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
0
You can add this document to your study collection(s)
Sign in Available only to authorized usersYou can add this document to your saved list
Sign in Available only to authorized users(For complaints, use another form )