See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239594540
Efficiency Scale (TUES)
Article
CITATIONS
READS
0
946
1 author:
William E Kelly
University of the Incarnate Word
122 PUBLICATIONS 1,376 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by William E Kelly on 10 September 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
USA $10
Manual for the
Time Use
Efficiency
Scale
(TUES)
Manual for the Time Use
Efficiency Scale (TUES)
William E. Kelly, Ph.D.
DESCRIPTION: This manual describes the Time Use Efficiency
Scale (TUES): a relatively reliable and valid 7-item measure of
self-assessed time use efficiency. The TUES is intended as a nonprojective individual differences measure for adult populations.
Normative data, scale items, and administration directions are
included.
Copyright © 2003 Individual Differences Research Group. All
rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced
transmitted, or stored in any form without the prior written
permission of the publisher, with the exception of research or
personal use.
Printed in the United States of America.
Published and distributed by the Individual Differences Research
Group; P.O. Box 201073; Austin, Texas 78720-1073 USA.
William E. Kelly, Ph.D.
If you use this scale in research, please inform the author of the
results of your study. Email the author: billkellyphd@yahoo.com.
IDRG Individual Differences Research Group Publishers
USA $10
Manual for the
Time Use
Efficiency
Scale
(TUES)
Manual for the Time Use
Efficiency Scale (TUES)
William E. Kelly, Ph.D.
DESCRIPTION: This manual describes the Time Use Efficiency
Scale (TUES): a relatively reliable and valid 7-item measure of
self-assessed time use efficiency. The TUES is intended as a nonprojective individual differences measure for adult populations.
Normative data, scale items, and administration directions are
included.
Copyright © 2003 Individual Differences Research Group. All
rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced
transmitted, or stored in any form without the prior written
permission of the publisher, with the exception of research or
personal use.
Printed in the United States of America.
Published and distributed by the Individual Differences Research
Group; P.O. Box 201073; Austin, Texas 78720-1073 USA.
William E. Kelly, Ph.D.
If you use this scale in research, please inform the author of the
results of your study. Email the author: kellyw@rmu.edu
IDRG Individual Differences Research Group Publishers
2
CHAPTER 1
Manual for the Time Use
Efficiency Scale (TUES)
William E. Kelly, Ph.D.
Contents
1.
Introduction ..................................................... 2
2.
Scale Development ........................................... 6
3.
Reliability ......................................................... 8
4.
Validity ............................................................ 9
5.
Administration and Scoring ............................. 16
6.
Normative Data .............................................. 17
References ...................................................... 19
Appendix: TUES Items ................................... 22
Introduction
The Time Use Efficiency Scale (TUES) was designed as a brief, yet
sufficient, self-report measure of individual differences in time use
efficiency, defined as the ability to make the best use of one’s time
(Kelly, 2002). The TUES includes seven items which together measure
a single factor, or construct. The scale is internally consistent, exhibits
adequate test-retest reliability, and exhibits some degree of validity as
determined by correlations with theoretically related constructs.
Rationale for Measuring Time Use Efficiency
Individuals’ inefficient use of time potentially can result in dire
consequences including low grades, decreased revenues, psychological
stress, and the loss of employment. Given the potentially unpleasant
consequences of inefficient time use, it would seem an important topic
for exploration. Few studies, however, have attempted to understand
individuals’ efficiency in the use of time. Instead, most previous timerelated research has focused on time perception and time prediction (i.e.,
Kirkcaldy, 1984; McCown, Petzel, & Rupert, 1987; Rammsayer, 1997).
One way to understand the efficient use of time is to examine
individual differences in perceptions of the ability to use time efficiently,
a construct Kelly (2002) referred to as time use efficiency (TUE).
Understanding individual differences in TUE may be helpful for
researchers in developing interventions to assist individuals in increasing
TUE, productivity, and understanding psychological variables which
affect, and result from, the efficient use of time. Before empirical
research can examine TUE, however, the construct must be
2
CHAPTER 1
Manual for the Time Use
Efficiency Scale (TUES)
William E. Kelly, Ph.D.
Contents
1.
Introduction ..................................................... 2
2.
Scale Development ........................................... 6
3.
Reliability ......................................................... 8
4.
Validity ............................................................ 9
5.
Administration and Scoring ............................. 16
6.
Normative Data .............................................. 17
References ...................................................... 19
Appendix: TUES Items ................................... 22
Introduction
The Time Use Efficiency Scale (TUES) was designed as a brief, yet
sufficient, self-report measure of individual differences in time use
efficiency, defined as the ability to make the best use of one’s time
(Kelly, 2002). The TUES includes seven items which together measure
a single factor, or construct. The scale is internally consistent, exhibits
adequate test-retest reliability, and exhibits some degree of validity as
determined by correlations with theoretically related constructs.
Rationale for Measuring Time Use Efficiency
Individuals’ inefficient use of time potentially can result in dire
consequences including low grades, decreased revenues, psychological
stress, and the loss of employment. Given the potentially unpleasant
consequences of inefficient time use, it would seem an important topic
for exploration. Few studies, however, have attempted to understand
individuals’ efficiency in the use of time. Instead, most previous timerelated research has focused on time perception and time prediction (i.e.,
Kirkcaldy, 1984; McCown, Petzel, & Rupert, 1987; Rammsayer, 1997).
One way to understand the efficient use of time is to examine
individual differences in perceptions of the ability to use time efficiently,
a construct Kelly (2002) referred to as time use efficiency (TUE).
Understanding individual differences in TUE may be helpful for
researchers in developing interventions to assist individuals in increasing
TUE, productivity, and understanding psychological variables which
affect, and result from, the efficient use of time. Before empirical
research can examine TUE, however, the construct must be
3
operationalized. That is, a measurement device for TUE must be
developed.
4
Other Time-Related Measures
Previous researchers have attempted to develop various instruments
to measure other time-related constructs. For example, Bond and Feather
(1988) developed the Time Structure Questionnaire (TSQ) to measure
structure and purpose in the use of time. The TSQ includes factor scales
measuring a sense of purpose in time, following a routine and planning,
a present orientation, organization, and persistence. The scale authors
measures of psychological well-being (self- esteem, purpose in life, and
extraversion) and an orientation towards hard work, and lower on
measures of distress (depression, anxiety, hopelessness, and neuroticism)
and physical symptoms. It should be noted that the TSQ items appear to
measure general orientations towards time and structure. For instance,
one TSQ item is “Do you ever feel that your time has little use or
value?”
Another time-related measure is the Time Management Behavior
Scale (TMB; Macan, Shahani, Dipboye, & Philips, 1990). The TMB
was developed to assess specific behaviors “critical to the construct of
time management...” (Macan et al., 1990, p. 761). The TMB includes 4
factors: setting goals, mechanics of time management (specific time
management behaviors), preference for organization, and perceived
control over time. The authors report that individuals using more time
management behaviors (scoring high on the TMB) score higher on
measures of Type-A personality, job and life satisfaction, academic
performance, lower on a measure of tension, and were more likely to
describe their prime working time as morning versus evening. Many
TMB items appear to be somewhat specific, measuring such behaviors
as frequency of making lists, keeping an appointment book, and
preplanning tasks. The TMB also includes items measuring the use of
organizational skills.
Neither the TSQ, TMB, or their respective factors, measure TUE as
defined by Kelly (2002). These measure, therefore, would not be
adequate measures of TUE. The TSQ and TMB do, however, appear to
measure some elements which should be related to TUE. For example,
as noted in Kelly’s (2002) theoretical description of TUE, efficient
individuals would likely need to be organized and structure their time, be
aware of time, be aware of activities and tasks which fill time, and
exhibit positive in-task work habits such as time management behaviors
indicate that individuals scoring higher on the TSQ score higher on
(areas assessed by the TSQ and TMB).
Theoretical Framework for Time Use Efficiency
Kelly (2002) presents a theoretical framework for TUE which
includes three primary assumptions: time use efficient individuals must
(1) be aware of time, (2) be cognizant of that which fills time, and (3)
possess positive in-task work habits. An awareness of time suggests that
individuals must be able to be aware of time and use that awareness
effectively. Thus, individuals must be able to predict time and be mindful
of time as it passes. They must also believe time to be a valuable
resource. Time use efficient individuals must be aware of that which fills
time. For instance, they must be able to analyze and become familiar
with tasks and activities which fill their time. They must be able to
analyze a task or activity and decide how much time should be allotted
to the task. Finally, time use efficient individuals must use positive work
habits: cognitive and behavioral approaches which facilitate the
completion of tasks in a specific amount of time. Time management
behaviors are examples of positive work habits. These cognitive and
behavioral strategies allow individuals to maintain focus, organization,
self-discipline, and complete their tasks with a minimal waste of time.
3
operationalized. That is, a measurement device for TUE must be
developed.
4
Other Time-Related Measures
Previous researchers have attempted to develop various instruments
to measure other time-related constructs. For example, Bond and Feather
(1988) developed the Time Structure Questionnaire (TSQ) to measure
structure and purpose in the use of time. The TSQ includes factor scales
measuring a sense of purpose in time, following a routine and planning,
a present orientation, organization, and persistence. The scale authors
measures of psychological well-being (self- esteem, purpose in life, and
extraversion) and an orientation towards hard work, and lower on
measures of distress (depression, anxiety, hopelessness, and neuroticism)
and physical symptoms. It should be noted that the TSQ items appear to
measure general orientations towards time and structure. For instance,
one TSQ item is “Do you ever feel that your time has little use or
value?”
Another time-related measure is the Time Management Behavior
Scale (TMB; Macan, Shahani, Dipboye, & Philips, 1990). The TMB
was developed to assess specific behaviors “critical to the construct of
time management...” (Macan et al., 1990, p. 761). The TMB includes 4
factors: setting goals, mechanics of time management (specific time
management behaviors), preference for organization, and perceived
control over time. The authors report that individuals using more time
management behaviors (scoring high on the TMB) score higher on
measures of Type-A personality, job and life satisfaction, academic
performance, lower on a measure of tension, and were more likely to
describe their prime working time as morning versus evening. Many
TMB items appear to be somewhat specific, measuring such behaviors
as frequency of making lists, keeping an appointment book, and
preplanning tasks. The TMB also includes items measuring the use of
organizational skills.
Neither the TSQ, TMB, or their respective factors, measure TUE as
defined by Kelly (2002). These measure, therefore, would not be
adequate measures of TUE. The TSQ and TMB do, however, appear to
measure some elements which should be related to TUE. For example,
as noted in Kelly’s (2002) theoretical description of TUE, efficient
individuals would likely need to be organized and structure their time, be
aware of time, be aware of activities and tasks which fill time, and
exhibit positive in-task work habits such as time management behaviors
indicate that individuals scoring higher on the TSQ score higher on
(areas assessed by the TSQ and TMB).
Theoretical Framework for Time Use Efficiency
Kelly (2002) presents a theoretical framework for TUE which
includes three primary assumptions: time use efficient individuals must
(1) be aware of time, (2) be cognizant of that which fills time, and (3)
possess positive in-task work habits. An awareness of time suggests that
individuals must be able to be aware of time and use that awareness
effectively. Thus, individuals must be able to predict time and be mindful
of time as it passes. They must also believe time to be a valuable
resource. Time use efficient individuals must be aware of that which fills
time. For instance, they must be able to analyze and become familiar
with tasks and activities which fill their time. They must be able to
analyze a task or activity and decide how much time should be allotted
to the task. Finally, time use efficient individuals must use positive work
habits: cognitive and behavioral approaches which facilitate the
completion of tasks in a specific amount of time. Time management
behaviors are examples of positive work habits. These cognitive and
behavioral strategies allow individuals to maintain focus, organization,
self-discipline, and complete their tasks with a minimal waste of time.
5
6
CHAPTER 2
Prelude to the Remainder of the Manual
The following chapters provide an overview of the development and
psychometric properties of a scale to measure TUE. An attempt is also
made to provide some evidence of the validity of the scale. Some
preliminary norms are provided to facilitate interpretation of scores
using a norm-referenced approach. The brevity of the scale was intended
to provide a basic measure of the construct at a minimal cost to
researchers and clinicians, cause minimal hardship for research
participants and clients being assessed, while simultaneously maintaining
some degree of reliability and validity. Importantly, the scale was
designed for use with adults. Further research is needed before the TUES
may be used to assess TUE among children.
Scale Development
The initial step of scale development was the construction of items to
measure TUE. Items were developed using a rational, brainstorming
approach to measure theorized aspects of TUE; that is, what elements
would be needed to make the best use of one’s time. These aspects, as
suggested by Kelly (2002), included a general awareness of time,
awareness of time as a resource, an awareness of the time needed to
complete tasks and activities, monitoring time during activities, attention
to and awareness of activities and tasks, a precise and organized
approach to planning and completing tasks, and a desire not to waste
time. This phase of item development resulted in a pool of 41 items,
some of which specifically related to TUE and some were more generally
related. In order to have a parsimonious item pool, 13 items were
subsequently deleted which were either semantically redundant or
appeared in retrospect to not directly measure the construct of interest.
Hence, 28 items were retained for statistical analyses. In attempts to
reduce the 28 items to a briefer, internally consistent measure of the
general construct of TUE, the items were administered to 49 females and
47 males (N = 96) enrolled in undergraduate courses at a mid-sized
university in the Southwestern United States. The average age of the
sample was 20.48 (SD = 4.59). Sixty-nine percent of the participants
identified themselves as White, 14% as Asian American, 10% as Latino
or Hispanic, 6% as African American, and 1% as “other.” Participants
were provided course-credit in exchange for participation.
The coefficient alpha for all 28 items was .63. To select items for
the final scale, a method similar to that suggested by Jackson (1970) was
used. This method was chosen because of its widespread acceptance and
5
6
CHAPTER 2
Prelude to the Remainder of the Manual
The following chapters provide an overview of the development and
psychometric properties of a scale to measure TUE. An attempt is also
made to provide some evidence of the validity of the scale. Some
preliminary norms are provided to facilitate interpretation of scores
using a norm-referenced approach. The brevity of the scale was intended
to provide a basic measure of the construct at a minimal cost to
researchers and clinicians, cause minimal hardship for research
participants and clients being assessed, while simultaneously maintaining
some degree of reliability and validity. Importantly, the scale was
designed for use with adults. Further research is needed before the TUES
may be used to assess TUE among children.
Scale Development
The initial step of scale development was the construction of items to
measure TUE. Items were developed using a rational, brainstorming
approach to measure theorized aspects of TUE; that is, what elements
would be needed to make the best use of one’s time. These aspects, as
suggested by Kelly (2002), included a general awareness of time,
awareness of time as a resource, an awareness of the time needed to
complete tasks and activities, monitoring time during activities, attention
to and awareness of activities and tasks, a precise and organized
approach to planning and completing tasks, and a desire not to waste
time. This phase of item development resulted in a pool of 41 items,
some of which specifically related to TUE and some were more generally
related. In order to have a parsimonious item pool, 13 items were
subsequently deleted which were either semantically redundant or
appeared in retrospect to not directly measure the construct of interest.
Hence, 28 items were retained for statistical analyses. In attempts to
reduce the 28 items to a briefer, internally consistent measure of the
general construct of TUE, the items were administered to 49 females and
47 males (N = 96) enrolled in undergraduate courses at a mid-sized
university in the Southwestern United States. The average age of the
sample was 20.48 (SD = 4.59). Sixty-nine percent of the participants
identified themselves as White, 14% as Asian American, 10% as Latino
or Hispanic, 6% as African American, and 1% as “other.” Participants
were provided course-credit in exchange for participation.
The coefficient alpha for all 28 items was .63. To select items for
the final scale, a method similar to that suggested by Jackson (1970) was
used. This method was chosen because of its widespread acceptance and
7
its efficacy for use with smaller samples. Using Jackson’s method, itemtotal scale correlations were examined and items which did not meet a
predetermined item-total correlation criteria were eliminated. The
predetermined item-total correlations were based on the work of Roberts
and Aspy (1993). They presented a brief review of item-total scale
correlation criteria which suggested that an aim of scale development is
to produce a scale that has high internal consistency with the fewest
number of items. Item-total correlations between .3 and .9 are
acceptable. Correlations below .3 suggest the items have little
commonality, while correlations above .9 suggests those items may not
add substantially to the measurement of the construct.
Hence, the approach taken in developing the current scale was to
systematically evaluate item-total correlations and eliminate those items
with item-total correlations below .3 and above .9 while simultaneously
checking the internal consistency of the scale. This process was repeated
until seven items remained, all with item-total correlations above .4 and
below .85.
These seven items were retained to comprise the Time Use Efficiency
Scale (TUES) which is presented in the Appendix. Age did not
significantly correlate with total TUES scores, r = .10, p = .31. Also,
there were no significant gender differences in total TUES scores, t (94)
= .68, p = .50. Thus, the TUES does not appear to be biased by age and
gender.
8
CHAPTER 3
Reliability
To examine test-retest reliability of the TUES, the scale was
administered to 107 undergraduate students (M age = 24.5 years,
SD = 6.8) and re-administered four weeks later. The test-retest
correlation was .86. The reliability coefficient suggests that the TUES
has good temporal stability, and thus measures a relatively stable trait.
Internal consistency of the TUES has been estimated among several
samples. For example, in the scale development sample, the TUES had
an internal consistency of .83. The internal consistency of the remaining
6-item scale when each of the items was deleted was then calculated in
that sample. In each case the removal of items did not increase the
internal consistency of the scale, indicating all items contributed to the
total scale. Table 1 presents a summary of the internal consistency of the
TUES across six samples of university students. According to Nunnally
(1978), scales with an internal consistency of at least .7 are acceptable
because they tap one underlying construct with a low degree of
measurement error. The TUES exceeded this criteria.
Table 1
Internal Consistencies of the TUES
Sample
N
M age
Coefficient Alpha
1
2
247
125
24.6 (8)
27.5 (8)
.86
.85
3
4
104
117
20.3 (3)
23.9 (6)
.84
.85
5
6
150
148
24.4 (7)
28.7 (11)
.84
.86
Note: Standard deviations of age are in parentheses.
7
its efficacy for use with smaller samples. Using Jackson’s method, itemtotal scale correlations were examined and items which did not meet a
predetermined item-total correlation criteria were eliminated. The
predetermined item-total correlations were based on the work of Roberts
and Aspy (1993). They presented a brief review of item-total scale
correlation criteria which suggested that an aim of scale development is
to produce a scale that has high internal consistency with the fewest
number of items. Item-total correlations between .3 and .9 are
acceptable. Correlations below .3 suggest the items have little
commonality, while correlations above .9 suggests those items may not
add substantially to the measurement of the construct.
Hence, the approach taken in developing the current scale was to
systematically evaluate item-total correlations and eliminate those items
with item-total correlations below .3 and above .9 while simultaneously
checking the internal consistency of the scale. This process was repeated
until seven items remained, all with item-total correlations above .4 and
below .85.
These seven items were retained to comprise the Time Use Efficiency
Scale (TUES) which is presented in the Appendix. Age did not
significantly correlate with total TUES scores, r = .10, p = .31. Also,
there were no significant gender differences in total TUES scores, t (94)
= .68, p = .50. Thus, the TUES does not appear to be biased by age and
gender.
8
CHAPTER 3
Reliability
To examine test-retest reliability of the TUES, the scale was
administered to 107 undergraduate students (M age = 24.5 years,
SD = 6.8) and re-administered four weeks later. The test-retest
correlation was .86. The reliability coefficient suggests that the TUES
has good temporal stability, and thus measures a relatively stable trait.
Internal consistency of the TUES has been estimated among several
samples. For example, in the scale development sample, the TUES had
an internal consistency of .83. The internal consistency of the remaining
6-item scale when each of the items was deleted was then calculated in
that sample. In each case the removal of items did not increase the
internal consistency of the scale, indicating all items contributed to the
total scale. Table 1 presents a summary of the internal consistency of the
TUES across six samples of university students. According to Nunnally
(1978), scales with an internal consistency of at least .7 are acceptable
because they tap one underlying construct with a low degree of
measurement error. The TUES exceeded this criteria.
Table 1
Internal Consistencies of the TUES
Sample
N
M age
Coefficient Alpha
1
2
247
125
24.6 (8)
27.5 (8)
.86
.85
3
4
104
117
20.3 (3)
23.9 (6)
.84
.85
5
6
150
148
24.4 (7)
28.7 (11)
.84
.86
Note: Standard deviations of age are in parentheses.
9
CHAPTER 4
Validity
10
results suggest that the TUES measures a single underlying factor, or
construct.
Item
Item-total correlation
Factor loading
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
.62
.57
.69
.56
.53
.76
.74
.72
.68
.79
.67
.65
.86
.84
Convergent Validity
One method to determine validity of individual differences measures
is to assess whether or not the scale relates to variables with which it
theoretically should relate. This is sometimes described as convergent
validity, and indicates that the scale is measuring the construct it
purports to measure. To investigate the convergent validity of the TUES,
scales measuring the following constructs were selected: procrastination,
time structure and purpose, time management, self-efficacy, perceived
stress, locus of control, and prime work-time. The TUES was expected
to significantly correlate with scales measuring each of these constructs.
It was reasoned that time use efficient individuals would likely not
spend their time on other activities before getting to the task-at-hand. So,
TUES scores should correlate negatively with procrastination. Further,
it was assumed that time use efficient individuals would feel that their
time has meaning and is an important resource. Hence, high TUES
scorers would score higher on time structure and purpose. Based on
Kelly’s (2002) theoretical framework, it was reasoned that time use
efficient individuals would use organizational skills and specific time
management behaviors to better control and manage their time. Thus,
TUES scores should positively correlate with time management
behaviors.
Self-efficacy was selected because of its links to duration estimates
and task approach (Brown, 1996; Gellatly, 1996). For instance, the
results of Gellatly (1996) suggest that self-efficacy is related to setting
higher goals and a more positive approach to tasks. Hence, self-efficacy,
it was hypothesized, would be related to individuals perceptions that they
can adequately evaluate time, evaluate tasks and activities which fill
loadings and item-total correlations are presented in Table 2. These
time, and carry-out those tasks with efficient time use (high TUES
Validity of the TUES has been investigated using two primary
methods: (1) factor analysis and (2) relationships with theoretically
related variables. Factor analysis provides one assessment of whether or
not a scale measures an underlying construct (items share common
variance). A scale, for instance, with a unidimensional factor structure
can be said to measure one construct (Nunnally, 1978).
To investigate the factor structure of the TUES, 176 female and 71
male (N = 247) undergraduate students were administered the TUES.
The average age of the sample was 24.6 (SD = 8.0). The majority of
participants (73%) identified themselves as White, 12% as African
American, 4% as Latino or Hispanic, 7% as Asian American, 2% as
Native American, and 2% as “other” or did not identify ethnicity. A
principal components factor analysis was calculated on responses to the
seven TUES items. One factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1
(eigenvalue = 3.9) emerged accounting for 56% of the systematic
variance in responses. Gorsuch (1983) noted that factors accounting for
at least 50% of the variance defines a strong factor. Item factor
Table 2
Factor Loadings and Item-Total Correlations of TUES Items
9
CHAPTER 4
Validity
Validity of the TUES has been investigated using two primary
methods: (1) factor analysis and (2) relationships with theoretically
related variables. Factor analysis provides one assessment of whether or
not a scale measures an underlying construct (items share common
variance). A scale, for instance, with a unidimensional factor structure
can be said to measure one construct (Nunnally, 1978).
To investigate the factor structure of the TUES, 176 female and 71
male (N = 247) undergraduate students were administered the TUES.
The average age of the sample was 24.6 (SD = 8.0). The majority of
participants (73%) identified themselves as White, 12% as African
American, 4% as Latino or Hispanic, 7% as Asian American, 2% as
Native American, and 2% as “other” or did not identify ethnicity. A
principal components factor analysis was calculated on responses to the
seven TUES items. One factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1
(eigenvalue = 3.9) emerged accounting for 56% of the systematic
variance in responses. Gorsuch (1983) noted that factors accounting for
at least 50% of the variance defines a strong factor. Item factor
Table 2
Factor Loadings and Item-Total Correlations of TUES Items
Item
Item-total correlation
Factor loading
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
.62
.57
.69
.56
.53
.76
.74
.72
.68
.79
.67
.65
.86
.84
loadings and item-total correlations are presented in Table 2. These
10
results suggest that the TUES measures a single underlying factor, or
construct.
Convergent Validity
One method to determine validity of individual differences measures
is to assess whether or not the scale relates to variables with which it
theoretically should relate. This is sometimes described as convergent
validity, and indicates that the scale is measuring the construct it
purports to measure. To investigate the convergent validity of the TUES,
scales measuring the following constructs were selected: procrastination,
time structure and purpose, time management, self-efficacy, perceived
stress, locus of control, and prime work-time. The TUES was expected
to significantly correlate with scales measuring each of these constructs.
It was reasoned that time use efficient individuals would likely not
spend their time on other activities before getting to the task-at-hand. So,
TUES scores should correlate negatively with procrastination. Further,
it was assumed that time use efficient individuals would feel that their
time has meaning and is an important resource. Hence, high TUES
scorers would score higher on time structure and purpose. Based on
Kelly’s (2002) theoretical framework, it was reasoned that time use
efficient individuals would use organizational skills and specific time
management behaviors to better control and manage their time. Thus,
TUES scores should positively correlate with time management
behaviors.
Self-efficacy was selected because of its links to duration estimates
and task approach (Brown, 1996; Gellatly, 1996). For instance, the
results of Gellatly (1996) suggest that self-efficacy is related to setting
higher goals and a more positive approach to tasks. Hence, self-efficacy,
it was hypothesized, would be related to individuals perceptions that they
can adequately evaluate time, evaluate tasks and activities which fill
time, and carry-out those tasks with efficient time use (high TUES
11
scores).
It was hypothesized that individuals who use their time efficiently
would be able to complete tasks in a more structured, controlled, timewise, and organized manner; thus being able to complete tasks and
activities in such a way that decreases the experience of stress. In other
words, time use efficient individuals should score lower on a measure of
stress.
An internal locus of control indicates that individuals feel they are in
control of their destiny, whereas an external locus of control suggests
that individuals believe their fate to be controlled by forces outside their
control (Rotter, 1966). It was reasoned that time use efficient individuals
would believe themselves to be able to manage their time and affairs and
thus be in control of their fate - indicating an internal locus of control.
Prime work time (morning versus evening) indicates the time of day
when one works best. It has been found that a morning prime work time
was related to more use of time management behaviors (Macan et al.,
1990). Hence, it was expected that morning prime work time would also
be related to TUE.
Participants included 125 students (108 females, 17 males) enrolled
in undergraduate courses. The average age of the sample was 27.5 (SD
= 8.6). Eighty percent identified themselves as White, 14% as African
American, 1% as Asian American, 3% as Native American, and 2%
identified themselves as “other” or did not specify their ethnicity.
After obtaining informed consent, participants were administered a
test booklet containing the TUES and a battery of seven other self-report
instruments which have been found to possess adequate reliability and
validity to measure the constructs described previously. These included:
(1) Schwarzer, Schmitz, & Diehl’s (2000) 10-item Procrastination Scale
(PS); (2) The 26-item Time Structure Questionnaire (TSQ; Bond &
Feather, 1988) which includes factor scales for sense of purpose,
structured routine, present orientation, effective organization, and
12
persistence; (3) the 34-item Time Management Behavior Scale (TMB;
Macan et al., 1990) which includes factor scales for setting goals and
priorities, mechanics of time management (specific time management
behaviors), preference for organization, and perceived control of time;
(4) the 10-item General Perceived Self-Efficacy Scale (SES; Schwarzer
& Jerusalem, 1995); (5) the 4-item version of the Perceived Stress Scale
(PSS; Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983); (6) the 11-item version
of Rotter’s (1966) measure of internal-external locus of control (I-E;
Valecha & Ostrom, 1974); and (7) the single-item assessment of prime
work time used by Macan et al. (1990) on which participants were asked
to characterize themselves as a “morning person,” evening person,” or
“neither.”
Correlations between the TUES and the nine other measures
(including the factor scales for the TSQ and TMB) are presented in
Table 3. As shown in the table, the TUES correlated significantly with
all seven total scales and all the factor scales of the TSQ and TMB. All
correlations, were in the predicted direction. Based on these results,
individuals who score high on the TUES tend not to procrastinate, have
structure and purpose in the use of their time, use time management
behaviors, report less stress, possess more self-efficacy, have an internal
locus of control, and endorse their prime work time as morning (scores
were dummy coded as 1 = morning type, 2 = neither, and 3 = evening
types: thus, lower scores indicate morning types). These results support
the validity of the TUES, in that it relates to variables with which it
theoretically should relate.
11
scores).
It was hypothesized that individuals who use their time efficiently
would be able to complete tasks in a more structured, controlled, timewise, and organized manner; thus being able to complete tasks and
activities in such a way that decreases the experience of stress. In other
words, time use efficient individuals should score lower on a measure of
stress.
An internal locus of control indicates that individuals feel they are in
control of their destiny, whereas an external locus of control suggests
that individuals believe their fate to be controlled by forces outside their
control (Rotter, 1966). It was reasoned that time use efficient individuals
would believe themselves to be able to manage their time and affairs and
thus be in control of their fate - indicating an internal locus of control.
Prime work time (morning versus evening) indicates the time of day
when one works best. It has been found that a morning prime work time
was related to more use of time management behaviors (Macan et al.,
1990). Hence, it was expected that morning prime work time would also
be related to TUE.
Participants included 125 students (108 females, 17 males) enrolled
in undergraduate courses. The average age of the sample was 27.5 (SD
= 8.6). Eighty percent identified themselves as White, 14% as African
American, 1% as Asian American, 3% as Native American, and 2%
identified themselves as “other” or did not specify their ethnicity.
After obtaining informed consent, participants were administered a
test booklet containing the TUES and a battery of seven other self-report
instruments which have been found to possess adequate reliability and
validity to measure the constructs described previously. These included:
(1) Schwarzer, Schmitz, & Diehl’s (2000) 10-item Procrastination Scale
(PS); (2) The 26-item Time Structure Questionnaire (TSQ; Bond &
Feather, 1988) which includes factor scales for sense of purpose,
structured routine, present orientation, effective organization, and
12
persistence; (3) the 34-item Time Management Behavior Scale (TMB;
Macan et al., 1990) which includes factor scales for setting goals and
priorities, mechanics of time management (specific time management
behaviors), preference for organization, and perceived control of time;
(4) the 10-item General Perceived Self-Efficacy Scale (SES; Schwarzer
& Jerusalem, 1995); (5) the 4-item version of the Perceived Stress Scale
(PSS; Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983); (6) the 11-item version
of Rotter’s (1966) measure of internal-external locus of control (I-E;
Valecha & Ostrom, 1974); and (7) the single-item assessment of prime
work time used by Macan et al. (1990) on which participants were asked
to characterize themselves as a “morning person,” evening person,” or
“neither.”
Correlations between the TUES and the nine other measures
(including the factor scales for the TSQ and TMB) are presented in
Table 3. As shown in the table, the TUES correlated significantly with
all seven total scales and all the factor scales of the TSQ and TMB. All
correlations, were in the predicted direction. Based on these results,
individuals who score high on the TUES tend not to procrastinate, have
structure and purpose in the use of their time, use time management
behaviors, report less stress, possess more self-efficacy, have an internal
locus of control, and endorse their prime work time as morning (scores
were dummy coded as 1 = morning type, 2 = neither, and 3 = evening
types: thus, lower scores indicate morning types). These results support
the validity of the TUES, in that it relates to variables with which it
theoretically should relate.
13
Table 3
TUES Correlates
Scale
Correlation with
the TUES
PS
-.58***
TSQ
Sense of Purpose
Structured Routine
Present Orientation
Effective Organization
Persistence
.60***
.40***
.52***
.30***
.49***
.42***
TMB
Setting Goals and Priorities
Mechanics of Time Management
Preference for Organization
Perceived Control over Time
.49***
.53***
.27**
.25**
.40***
SES
.29**
PSS
-.20*
I-E
.19*
Prime Work Time
-.23**
* p < .05
**p < .01
***p < .001 (two-tailed).
PS = Procrastination Scale; TSQ = Time Structure Questionnaire; TMB = Time
Management Behavior Scale; SES= Self Efficacy Scale; PSS = Perceived Stress Scale;
I-E = Internal External Locus of Control Scale.
Discriminant Validity
It is important in individual differences assessment that a scale relates
to that which it should relate. However, it is also important that a scale
does not relate to theoretically unrelated variables. This is a concept
known as discriminant validity. The discriminant validity of the TUES
was examined by investigating the correlation between the TUES and
three measures: social desirability, shyness, and preference for solitude.
14
It is often considered important to assess the degree to which social
desirability might influence assessment scores (Anastasi, 1988). Thus,
often test validation includes measures of self-presentation/social
desirability. No theoretical reason for the TUES to relate to social
desirability could be conceived. Thus, in deference to the standard
approach of investigating a scale’s relationship to social desirability, and
to provide some evidence of discriminant validity, the relationship
between the TUES and social desirability was evaluated.
Reynold’s (1982) 11-item version of the Marlowe-Crowne Social
Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964), a well-known, often used
measure of social desirability, was administered to 103 female and 24
male undergraduate students (M age = 24.5 years, SD = 6.8). The
TUES did not significantly correlate with the short form of the MarloweCrowne Social Desirability Scale (r = .10, p = .25). Thus, the TUES
does not appear to be eliciting a socially desirable response set. This also
evidences discriminant validity of the TUES, in that the TUES does not
relate to the theoretically unrelated construct social desirability.
To further assess the discriminant validity of the scale, the TUES,
Check’s (1983) 13-item version of the Shyness Scale (Cheek & Buss,
1981), and the Preference for Solitude Scale (Burger, 1995) were
administered to 54 males and 50 females (N = 104), enrolled in
undergraduate courses. The average age of the sample was 20.3 (SD =
3.3). The TUES did not significantly relate to either the Shyness Scale
(r = - .11, p = .27) or the Preference for Solitude Scale (r = - .04, p =
.66). These results suggest that the TUES shares little variance with
either the Shyness Scale or the Preference for Solitude Scale, further
indicating the discriminant validity of the TUES.
13
Table 3
TUES Correlates
Scale
Correlation with
the TUES
PS
-.58***
TSQ
Sense of Purpose
Structured Routine
Present Orientation
Effective Organization
Persistence
.60***
.40***
.52***
.30***
.49***
.42***
TMB
Setting Goals and Priorities
Mechanics of Time Management
Preference for Organization
Perceived Control over Time
.49***
.53***
.27**
.25**
.40***
SES
.29**
PSS
-.20*
I-E
.19*
Prime Work Time
-.23**
* p < .05
**p < .01
***p < .001 (two-tailed).
PS = Procrastination Scale; TSQ = Time Structure Questionnaire; TMB = Time
Management Behavior Scale; SES= Self Efficacy Scale; PSS = Perceived Stress Scale;
I-E = Internal External Locus of Control Scale.
Discriminant Validity
It is important in individual differences assessment that a scale relates
to that which it should relate. However, it is also important that a scale
does not relate to theoretically unrelated variables. This is a concept
known as discriminant validity. The discriminant validity of the TUES
was examined by investigating the correlation between the TUES and
three measures: social desirability, shyness, and preference for solitude.
14
It is often considered important to assess the degree to which social
desirability might influence assessment scores (Anastasi, 1988). Thus,
often test validation includes measures of self-presentation/social
desirability. No theoretical reason for the TUES to relate to social
desirability could be conceived. Thus, in deference to the standard
approach of investigating a scale’s relationship to social desirability, and
to provide some evidence of discriminant validity, the relationship
between the TUES and social desirability was evaluated.
Reynold’s (1982) 11-item version of the Marlowe-Crowne Social
Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964), a well-known, often used
measure of social desirability, was administered to 103 female and 24
male undergraduate students (M age = 24.5 years, SD = 6.8). The
TUES did not significantly correlate with the short form of the MarloweCrowne Social Desirability Scale (r = .10, p = .25). Thus, the TUES
does not appear to be eliciting a socially desirable response set. This also
evidences discriminant validity of the TUES, in that the TUES does not
relate to the theoretically unrelated construct social desirability.
To further assess the discriminant validity of the scale, the TUES,
Check’s (1983) 13-item version of the Shyness Scale (Cheek & Buss,
1981), and the Preference for Solitude Scale (Burger, 1995) were
administered to 54 males and 50 females (N = 104), enrolled in
undergraduate courses. The average age of the sample was 20.3 (SD =
3.3). The TUES did not significantly relate to either the Shyness Scale
(r = - .11, p = .27) or the Preference for Solitude Scale (r = - .04, p =
.66). These results suggest that the TUES shares little variance with
either the Shyness Scale or the Preference for Solitude Scale, further
indicating the discriminant validity of the TUES.
15
Validity Summary
The TUES exhibits some degree of validity. First, it appears to assess
one underlying construct. Second, it correlates with variables which it
theoretically should relate, such as procrastination, time management,
stress, and self-efficacy. This suggests that the underlying construct
represented by TUES scores is time use efficiency, as defined by Kelly
(2002). Third, the TUES did not correlate significantly with theoretically
unrelated variables, such as shyness. Importantly, the TUES appears to
be influenced very little by the need to present oneself in a socially
desirable manner.
16
CHAPTER 5
Administration and Scoring
The TUES may be administered individually or in groups. The scale
should be administered with the instructions that individuals are to
respond as they generally are, not necessarily as they feel at this
particular moment. The TUES is administered using a 7-point Likerttype scale where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = slightly
disagree, 4 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 = slightly agree, 6 = agree,
and 7 = strongly agree. Ideally, the scale should be administered with
response choices (i.e., 1-7) to the right of each item for participants to
circle or “bubble-in.” Standardized TUES response sheets are available
from the test publisher.
No studies have examined the number of items to which responses can
be missing without invalidating TUES scores or the effect that missing
data has on the TUES in research situations. When using large samples,
however, it might be possible to replace missing responses with the mean
score of any particular item with little damage to the validity or
reliability of the scale. However, this practice should not be used when
assessing only one, or a few, participants. Further, it is tentatively
suggested that if more than two (almost 30%) of items are not responded
to, TUES scores should not be interpreted.
TUES scores are easily calculated. Simply sum the numbers
corresponding to responses for each item. No items are reverse-scored.
15
Validity Summary
The TUES exhibits some degree of validity. First, it appears to assess
one underlying construct. Second, it correlates with variables which it
theoretically should relate, such as procrastination, time management,
stress, and self-efficacy. This suggests that the underlying construct
represented by TUES scores is time use efficiency, as defined by Kelly
(2002). Third, the TUES did not correlate significantly with theoretically
unrelated variables, such as shyness. Importantly, the TUES appears to
be influenced very little by the need to present oneself in a socially
desirable manner.
16
CHAPTER 5
Administration and Scoring
The TUES may be administered individually or in groups. The scale
should be administered with the instructions that individuals are to
respond as they generally are, not necessarily as they feel at this
particular moment. The TUES is administered using a 7-point Likerttype scale where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = slightly
disagree, 4 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 = slightly agree, 6 = agree,
and 7 = strongly agree. Ideally, the scale should be administered with
response choices (i.e., 1-7) to the right of each item for participants to
circle or “bubble-in.” Standardized TUES response sheets are available
from the test publisher.
No studies have examined the number of items to which responses can
be missing without invalidating TUES scores or the effect that missing
data has on the TUES in research situations. When using large samples,
however, it might be possible to replace missing responses with the mean
score of any particular item with little damage to the validity or
reliability of the scale. However, this practice should not be used when
assessing only one, or a few, participants. Further, it is tentatively
suggested that if more than two (almost 30%) of items are not responded
to, TUES scores should not be interpreted.
TUES scores are easily calculated. Simply sum the numbers
corresponding to responses for each item. No items are reverse-scored.
17
CHAPTER 6
Normative Data
In research, higher or lower scores on the TUES may be interpreted
in the context of their correlation with other variables (i.e., higher TUES
scorers tend to score lower on perceived stress). It is difficult, however,
to ascertain the meaning of any one test score without the availability of
normative data (norms). Norms provide a reference-point for interpreting
a score on a particular measure for a member of a given population.
The available norms for the TUES were derived from 875 students
(615 females), graduate and undergraduate, enrolled in American
universities with an average age of 25.8 (SD = 8). The average score for
all participants was 34.9 (SD = 8). The average score was 35.2 (SD =
7) for males and 34.8 (SD = 8) for females. The average scores for
individuals of different age categories are presented in Table 4.
Table 4
TUES Norms Among Different Age Groups
Age Category
M
SD
18-25
26-35
34.3
36.3
8
7
36-49
50 and above
37.0
33.8
7
10
The norms for the entire sample reveal a slight skew in the distribution
of scores (skewness = - .65), with participants’ average score being
slightly higher on the TUES than would be expected if the data were
perfectly normally distributed. This slight skew, however does not reach
statistical significance and would seem to indicate that much of the
18
sample considered themselves adept at using time efficiently.
It is important to note that the TUES was developed, validated, and
normed using a sample of primarily European American, English
speaking, American university students. Therefore, caution should be
used when attempting to generalize the scale to other ethnicities and
cultures, and those whose primary language is not English.
17
CHAPTER 6
Normative Data
In research, higher or lower scores on the TUES may be interpreted
in the context of their correlation with other variables (i.e., higher TUES
scorers tend to score lower on perceived stress). It is difficult, however,
to ascertain the meaning of any one test score without the availability of
normative data (norms). Norms provide a reference-point for interpreting
a score on a particular measure for a member of a given population.
The available norms for the TUES were derived from 875 students
(615 females), graduate and undergraduate, enrolled in American
universities with an average age of 25.8 (SD = 8). The average score for
all participants was 34.9 (SD = 8). The average score was 35.2 (SD =
7) for males and 34.8 (SD = 8) for females. The average scores for
individuals of different age categories are presented in Table 4.
Table 4
TUES Norms Among Different Age Groups
Age Category
M
SD
18-25
26-35
34.3
36.3
8
7
36-49
50 and above
37.0
33.8
7
10
The norms for the entire sample reveal a slight skew in the distribution
of scores (skewness = - .65), with participants’ average score being
slightly higher on the TUES than would be expected if the data were
perfectly normally distributed. This slight skew, however does not reach
statistical significance and would seem to indicate that much of the
18
sample considered themselves adept at using time efficiently.
It is important to note that the TUES was developed, validated, and
normed using a sample of primarily European American, English
speaking, American university students. Therefore, caution should be
used when attempting to generalize the scale to other ethnicities and
cultures, and those whose primary language is not English.
19
References
Anasatsi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed). New York: Macmillan
Publishing.
Bond, M. J., & Feather, N. T. (1988). Some correlates of structure and
purpose in the use of time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
55, 321-329.
Brown, J. W. (1996). Time, will, and mental process. New York: Plenum
Press.
Burger, J. M. (1995). Individual differences in preference for solitude.
Journal of Research in Personality, 29, 85-108.
Cheek, J. M. (1983). The revised Cheek and Buss shyness scale. Unpublished
manuscript, Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA.
20
Kirkcaldy, B. D. (1984). Individual differences in time estimation.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 15, 11-24.
Macan, T. H., Shahani, C., Dipboye, R. L., & Phillips, A. P. (1990). ‘College
students’ time management: Correlations with academic performance and
stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 760-768.
McCown, W., Petzel, T., & Rupert, P. (1987). An experimental study of some
hypothesized behaviors and personality variables among college student
procrastinators. Personality and Individual Differences, 8, 781-786.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed). New York: McGrawHill.
Rammsayer, T. H. (1997). On the relationship between personality and time
estimation. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 739-744.
Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. (1981). Shyness and sociability. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 330-339.
Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the
Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 38, 119-125.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of
perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 386-396.
Roberts, K. T., & Aspy, C. B. (1993). Development of the Serenity Scale.
Journal of Nursing Measurement, 1, 145-164.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive. New York:
Wiley.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external
control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1.
Gellatly, I. R. (1996). Conscientiousness and task performance: Test of a
cognitive process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 474-482.
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale. In
J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston, Measures in health psychology:
A user’s portfolio (pp. 35-37). Windsor, UK: NFER-Nelson.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jackson, D. N. (1970). A sequential system for personality scale development.
In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Current topics in clinical and community
psychology. New York: Academic Press.
Kelly, W. E. (2002). Harnessing the river of time: A theoretical framework
of time use efficiency with suggestions for counselors. Journal of
Employment Counseling, 39, 12-21.
Schwarzer, R., Schmitz, G. S., & Diehl. M. (2000). Procrastination Scale
[online publication]. Berlin: Freie Universitaet Berlin. Available at:
http://www.fu-berlin.de/gesund/skalen/.
Valecha, G. K., & Ostrom, T. M. (1974). An abbreviated measure of internalexternal locus of control. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38, 369-376.
19
References
Anasatsi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed). New York: Macmillan
Publishing.
Bond, M. J., & Feather, N. T. (1988). Some correlates of structure and
purpose in the use of time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
55, 321-329.
Brown, J. W. (1996). Time, will, and mental process. New York: Plenum
Press.
Burger, J. M. (1995). Individual differences in preference for solitude.
Journal of Research in Personality, 29, 85-108.
Cheek, J. M. (1983). The revised Cheek and Buss shyness scale. Unpublished
manuscript, Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA.
20
Kirkcaldy, B. D. (1984). Individual differences in time estimation.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 15, 11-24.
Macan, T. H., Shahani, C., Dipboye, R. L., & Phillips, A. P. (1990). ‘College
students’ time management: Correlations with academic performance and
stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 760-768.
McCown, W., Petzel, T., & Rupert, P. (1987). An experimental study of some
hypothesized behaviors and personality variables among college student
procrastinators. Personality and Individual Differences, 8, 781-786.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed). New York: McGrawHill.
Rammsayer, T. H. (1997). On the relationship between personality and time
estimation. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 739-744.
Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. (1981). Shyness and sociability. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 330-339.
Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the
Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 38, 119-125.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of
perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 386-396.
Roberts, K. T., & Aspy, C. B. (1993). Development of the Serenity Scale.
Journal of Nursing Measurement, 1, 145-164.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive. New York:
Wiley.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external
control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1.
Gellatly, I. R. (1996). Conscientiousness and task performance: Test of a
cognitive process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 474-482.
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale. In
J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston, Measures in health psychology:
A user’s portfolio (pp. 35-37). Windsor, UK: NFER-Nelson.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jackson, D. N. (1970). A sequential system for personality scale development.
In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Current topics in clinical and community
psychology. New York: Academic Press.
Kelly, W. E. (2002). Harnessing the river of time: A theoretical framework
of time use efficiency with suggestions for counselors. Journal of
Employment Counseling, 39, 12-21.
Schwarzer, R., Schmitz, G. S., & Diehl. M. (2000). Procrastination Scale
[online publication]. Berlin: Freie Universitaet Berlin. Available at:
http://www.fu-berlin.de/gesund/skalen/.
Valecha, G. K., & Ostrom, T. M. (1974). An abbreviated measure of internalexternal locus of control. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38, 369-376.
21
Appendix
TUES Items
1. I like to give myself extra time to get things done.
2. I am usually very accurate in figuring out how long it will take to
finish a task.
3. I am good at pacing myself so I can get things done on time.
4. I am very exact in my work.
5. It’s important that I make the best use of my time.
6. I use my time efficiently.
7. I’m careful that I don’t waste my time.
View publication stats