.26 .48) .42⁎.38⁎(.26 .48) .42⁎24⁎(.11 .36) .28⁎
Extraversion −.08 (−.21 .05) −.09 −.06 (−.19 .07) −.07 −.10 (−.22 .04) −.11
Openness to experience .23⁎(.11 .35) .26⁎.21⁎(.08 .33) .24⁎.20⁎(.07 .32) .24⁎
Agreeableness −.22⁎(−.34 −.09) −.24⁎−.20⁎(−.32 −.07) −.22⁎−.17⁎(−.29 −.04) −.20⁎
Conscientiousness −.61⁎(−.68 −.52) −.68⁎−.59⁎(−.67 −.49) −.65⁎−.43⁎(−.53 −.32) −.51⁎
UPPS-P
Negative urgency .25⁎(.12 .37) .30⁎.22⁎(.10 .34) .27⁎.21⁎(.08 .33) .27⁎
Positive urgency .21⁎(.09 .34) .26⁎.21⁎(.08 .33) .25⁎.15⁎(.02 .28) .19⁎
Lack of premeditation .21⁎(.08 .33) .25⁎.21⁎(.08 .33) .26⁎.12 (−.01 .25) .16
Lack of perseverance .37⁎(.25 .48) .45⁎.34⁎(.22 .45) .41⁎.31⁎(.19 .43) .40⁎
Sensation seeking .11 (−.02 .24) .14 .07 (−.06 .20) .08 .18⁎(.05 .30) .23⁎
SWLS −.23⁎(−.35 −.11) −.27⁎−.23⁎(−.35 −
.11) −.27⁎−.15⁎(−.28 −.02) −.18⁎
PPS = Pure Procrastination Scale; NEO-60 = short French version of the NEO-PI-R; UPPS-P = short French version of the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale;
SWLS = Satisfaction With Life Scale; rtrue = correlation corrected for measurement error.
⁎0 not included in the 95% confidence interval (CI).
1446 M.M.L. Rebetez et al. / Comprehensive Psychiatry 55 (2014) 1442–1447
[15] Lay CH. Working to schedule on personal projects: an assessment of
person-project characteristics and trait procrastination. J Soc Behav
Pers 1990;5:91-103.
[16] Steel P. The measurement and nature of procrastination. . Unpublished
PhD thesis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota; 2002.
[17] Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The Satisfaction With
Life Scale. J Pers Assess 1985;49:71-5.
[18] Aluja A, Rossier J, Garcia LF, Verardi S. The 16PF5 and the NEO-PI-
R in Spanish and Swiss samples: a cross-cultural comparison. J Individ
Diff 2005;26:53-62.
[19] Billieux J,Rochat L, Ceschi G, Carré A, Offerlin-Meyer I, Defeldre A-C,
et al. Validation of a short French version of the UPPS-P Impulsive
Behavior Scale. Compr Psychiatry 2012;53:609-15.
[20] Blais MR, Vallerand RJ, Pelletier LG, Brière NM. L'échelle de
satisfaction de vie: validation canadienne française du “Satisfaction
With Life Scale”. Can J Behav Sci 1989;21:210-23.
[21] Weston R, Gore PA. A brief guide to structural equation modeling.
Couns Psychol 2006;34:719-51.
[22] Kaiser HF, Rice J. Little Jiffy, Mark IV. Educ Psychol Meas
1974;34:111-7.
[23] Bartlett MS. A note on the multiplying factors for various chi-square
approximations. J R Stat Soc 1954;16:296-8.
[24] Kline P. An easy guide to factor analysis. New York: Routledge; 1994.
[25] Velicer WF. Determining the number of components from the matrix
of partial correlations. Psychometrika 1976;41:321-7.
[26] Horn JL. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor
analysis. Psychometrika 1965;30:179-85.
[27] Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New
York: Guilford Press; 2005.
[28] Steiger JH. Structural model evaluation and modification: an interval
estimation approach. Multivar Behav Res 1990;25:173-80.
[29] Bentler PM. EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA:
Multivariate Software; 1995.
[30] Beauducel A, Wittmann WW. Simulation study on fit indexes in CFA
based on data with slightly distorted simple structure. Struct Eq Model
2005;12:41-75.
[31] Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull
1990;107:238-46.
[32] Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Müller H. Evaluating the fit of
structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive
goodness-of-fit measures. Methods Psychol Res 2003;8:23-74.
[33] George D, Mallery P. SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide
and reference 12.0 update. 5th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson Education;
2005.
[34] Díaz-Morales JF, Ferrari JR, Díaz K, Argumedo D. Factorial structure
of three procrastination scales with a Spanish adult population. Eur J
Psychol Assess 2006;22:132-7.
[35] Ferrari JR. Psychometric validation of two procrastination inventories
for adults: arousal and avoidance measures. J Psychopathol Behav
1992;14:97-110.
[36] Simpson WK, Pychyl TA. In search of the arousal procrastinator:
investigating the relation between procrastination, arousal-based
personality traits and beliefs about procrastination motivations. Pers
Individ Differ 2009;47:906-11.
1447M.M.L. Rebetez et al. / Comprehensive Psychiatry 55 (2014) 1442–1447
