Content uploaded by Guadalupe Germano
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Guadalupe Germano on Jun 10, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Adaptación argentina de la Escala de Foco Temporal. Evidencias de validez de constructo… 81
PERSPECTIVAS EN PSICOLOGÍA – Vol. 19 – Número 1 – junio/noviembre 2022 – (pp. 81-102)
Adaptación argentina de la Escala de Foco Temporal. Evidencias de validez de
constructo, confiabilidad y validez externa
Guadalupe Germano
1
María Elena Brenlla
2
Resumen
El foco temporal es la atención que las personas dedican a pensar en el pasado, presente
y futuro. El objetivo de este estudio fue realizar la adaptación argentina de la Escala de
Foco Temporal y analizar sus propiedades psicométricas. Se hicieron dos estudios.
Primero, se puso a prueba la estructura factorial, consistencia interna y confiabilidad
(n=190). Para evaluar la validez externa se utilizaron el ZTPI, la escala de autocontrol y
la de malestar psicológico K-10. Entre los principales resultados, el análisis paralelo
sugirió la estructura de tres factores que explicaron el 72% de la varianza total (KMO=.80;
χ2(66)=1261.7; p<.001) y el análisis factorial semi-confirmatorio arrojó medidas de ajuste
adecuadas (CFI=.97, RMSEA=.05). La confiabilidad se probó utilizando los coeficientes
omega de McDonald y alfa de Cronbach (valores de .81 a .89). Las correlaciones halladas
permiten afirmar que el foco temporal pasado se relaciona con el ZTPI pasado negativo
y K-10 (r=.58 y .46; p<.01); el foco presente con el ZTPI presente fatalista, K-10 y
autocontrol (r=-.20, -.23 y .22; p<.01); y el foco futuro con la K-10 y ZTPI futuro (r=.21
y .22; p<.01). En el segundo estudio (n=660) se realizó un análisis factorial confirmatorio
con la estructura de tres factores, aunque hubo problemas con el ítem 10. Después de
eliminarlo, el modelo con once ítems mostró un ajuste aceptable (χ2/gl=4.27, CFI=.95,
GFI=.95, NNFI=.94, RMSEA=.07). Los coeficientes de consistencia interna fueron
superiores a 0.76. En conclusión, este estudio proporciona una versión argentina
aceptable de la Escala de Foco Temporal.
Palabras clave: tiempo, foco temporal, perspectiva temporal, adaptación, análisis
factorial confirmatorio
Argentinian adaptation of the Temporal Focus Scale. Evidence of construct
validity, reliability, and external validity
Abstract
1
CONICET, Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina. E- Mail: guadalupe_germano@uca.edu.ar
2
Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina. E- Mail: bren@uca.edu.ar
Adaptación argentina de la Escala de Foco Temporal. Evidencias de validez de constructo… 82
PERSPECTIVAS EN PSICOLOGÍA – Vol. 19 – Número 1 – junio/noviembre 2022 – (pp. 81-102)
Temporal focus is the attention individuals devote to thinking about the past, present, and
future. The goal of this study was to validate the Temporal Focus Scale for Argentina and
analyze its psychometric properties. Two studies were carried out. Firstly, the factor
structure, internal consistency, reliability, and external validity were tested (n=190). To
assess external validity, the ZTPI, the self-control scale and the psychological distress
scale K-10 were used. Among the main results, the parallel analysis suggested the
structure of three factors that explained 72% of the total variance (KMO=.80;
χ2(66)=1261.7; p<.001) and the semi-confirmatory factor analysis yielded measures proper
setting (CFI=.97, RMSEA=.05). Reliability was tested using McDonald's omega and
Cronbach's alpha coefficients (values from .81 to .89). The correlations showed that past
focus is related to ZTPI negative past and K-10 (r=.58 and .46; p<.01); present focus with
ZTPI fatalistic present, K-10 and self-control (r =-. 20, -.23 and .22; p<.01); and future
focus with K-10 and ZTPI future (r = .21 and .22; p<.01). In the second study (n=660) a
confirmatory factor analysis was performed with the three-factor structure, although there
were problems with item 10. After removing item 10, the model with eleven items showed
an acceptable fit (χ2/gl =4.27, CFI=.95, GFI=.95, NNFI=.94, RMSEA=.07). The internal
consistency coefficients were higher than 0.76. In conclusion, this study provides an
acceptable Argentinian version of the Temporal Focus Scale.
Keywords: time, temporal focus, time perspective, adaptation, confirmatory factor
analysis
Introduction
The concept of time is
fundamental to structure people´s lives.
Objective time perception is related to
the ability to anticipate future situations
and plan behaviors (e.g.: driving
behaviors, the calculation of time to be
on time for an appointment, and career
planning). Moreover, subjective time is
related to the way in which people
perceive time passing, this is, how short
or long a certain period is perceived;
also, time perspective, which includes
the subjective attitude from which a
person sees his current situation
including his perception of past and
future (Grondin, 2019). This study
focuses on subjective time which is
considered a personality aspect related to
many variables and underlying other
processes and dimensions of people´s
lives. For example, it has been related to
Adaptación argentina de la Escala de Foco Temporal. Evidencias de validez de constructo… 83
PERSPECTIVAS EN PSICOLOGÍA – Vol. 19 – Número 1 – junio/noviembre 2022 – (pp. 81-102)
academic efficacy (Chishima et al.,
2017); anxiety and depression (McKay
et al., 2017); psychological distress
(Walg et al., 2020); and alcohol use
(McKay et al., 2012). This background
shows that subjective time has
psychological consequences and should
be studied deeply.
Consequently, time has been a
relevant topic in psychological research.
Nowadays there are a wide variety of
theories and different kind of
instruments to measure psychological
time. Among the most well-known
scales, we can find the Future Anxiety
Scale (Zaleski, 1996), the Temporal
Orientation Scale (TOS; Holman &
Silver, 1998) and the Zimbardo Time
Perspective Inventory (ZTPI; Zimbardo
& Boyd, 1999). These questionnaires
have been used widely, but there is still a
long way to go because most of the
literature focuses on one predominant
time orientation and many studies focus
on the future frame (Ortuño et al., 2017).
Moreover, some scales have shown
psychometric anomalies and there are
some critics towards them (Adams,
2009).
In 2009 Shipp et al. developed a
new measure: The Temporal Focus Scale
(TFS). Temporal focus (TF) is defined as
“the attention individuals devote to
thinking about the past, present, and
future, and the concept is important
because it affects how people
incorporate perceptions about past
experiences, current situations, and
future expectations into their attitudes,
cognitions, and behavior” (p.1). It
describes the extent to which people
characteristically devote their attention
to perceptions of the past, present, and
future (Bluedorn, 2002). TF has a
particular emphasis on cognitions and,
although it may seem similar, it differs
from the concepts of time perspective,
which includes a combination of affect
and cognition towards time frames
(Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999); and temporal
attitude, which is an affective component
and refers to one’s attitude towards the
content of their past, present, and future
(Nuttin, 1985).
The construct of TF is framed
within the socio-cognitive theory. It
refers to a cognitive aspect, thinking
about a determine time, and affects
attitudes, decisions, behaviors, affect,
and motivation (Bandura, 2001;
Carstensen et al., 1999; Fung &
Carstensen, 2006). TF is related to time
perspective, personality traits, life
satisfaction and positive affect, career
Adaptación argentina de la Escala de Foco Temporal. Evidencias de validez de constructo… 84
PERSPECTIVAS EN PSICOLOGÍA – Vol. 19 – Número 1 – junio/noviembre 2022 – (pp. 81-102)
adaptability job related behavior, and
risk-taking behavior (Chishima, McKay,
& Murakami, 2017; McKay et al., 2012;
Rush & Grouzet, 2012; Shipp et al.,
2009; Strobel et al., 2013; Zacher, 2016).
To develop the TFS Shipp et al.
(2009) carried out four studies with four
different samples. First, they evaluated
the factor structure of TFS. Secondly,
they confirmed the factor structure and
compared TFS with another measures,
analyzing TFS nomological validity.
Third, they studied external validity
relating TFS with another temporal
measures. Gathered together, the studies
resulted in a valid and reliable new
measure of 12 items with a 7-point Likert
scale. TFS measures three dimensions of
temporal focus: past, current, and future.
There are many benefits of this scale in
relationship to previous measures of
psychological time. Among them, the
items are written in a simple way,
avoiding positive or negative evaluations
about the different time frames. Also, the
scale is shorter than ZTPI (56 items) and
TOS (28 items). Thus, avoiding practical
obstacles resulting from long scales.
Most importantly, previous scales
showed psychometric weaknesses, such
as low reliability estimates, but TFS has
shown very good psychometric
evidence.
Two adaptations of the TFS were
made. The first, in Ireland by McKay
et al. (2012), and the second in Japan by
Chishima et al. (2017). The three
versions, American, Irish, and Japanese
reported acceptable psychometric
evidence. A resume of the three studies
is presented in table 1. Among the most
relevant aspects, the American version
has 12 items, but the other two have 11
items because in both studies there were
problems with item 10 which was
eliminated. Regarding internal
consistency, the Irish version reported an
unacceptable value of Cronbach Alpha
for current focus (α=.58). The three
studies did confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) that showed acceptable fit
indices. Moreover, TFS has been used in
Canada (Rush & Grouzet, 2012),
Germany (Strobel et al., 2013) and
Australia (Zacher, 2016).
Table 1.
Revision of the different versions of the Temporal Focus Scale
Authors,
country, and
language
Sample
Analyses
Internal consistency
Adaptación argentina de la Escala de Foco Temporal. Evidencias de validez de constructo… 85
PERSPECTIVAS EN PSICOLOGÍA – Vol. 19 – Número 1 – junio/noviembre 2022 – (pp. 81-102)
- Shipp et al.
(2009)
- United States
- English
Study 1: 476 adults
from 25 to 52 years
old
- CFA (3 factors, 12 items)
Past: α = .89
Current: α =.74
Future: α =.86
Study 2: 389 adults
from 18 to 47 years
old
- CFA (3 factors, 12 items)
- Convergent validity (ZTPI
and Temporal Orientation
Scale)
Past: α = .88
Current: α =.78
Future: α= .86
Study 3: 195 adults
from 19 to 55 years
old
- Discriminant validity
(temporal depth,
polychronicity, hurriedness,
and pacing)
Past: α = .91
Current: α =.80
Future: α =.82
Study 4: 611 adults
from 18 to 77 years
old
- CFA (3 factors, 12 items)
- Test-retest
Past: α = .90
Current: α =.83
Future: α =.89
- McKay et al.
(2012)
- Ireland
- English
731 school students
- Principal component analysis
- Parallel Analysis
- CFA (3 factors, 11 items,
item 10 was eliminated)
- Associations with other scale
(Adolescent Alcohol
Involvement Scale)
Past: α = .77
Current: α = .58
Future: α = .73
- Chishima et al.
(2017)
- Japan
- Japanese
977 adults from 18
to 24 years old
- CFA (3 factors, 11 items,
item 10 was eliminated)
- External validity (ZTPI and
Time Attitude Scale)
- Test-retest
Past: α = .89/ ω = .89
Current: α =.73/ ω = .74
Future: α =.79/ ω = .81
Current study
Up to our knowledge, there are
not Spanish versions of the TFS.
Considering all the goodness of this
scale, we think it is relevant to have a
version in Spanish language.
Specifically, the justification of doing an
Argentinian adaptation lies in the good
psychometric properties reported in
previous studies (Chishima et al., 2017;
McKay et al., 2012; Shipp et al., 2009)
in comparison to other measures of
psychological time such as ZTPI or TOS
which have shown psychometric
problems (Adams, 2009). Moreover, the
TFS could be used in applied
psychology, for example with clinical
purposes, because it has shown to be
related to anxiety, depression, and
alcohol use, among others. So, TFS may
have practical implication which shows
how useful and benefit it would be to
have a local version of the scale.
The main objective of this article
was to adapt the TFS for Argentina,
including the translation and evidence of
construct validity, reliability, and
external validity. Regarding the last
objective, this study intended to describe
the association of temporal focus and
time perspective, self-control, and
psychological distress. It is hypothesized
that the operationalization of the
temporal focus proposed by Shipp et al.
Adaptación argentina de la Escala de Foco Temporal. Evidencias de validez de constructo… 86
PERSPECTIVAS EN PSICOLOGÍA – Vol. 19 – Número 1 – junio/noviembre 2022 – (pp. 81-102)
(2009) is verified in Argentina. Also,
referring to the external criteria
measures, it is hypothesized there is an
association between TFS and ZTPI, self-
control and psychological distress.
Specifically, past focus is positively and
strongly related to ZTPI past negative
and psychological distress, and
positively and weakly related to ZTPI
past positive. Current focus is positively
related to ZTPI present hedonistic and
present fatalistic, and negatively related
to psychological distress. Future focus is
positively related with ZTPI future,
psychological distress, and self-control.
For these purposes, the
International Test Commission (ITC,
2017) recommendations for translation
and adaptation of questionnaires were
followed. Firstly, permission to validate
the questionnaire was given by the
original author (A. Shipp, personal
communication May 21, 2020). Then,
for the linguistic adaptation, two
independent translations were done and
the agreement between evaluators was
analyzed, arriving to a final version.
After doing a pilot test with 50 university
students, two studies were carried out. In
Study 1 factor structure, internal
consistency, reliability, and external
validity were tested. In study 2 a new
sample was tested, and CFA was
conducted to confirm the structure of the
scale. Reliability was also tested.
This study was part of a major
project ran with a scholarship of Consejo
Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas
y Técnicas (CONICET) and was
approved by its committee. There was
absence of conflicts of interest.
Study 1
The aim of Study 1 was twofold:
a) to obtain evidence of construct
validity for the translated version of
TFS; and b) to provide evidence of
internal structure and external validity of
Argentinian TFS.
Method
Participants
Intentional and non-probabilistic
sampling was used. The final sample
consisted of 190 participants (55%
female), aged from 18 to 56 years old
(M=36.68; SD=12.86), living in different
zones of Argentina (34% from the city of
Buenos Aires, 41% from the
surroundings of Buenos Aires, and 25%
from another cities from Argentina).
Concerning the educational level, 42%
completed the higher level, 36% the
intermediate level and 22% had
postgraduate studies. Exclusion criteria
included people in psychiatric treatment
Adaptación argentina de la Escala de Foco Temporal. Evidencias de validez de constructo… 87
PERSPECTIVAS EN PSICOLOGÍA – Vol. 19 – Número 1 – junio/noviembre 2022 – (pp. 81-102)
and people aged under 18 or above 65
years old. Also, participants should be
living in Argentina. Participation was
voluntary, participants did not receive
any compensation, and the
confidentiality of the responses was
guaranteed.
Measures
Temporal Focus Scale (TFS; Shipp et al.
(2009). To assess temporal focus we
used an Argentinian translation of the
TFS. It consists of 12 items rated on a 7-
point Likert scale (1=never;
3=sometimes; 5=frequently;
7=constantly). It has three subscales,
each composed by 4 items: past focus,
current focus, and future focus. The
original version of the scale presented
acceptable reliability of each subscale
(α=.73 to α=.91) and showed a good fit
in the CFA (RMSEA=.07; CFI=.96;
TLI=.95; SRMR=.06).
Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory
(ZTPI; Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). We
used the short Argentinian version of the
scale (Germano & Brenlla, 2020). It
consists of 29 items that assess five
domains of time perspective: present
hedonistic, which reflects a hedonistic,
risk-taking attitude toward life; present
fatalistic, that is related to current
experiences generating anxiety and fear;
past negative, which reflects a general
negative, aversive view of the past; past
positive, that reflects a warm attitude
towards the past; and future, which
reflects a general future orientation.
Responses include a five-point Likert
scale (from 1=very untrue to 5=very
true). The Argentinian adaptation of the
inventory showed acceptable reliability
of each domain (α=0.60 to α=0.84).
Brief Self-Control Scale (BSCS;
Tangney et al., 2004). Self-control was
assessed using the Argentinian BSCS
(Garrido et al., 2018). The scale contains
13 items ranked on a five-point scale
(from 1=not at all to 5=very much). It is
a self-report unidimensional scale which
assesses the global capacity of self-
control. High scores indicate higher
levels of self-control. The Argentinian
BSCS showed acceptable reliability
(ω=0.81).
Psychological Distress Scale (K-10;
Kessler et al., 2002). We used the
Argentinian version of the K-10 (Brenlla
& Aranguren, 2010). Respondents are
asked how much over the past month
they experienced the symptoms
presented in the 10 items ranked with a
five-point Likert-type response format
(from 1=none of the time to 5=all the
time). It is a self-report unidimensional
Adaptación argentina de la Escala de Foco Temporal. Evidencias de validez de constructo… 88
PERSPECTIVAS EN PSICOLOGÍA – Vol. 19 – Número 1 – junio/noviembre 2022 – (pp. 81-102)
scale which assesses the risk of
presenting non-specific psychological
distress - such as symptoms of anxiety or
depression- during the last month. Low
scores indicate lower levels of
psychological distress. The Argentinian
adaptation showed satisfactory evidence
of reliability (α=.80).
Data Collection
Participants were contacted by e-
mail or social media. They received a
web link. After reading and accepting the
informed consent, they were derived to
the questionnaires. All the responses
were anonymous. The data was collected
between September and October 2019.
Firstly, they were presented with an
informed consent where the general
purpose of the research was indicated, it
was made explicit that their participation
was anonymous and that the data would
be used only for academic purposes.
Also, they received an email from one of
the researchers in charge for those
participants who wanted more
information. Once the person accepted
the consent, he began to complete the
self-report questionnaires in the
following order: sociodemographic data
questionnaire, TFS, K-10, BSCS, and
ZTPI. All participants received the
scales in the same order.
Statistical analyses
Firstly, to carry out the
translation of the original version of the
TFS into Spanish, the double translation
procedure was used. It was oversaw by
two specialists, a psychologist and an
English teacher and translator. It
consisted of: (1) translating each item
from English to Spanish, (2) translating
each item, again, from Spanish into
English and (3) evaluate the
terminological agreement between both
versions of the scales. After the data was
collected it was analyzed with the
statistical software packages SPSS (v25)
and Factor Analysis (Ferrando &
Lorenzo-Seva, 2017).
To evaluate construct validity
first an optimal parallel analysis was
executed to explore the dimensionality
of the set of variables, without
establishing the number of dimensions
(Timmerman & Lorenzo-Seva, 2011).
Then a semi-confirmatory factor
analysis was done. This kind of analysis
allows to know a careful inspection of
the residues, the RMSEA and the GFI, in
addition to the indicators thrown in the
classic exploratory factor analysis, such
as KMO, Bartlett’s sphericity test and
factorial weight. This allows an ideal
evaluation of the factor analysis
Adaptación argentina de la Escala de Foco Temporal. Evidencias de validez de constructo… 89
PERSPECTIVAS EN PSICOLOGÍA – Vol. 19 – Número 1 – junio/noviembre 2022 – (pp. 81-102)
(Ferrando & Lorenzo-Seva, 2017). GFI
values above .90 are taken as an
acceptable fit and close to .95 as a good
fit; RMSEA < .05 indicates good fit and
values between 0.05-0.08 indicate an
acceptable fit. KMO values above .80
are considered appropriate (Ferrando &
Anguiano-Carrasco, 2010). Factor
loading was evaluated as follows: values
under 0.3 are considered insignificant;
values between 0.3 and 0.5 are
considered as minimum contribution,
but are often accepted; and values
between 0.5 and 0.7 are considered
relevant (Martínez & Sepúlveda, 2012).
For eigenvalues, only when values were
above 1 the factor was kept (Pett et al.,
2003).
Afterwards, following Raykov’s
recommendation (1997 cited in
Viladrich et al., 2017), the reliability was
tested using McDonald’s omega and
Cronbach alpha’s coefficients. Values
greater than .7 are considered acceptable
when a new measure is being developed,
the values greater than .8 when applied
to research and higher values to .90 when
scores are used to make decisions
important issues that affect individuals
(Nunnally, 1978 cited in Viladrich et al.,
2017).
Then, external validity was
evaluated by analyzing the correlation
between TFS and ZTPI, BSCS, and K-
10. An exploratory and descriptive
analysis of all the variables included in
the study was carried out calculating
mean, deviation, skewness, and kurtosis.
Also, the reliability of ZTPI, BSCS and
K-10 was tested. It is essential to report
the reliability index of the scales
calculated with the current sample of the
study to understand the scope of the
results (Zimmerman & Zumbo, 2015).
Due to the sample size (N=190)
and the fact that all the variables yielded
values of skewness and kurtosis ± 2, the
parametric Pearson r statistic was used
(Fagerland, 2012). p <.05 was
established as a criterion of significance.
The effect sizes were considered
following Cohen's criteria: small (≤0.10
and <0.30), medium (≤0.30 and <0.50)
and large (≤.50 and <1.00) (Lalinde &
Tarazona, 2018).
Results
Parallel analysis and semi-
confirmatory factor analysis
The results of the optimal parallel
analysis of the TFS indicated the
presence of three dimensions. Then, a
semi-confirmatory analysis was
conducted. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
Adaptación argentina de la Escala de Foco Temporal. Evidencias de validez de constructo… 90
PERSPECTIVAS EN PSICOLOGÍA – Vol. 19 – Número 1 – junio/noviembre 2022 – (pp. 81-102)
(KMO) adequacy measure and Bartlett’s
sphericity test ensured the suitability of
data for factor analysis (KMO=.80; χ2
(66)=1261.7; p<.001). These results
suggest a good correlation among items
and a good sampling adequacy,
evidencing the pertinence of a factor
analysis (Kaiser, 1970 cited in Ferrando
& Anguiano-Carrasco, 2010). The
principal axis method with direct
oblimin rotation was used to extract the
factors. Table 2 shows the factor loading
for each item, eigenvalues, and total
variance for each dimension of the scale.
The three factors explained 72% of the
total variance. All the items presented a
factor loading above .47, except item ten
which presented a psychometric
anomaly because it loaded (>.30) in two
factors, current and future. Eigenvalues
were above 1 for the three factors.
Goodness of fit statistics showed model
adequacy (CFI=.97; RMSEA=.05).
Future focus correlated both with
past focus (r=.32; p<.01), with a medium
effect size; and present focus (r=.27;
p<.01), with a small effect size. There
was no significant correlation between
past and present focuses (r=.103; p>.05).
Table 2.
Factor Analysis of the Temporal Focus Scale items
Item
Factor
Future
focus
Current
focus
Past
focus
1. Pienso en cosas de mi pasado. [I think about things from my
past.]
0.89
2. Vivo mi vida en el presente. [I live my life in the present.]
0.86
3. Pienso en lo que me deparará el futuro. [I think about what my
future has in store.]
0.78
4. Me concentro en lo que está sucediendo actualmente en mi
vida. [I focus on what is currently happening in my life.]
0.87
5. Me concentro en mi futuro. [I focus on my future.]
0.74
6. Repito recuerdos del pasado en mi mente. [I replay memories
of the past in my mind.]
0.86
7. Me imagino lo que me traerá el mañana. [I imagine what
tomorrow will bring for me.]
0.83
8. Mi mente está en el aquí y ahora. [My mind is on the here and
now.]
0.81
9. Reflexiono sobre lo que ha sucedido en mi vida. [I reflect on
what has happened in my life.]
0.47
10. Pienso dónde me encuentro hoy. [I think about where I am
today.]
0.38
0.38
11. Pienso en mi infancia. [I think back to my earlier days.]
0.69
12. Pienso en los tiempos por venir. [I think about times to come.]
0.90
Variance (%)
34.64
22.28
15
Eigenvalue
4.15
2.67
1.80
Cronbach’s α
.89
.81
.82
McDonald’s ω
.89
.83
.83
Note. Loadings lower than absolute 0.30 were omitted.
Adaptación argentina de la Escala de Foco Temporal. Evidencias de validez de constructo… 91
PERSPECTIVAS EN PSICOLOGÍA – Vol. 19 – Número 1 – junio/noviembre 2022 – (pp. 81-102)
Item analysis and reliability
Table 3 shows item analysis and
internal consistency results. Coefficients
for the three subscales were adequate
(>.70) (Viladrich et al., 2017). The past
focus dimension obtained an ω of .82
and α of .83. The current focus
dimension obtained an ω of .81 and α of
.83. The future focus dimension obtained
an ω of 88 and α of .89. Thus, the three
dimensions of the scale have good levels
of reliability. However, it is important to
note that in the current focus item 10
showed the lowest item-total correlation
of all the scale, and, accordingly, its
exclusion increases internal consistency
indexes. Item 9 (past focus) also showed
that if it is excluded internal consistency
index could increase a little bit.
Table 3.
Analysis of Temporal Focus Scale items and internal consistency (n = 190)
When item is excluded
Item
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
r IT-c (*)
Cronbach’s α
McDonald’s ω
Past focus
1
3.60
1.93
0.63
0.13
.85
.73
.74
6
3.63
2.54
0.44
-0.56
.87
.72
.74
9
4.55
2.18
-0.13
-0.81
.69
.84
.84
11
3.61
2.73
0.43
-0.54
.81
.77
.81
Cronbach’s α
.82
McDonald’s ω
.83
Current focus
2
5.08
1.54
-0.36
-0.30
.86
.71
.73
4
5.14
1.48
-0.34
-0.43
.87
.70
.73
8
4.72
1.81
-0.11
-0.71
.83
.74
.76
10
4.85
1.99
-0.44
-0.31
.66
.88
.88
Cronbach’s α
.81
McDonald’s ω
.83
Future focus
3
4.85
2.26
-0.56
-0.10
.88
.84
.84
5
4.61
2.16
-0.23
-0.58
.82
.87
.87
7
4.44
2.42
-0.30
-0.55
.87
.84
.85
12
4.73
2.29
-0.33
-0.72
.88
.84
.84
Cronbach’s α
.89
McDonald’s ω
.89
(*) Item-total correlation.
External validity
Descriptive statistics and
reliability for all the variables included
in study are presented in Table 4.
Regarding the TFS the media score of
the current focus is the highest, followed
by the future focus and the past focus
which presented the lowest media score.
The three dimensions presented values
of skewness and kurtosis ± 1. On the
other hand, the other variables included
in the study presented values of
skewness and kurtosis ± 2. Internal
consistency, measured by Cronbach
Alpha, showed values above .70 for all
Adaptación argentina de la Escala de Foco Temporal. Evidencias de validez de constructo… 92
PERSPECTIVAS EN PSICOLOGÍA – Vol. 19 – Número 1 – junio/noviembre 2022 – (pp. 81-102)
variables, except for ZTPI past positive
and ZTPI present fatalistic.
Table 4.
Descriptive statistics and internal consistency for TFS, ZTPI, BSCS and K-10
M (SD)
Skewness
Kurtosis
α
TFS - Past focus
3.85 (1.23)
.53
.09
.82
TFS - Current focus
4.95 (1.04)
-.23
-.32
.81
TFS - Future focus
4.66 (1.31)
-.34
-.29
.89
ZTPI – Past positive
3.64 (.57)
-.54
.59
.58
ZTPI – Past negative
2.69 (.87)
.23
-.45
.84
ZTPI – Present hedonistic
3.05 (.71)
-.01
.01
.70
ZTPI – Present fatalistic
2.25 (.69)
.26
-.31
.61
ZTPI - Future
3.90 (.63)
-.93
1.99
.70
BSCS
46.06 (8.46)
-.21
-.24
.83
K-10
23.71 (8.05)
.72
.02
.91
To test external validity of the
TFS each dimension (past, current and
focus) was correlated with ZTPI, BSCS
and K-10. Bivariate correlations are
displayed in Table 5. The results
indicated that past focus was positively
associated with ZTPI past negative, with
a large effect size; positively associated
with ZTPI past positive, present
hedonistic and present fatalistic, all with
a small sizes effect; and positively
associated with K-10, with a medium
effect size. Regarding current focus,
there was a positive association with
ZTPI past positive and self-control, both
with small effect sizes; and a negative
association with ZTPI past negative and
present fatalistic, and K-10, the three of
them with small effect sizes. Finally,
future focus showed a positive
association with ZTPI past positive, past
negative, future and K-10, all with small
effect sizes; and a negative association
with ZTPI present fatalistic, also with a
small effect size.
Table 5.
Correlations between TFS, ZTPI, BSCS and K-10
Past Focus
Current Focus
Future Focus
ZTPI Past Positive
.185*
.195**
.169*
ZTPI Past Negative
.582**
-.230**
.155*
ZTPI Present Hedonistic
.184*
-.021
.120
ZTPI Present Fatalistic
.164*
-.203**
-.149*
ZTPI Future
.078
.055
.221**
BSCS
-.101
.215**
.116
K-10
.463**
-.230**
.210**
* p < .05; ** p < .01
Adaptación argentina de la Escala de Foco Temporal. Evidencias de validez de constructo… 93
PERSPECTIVAS EN PSICOLOGÍA – Vol. 19 – Número 1 – junio/noviembre 2022 – (pp. 81-102)
Study 2
The aim of Study 2 was to
examine the factor structure of the
original 12 items version of the TFS, and
the internal structure of Study 1 by
performing CFA.
Method
Participants and procedure
Intentional and non-probabilistic
sampling was used. The final sample
consisted of 661 participants (30% male)
from 18 to 73 years old (M = 31.83; SD
= 9.68) from different zones of
Argentina (31% from the city of Buenos
Aires, 47% from the surroundings of
Buenos Aires, and 22% from another
cities from Argentina). In relation to the
educational level, 50% completed the
higher level, 19% the intermediate level
and 31% had postgraduate studies.
Exclusion criteria included people in
psychiatric treatment and people aged
under 18 years old or above 65 years old.
Also, participants should be living in
Argentina. Participation was voluntary,
participants did not receive any
compensation, and the confidentiality of
the responses was guaranteed. Procedure
was similar of study 1, but participants
only completed the TFS. The data was
collected between February and March
2020.
Statistical analyses
Maximum likelihood estimation
was employed for this analysis. Previous
revision showed acceptable values of
skewness for each item. To examine the
fit of the models we used chi-square, and
the following fit indices that are least
affected by sample size: goodness-of-fit
index (GFI), the comparative fit index
(CFI), the non-normed fit index (NNFI),
the root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) and Aikake
information criteria (AIC). GFI, CFI and
NNFI values above .90 are taken as an
acceptable fit and close to .95 as a good
fit; RMSEA < .05 indicates good fit and
values between 0.05-0.08 indicate an
acceptable fit; AIC compare alternative
models and lower values show a better fit
(Ferrando & Anguiano-Carrasco, 2010;
Schumacker & Lomax, 2015). CFA was
carried by using AMOS 24. Reliability
of the three subscales was also evaluated
on this sample.
Results
Confirmatory factor analysis
Two models were carried out. Results
can be seen in Table 6. Firstly, the results
Adaptación argentina de la Escala de Foco Temporal. Evidencias de validez de constructo… 94
PERSPECTIVAS EN PSICOLOGÍA – Vol. 19 – Número 1 – junio/noviembre 2022 – (pp. 81-102)
showed that the three-factor model of the
TFS with 12 items didn´t present a good
fit. After revising the modification
indices, item 10 was removed. Secondly,
the new model with 11 items (four for
past focus, three for current focus and
four for future focus) presented
acceptable fit indexes. Lower AIC
values indicated that the three-factor
model with 11-item provided a better fit
than the 12-item model.
Table 6.
Fit indices for Temporal Focus Scale scores derived from confirmatory factor analysis
χ2
df
χ2 /df
GFI
CFI
NNFI
RMSEA
AIC
Model 1 (12 items)
202,212***
52
3.889
.90
.88
.85
.10
254.212
Model 2 (11 items)
175,396***
41
4.278
.95
.95
.94
.07
225.396
*** p < 0.001
The standardized loadings
indicated that the latent constructs were
well represented by their indicators.
Correlations between factors indicated a
significant and negative relationship
between current and past focuses (r = -
.25, p < .001), and between future and
current focuses (r = -.14, p < .05); and a
significant and positive relationship
between future and past focuses (r = .20,
p < .001). The three correlations
presented small effect sizes. The model
is depicted in Figure 1. Regarding
internal consistency, past focus
presented an ω of .78 and an α of .76;
current focus presented an ω of .84 and
an α of .84; and future focus presented an
ω of .84 and an α of .84. Thus, the three
dimensions of the scale have good levels
of reliability.
Adaptación argentina de la Escala de Foco Temporal. Evidencias de validez de constructo… 95
PERSPECTIVAS EN PSICOLOGÍA – Vol. 19 – Número 1 – junio/noviembre 2022 – (pp. 81-102)
Figure 1.
The Path diagram of the Argentinian version of the Temporal Focus Scale.
Note. Standardized factor loadings are shown on the straight arrows, whereas factors’
terms intercorrelations are shown on the curved arrows.
***p<.001; **p<.01
Discussion
This study aimed to validate the
Argentinian version of the Temporal
Focus Scale (Shipp et al., 2009)
following the ITC recommendations
(2017). To the best of our knowledge this
is the third reported additional work on
the factor structure of this scale: the first
was Irish (McKay et al., 2012), and the
second Japanese (Chishima et al., 2017).
Furthermore, this is the first validation in
Spanish, specifically done in Argentina.
Respecting the results of study
one, the optimal parallel analysis
indicated that the optimum number of
components to be retained was three.
The semi-confirmatory factor analysis
showed adequate fit indices.
Considering factor loadings, most of the
items presented factor loadings above .5
in only one factor, which can be
Adaptación argentina de la Escala de Foco Temporal. Evidencias de validez de constructo… 96
PERSPECTIVAS EN PSICOLOGÍA – Vol. 19 – Número 1 – junio/noviembre 2022 – (pp. 81-102)
considered relevant. Item 9 presented a
factor loading of .47 which is considered
as minimum contribution, but can be
kept (Martínez & Sepúlveda, 2012).
However, item 10 loaded in two factors,
current (>.30) and future (>.30),
presenting a psychometric anomaly. In
addition, when calculating the reliability,
it was seen that alpha and omega values
increased when eliminating item 10.
These findings are in concordance with
the Japanese version in which item 10
was problematic because factor loading
of this item was the lowest of all items
(Chishima et al., 2017), and also with the
Irish validation of the TFS in which the
modification indices of the CFA
suggested that item 10 was problematic
(McKay et al., 2012).
Regarding reliability, both alpha
and omega coefficients were calculated.
It has been demonstrated that in many
occasions α is lower than ω, so α can be
used as an inferior limit of reliability
(Raykov, 1997 cited in Viladrich et al.,
2017). The three factors showed alpha
and omega coefficient values above .80,
which are acceptable for research
purposes (Viladrich et al., 2017). This
does not coincide with the Irish version
in which current focus presented an
alpha value lower than the accepted (α =
.58) (McKay et al., 2012).
When considering external
validity, we decided to use ZTPI because
it had been used in previous studies and
due to its high popularity among
psychological time research. ZTPI
assesses time perspective which refers to
a non-conscious process from which
people is not aware constantly
(Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999), whereas
temporal focus refers to an attentional
process and so indicate awareness (Shipp
et al., 2009). As seen, the two concepts
are different, but they are supposed to be
associated because both refer to
psychological time, and include past,
present, and future separately. It is to
note that the correlations found with
ZTPI in this study followed, in most
cases, the findings of American TFS by
Shipp et al. (2009) and Japanese version
by Chishima et al. (2017). Past focus
presented a strong and positive
association with ZTPI past negative, and
a small association with ZTPI past
positive. These findings show that the
attention to the past as measured by the
TFS has a negative tone. Regarding
current focus, we did not find a
significant association with ZTPI present
hedonistic which differs from the
Adaptación argentina de la Escala de Foco Temporal. Evidencias de validez de constructo… 97
PERSPECTIVAS EN PSICOLOGÍA – Vol. 19 – Número 1 – junio/noviembre 2022 – (pp. 81-102)
Japanese and American versions in
which current focus presented a
relatively strong positive correlation
with ZTPI present hedonistic. However,
it is important to note that a negative
significant association was found
between current focus and ZTPI present
fatalistic, which can enhance the theory
that current focus as measured with TFS
has a more positive than negative tone
(Shipp et al., 2009). Lastly, future focus
was positively associated with ZTPI
future, like the two other versions of
TFS. However, it is important to advise
that reliability of ZTPI past positive and
present fatalistic showed lower values
than the accepted. This can affect the
quality of the results of the correlations
of TFS with these dimensions.
Two other scales were used to
test external validity, BSCS and K-10. It
was hypothesized that future focus
would be related with the scores of
BSCS because it assesses the global
capacity of self-control which is
conceptualized as the regulation of
impulses to achieve long-term goals
(Tangney et al., 2004). However, we
found that current focus was the one
related to BSCS. This can be due to how
the items of the self-control scale are
presented. They refer to a current
situation related to self-regulation, and
they are written in present verbal time.
Only one item includes future goals (“I
am able to work effectively towards
long-term goals”). This finding gathered
with the discordance between our study
and the previous validations regarding
current focus, provides evidence that
further research is needed to clear out the
difference between current and future
focuses of TFS.
Regarding K-10, it was
positively and strongly related to past
focus, which increases the previous
affirmation that past focus is related to a
negative affect. Also, as hypothesized,
K-10 related negatively with current
focus and positively with future focus.
K-10 refers to symptoms of anxiety,
which are related to the future; and
depression, which is related to the past
(Kessler et al., 2002). This
conceptualization is consistent with the
results of the correlation analyses.
Considering these results, some practical
implications can derive. Future studies
should explore this deeply and TFS can
be used to assess psychological
conditions and, together with other
scores, can help to understand and/or
predict psychological distress or
psychological wellbeing.
Adaptación argentina de la Escala de Foco Temporal. Evidencias de validez de constructo… 98
PERSPECTIVAS EN PSICOLOGÍA – Vol. 19 – Número 1 – junio/noviembre 2022 – (pp. 81-102)
In study two, a CFA was
executed. As recommended, we used a
different sample from the one used in the
previous study (Ferrando & Anguiano-
Carrasco, 2010; International Test
Comission, 2017). Two models were
proven. After considering the
modification indices and consistently
with the psychometric anomaly found
with item ten in the first study, we
decided to remove item ten. The fit of the
data was better in this second TFS
model. GFI, CFI, NNFI and RMSEA
values increased, and AIC value was
lower compared to the first model,
indicating the 11-item model fitted
better.
Item ten was also problematic in
the previous three studies of the TFS. In
the development of the scale in United
States, and in the Irish and Japanese
versions this item loaded onto all three
factors. The former kept the 12-item
version, but the two latter eliminated
item ten, arriving to an 11-item version.
The three versions presented a good fit to
the data in the CFA (Chishima,et al.,
2017; McKay et al., 2012; Shipp et al.,
2009). Item ten, “I think about where I
am today [Pienso dónde me encuentro
hoy]”, presents a difficulty because it
may imply past and/or future situations,
apart from the attention to the present
time. Also, the item includes the word
<<where>> which suggests a clear time-
space relationship and can refer to how a
person arrived at the situation he is in the
present time, consequently referring to
his past; or how he visualizes himself in
a future perspective, consequently
including the future. Therefore, this item
is weak and, similarly to the two
previous validations of the study, it was
eliminated leaving an 11-item version of
the TFS for Argentina.
Reliability was also calculated in
study two. Coefficient values were
above .76, acceptable following
normative criteria (Viladrich et al.,
2017). In this second study reliability of
past focus (ω=.78/α=.76) decreased in
relation to the values found in the first
study (ω=.82/α=.83). The reliability of
the other factors kept similar values.
Internal consistency analyses showed
equal or superior reliability values than
previous studies (see table 1, Chishima et
al., 2017; McKay et al., 2012; Shipp
et al., 2009). These results contribute to
the acceptance of the TFS as a reliable
tool to assess temporal focus.
Future studies should also
consider the possibility to do cross-
cultural research including data from
Adaptación argentina de la Escala de Foco Temporal. Evidencias de validez de constructo… 99
PERSPECTIVAS EN PSICOLOGÍA – Vol. 19 – Número 1 – junio/noviembre 2022 – (pp. 81-102)
Argentina. Research have recently
shown some particular and interesting
aspects of cultural differences towards
psychological time (Callizo-Romero
et al., 2020; Chishima, et al., 2017; de la
Fuente et al., 2014). These studies did
not include data from Latin American
countries, which is a substantial aspect to
arrive to more generalizable results. To
do this it is essential to have valid and
reliable measures of psychological time.
Accordingly, this study provides the
Argentinian version of the TFS.
This study is not exempt from
limitations. Firstly, it does not present a
test-retest which is fundamental to study
the stability of punctuations over time
and contributes to the psychometric
reliability of the scale (Aldridge et al.,
2017). Also, the sample used in the
second study was mostly composed by
women (70% of the total sample) and
this may skew the results. Future studies
should take these aspects into account.
Third, all variables were measured by
self-report questionnaires. Future studies
should use several methods including
objective assessments to avoid a
common bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
In conclusion, the current
research provides a reliable adaptation of
the TFS for Argentinian population.
Since internal consistency values were
higher than those found in the
Argentinian versions of ZTPI (Brenlla
et al., 2019; Galarraga & Stover, 2016;
Germano & Brenlla, 2020), and CFA
presented good fit indexes, TFS seems to
be a more reliable tool to assess
psychological time and can contribute to
reduce the critics that still exists to the
measurement of time (Adams, 2009;
Shipp et al., 2009). This study offers
additional knowledge to those interested
in the study of psychological time.
References
Adams, J. (2009). Commentary: Time for a change of perspective on behaviour change
interventions? Addiction, 104(6), 1025-1026. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-
0443.2009.02620.x
Aldridge, V. K., Dovey, T. M., & Wade, A. (2017). Assessing Test-Retest Reliability of
Psychological Measures. European Psychologist,
22(4), 207-218. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000298
Bandura, A. (2001). Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Bluedorn, A. C. (2002). The Human Organization of Time: Temporal Realities and
Experience. Palo Alto: Stanford Business Books.
Adaptación argentina de la Escala de Foco Temporal. Evidencias de validez de constructo… 100
PERSPECTIVAS EN PSICOLOGÍA – Vol. 19 – Número 1 – junio/noviembre 2022 – (pp. 81-102)
Brenlla, M. E., Zapater, J., & Germano, G. (2019). Adaptación lingüística, estructura
factorial y fiabilidad del Inventario de Perspectiva Temporal de Zimbardo para
Buenos Aires. Interdisciplinaria, 36(2), 111-127.
https://doi.org/10.16888/interd.2019.36.2.8
Callizo-Romero, C., Tutnjević, S., Pandza, M., Ouellet, M., Kranjec, A., Ilić, S., Gu, Y.,
Göksun, T., Chahboun, S., Casasanto, D., & Santiago, J. (2020). Temporal focus
and time spatialization across cultures. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27(6),
1247-1258. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01760-5
Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A
theory of socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54(3), 165-181.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.3.165
Chishima, Y., McKay, M. T., & Cole, J. C. (2017). The generalizability of temporal focus
profiles across cultures: A secondary analysis using data from Japan and the
United Kingdom. Personality and Individual Differences, 111, 92-95.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.011
Chishima, Y., McKay, M. T., & Murakami, T. (2017). The reliability and validity of the
Temporal Focus Scale in young Japanese adults. Personality and Individual
Differences, 119, 230-235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.07.031
de la Fuente, J., Santiago, J., Román, A., Dumitrache, C., & Casasanto, D. (2014). When
You Think About It, Your Past Is in Front of You: How Culture Shapes Spatial
Conceptions of Time. Psychological Science, 25(9), 1682-1690.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614534695
Ferrando, P. J., & Anguiano-Carrasco, C. (2010). El análisis factorial como técnica de
investigación en psicología. Papeles del Psicólogo, 31(1), 18-33.
https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/778/77812441003.pdf
Ferrando, P. J., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2017). Program FACTOR at 10: Origins,
development and future directions. Psicothema, 29(2), 236-240.
https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.304
Fung, H. H., & Carstensen, L. L. (2006). Goals change when life’s fragility is primed:
Lessons learned from older adults, the September 11 attacks and sars. Social
Cognition, 24(3), 248-278. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2006.24.3.248
Galarraga, M. L., & Stover, J. B. (2016). Inventario de Perspectiva Temporal de
Zimbardo: Adaptación en estudiantes de nivel medio de Buenos Aires.
Psicodebate, 16(1), 109-128. https://doi.org/10.18682/pd.v16i1.540
Germano, G., & Brenlla, M. E. (2020). Versión Abreviada del Inventario de Perspectiva
Temporal de Zimbardo para Buenos Aires. Revista iberoamericana de
diagnóstico y evaluación psicológica. 2(55), 71-87.
https://doi.org/10.21865/RIDEP55.2.06
Grondin, S. (2019). The Perception of Time: Your Questions Answered. New York:
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003001638
Holman, E. A., & Silver, R. C. (1998). Getting «stuck» in the past: Temporal orientation
and coping with trauma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5),
1146-1163. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1146
International Test Comission. (2017). The ITC Guidelines for Translating and Adapting
Tests (Second edition).
https://www.intestcom.org/files/guideline_test_adaptation_2ed.pdf
Kessler, R., Andrews, G., Colpe, L., EE, H., Mroczek, D., Normand, S.-L., Walters, E.,
& Zaslavsky, A. (2002). Short Screening Scales to Monitor Population Prevlances
Adaptación argentina de la Escala de Foco Temporal. Evidencias de validez de constructo… 101
PERSPECTIVAS EN PSICOLOGÍA – Vol. 19 – Número 1 – junio/noviembre 2022 – (pp. 81-102)
and Trends in Non-Specific Psychological Distress. Psychological medicine, 32,
959-976. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291702006074
Martínez, C. M., & Sepúlveda, M. A. R. (2012). Introducción al análisis factorial
exploratorio. Revista Colombiana de Psiquiatría, 41(1), 197-207.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-7450(14)60077-9
McKay, M. T., Cole, J. C., & Percy, A. (2017). Temporal focus clusters differ
meaningfully in terms of anxiety and depressive symptomatology. Psychiatry
Research, 256, 283-285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.06.061
McKay, M. T., Percy, A., Goudie, A. J., Sumnall, H. R., & Cole, J. C. (2012). The
Temporal Focus Scale: Factor structure and association with alcohol use in a
sample of Northern Irish school children. Journal of Adolescence, 110(1), 1361-
1368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.05.006
Nuttin, J. (1985). Future Time Perspective and Motivation: Theory and Research Method.
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Ortuño, V. E. C., Paixão, M. P., & Janeiro, I. N. (2017). Qualitative and Quantitative
Trends in the Assessment of Subjective Temporality. En A. Kostić & D. Chadee
(Eds.), Time Perspective (pp. 167-194). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-60191-9_8
Pett, M. A., Lackey, N. R., & Sullivan, J. J. (2003). Making Sense of Factor Analysis. The
Use of Factor Analysis for Instrument Development in Health Care Research.
New York: Sage.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common
method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Rush, J., & Grouzet, F. M. E. (2012). It is about time: Daily relationships between
temporal perspective and well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7(5),
427-442. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2012.713504
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2015). A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation
Modeling: Fourth Edition (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge Academic.
Shipp, A. J., Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2009). Conceptualization and
measurement of temporal focus: The subjective experience of the past, present,
and future. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110, 1-22.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.05.001
Strobel, M., Tumasjan, A., Spörrle, M., & Welpe, I. M. (2013). The future starts today,
not tomorrow: How future focus promotes organizational citizenship behaviors.
Human Relations, 66(6), 829-856. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726712470709
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High Self-Control Predicts
Good Adjustment, Less Pathology, Better Grades, and Interpersonal Success.
Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271-324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-
3506.2004.00263.x
Timmerman, M. E., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2011). Dimensionality assessment of ordered
polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psychological Methods, 16(2), 209-220.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023353
Viladrich, C., Angulo-Brunet, A., & Doval, E. (2017). Un viaje alrededor de alfa y omega
para estimar la fiabilidad de consistencia interna. Anales de Psicología / Annals
of Psychology, 33(3), 755-782. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.33.3.268401
Adaptación argentina de la Escala de Foco Temporal. Evidencias de validez de constructo… 102
PERSPECTIVAS EN PSICOLOGÍA – Vol. 19 – Número 1 – junio/noviembre 2022 – (pp. 81-102)
Walg, M., Eder, L. L., Martin, A., & Hapfelmeier, G. (2020). Distorted Time Perspective
in Adolescent Afghan and Syrian Refugees Is Associated with Psychological
Distress. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 208(9), 729-735.
https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0000000000001194
Zacher, H. (2016). Within-person relationships between daily individual and job
characteristics and daily manifestations of career adaptability. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 92, 105-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.11.013
Zaleski, Z. (1996). Future Anxiety: Concept, measurement, and preliminary research.
Personality and Individual Differences, 21(2), 165-174.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(96)00070-0
Zimbardo, P., & Boyd, J. (1999). Putting Time in Perspective: A Valid, Reliable
Individual-Differences Metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
77(6), 1271-1288. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1271
Fecha Recepción: 23-06-2021
Fecha Aceptación:17-03-2022
