The present study analyzed the psychometric proprieties of the Adult Inventory of Procrastination (AIP) by McCown and Johnson (1989) with an adult Italian sample (n = 305) by comparing three construct models. Models included: 1) the original uni-dimensional structure; 2) a Spanish model with two components — lack of punctuality and lack of planning (Díaz Morales, Ferrari, Diaz, & Argumendo, 2006); 3) a Turkish model with two components reflecting positive aspects of avoidance and negative aspects of avoidance (Ferrari, Özer, & Demir, 2009). Moreover, two models using the Adult Inventory of Procrastination and the Decisional Procrastination Scale were analyzed using scores on the AIP: the four-component model of Díaz Morales et al. (2006) and Steel’s (2010) three-factor model of procrastination. Results showed that the original uni-dimensional model provided the best fit. Both internal consistency for reliability, and convergent and discriminant validity with other measures supported the uni-dimensional psychometric properties of the Italian AIP.
ADULT INVENTORY OF PROCRASTINATION SCALE (AIP): A COMPARISON OF MODELS WITH AN ITALIAN SAMPLE / M.G. Mariani; J. Ferrari. - In: TPM. TESTING, PSYCHOMETRICS, METHODOLOGY IN APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY. - ISSN 1972-6325. - STAMPA. - 19:(2012), pp. 3-14. [10.4473/TPM19.1.1]
ADULT INVENTORY OF PROCRASTINATION SCALE (AIP): A COMPARISON OF MODELS WITH AN ITALIAN SAMPLE
MARIANI, MARCO GIOVANNI;
2012
Abstract
The present study analyzed the psychometric proprieties of the Adult Inventory of Procrastination (AIP) by McCown and Johnson (1989) with an adult Italian sample (n = 305) by comparing three construct models. Models included: 1) the original uni-dimensional structure; 2) a Spanish model with two components — lack of punctuality and lack of planning (Díaz Morales, Ferrari, Diaz, & Argumendo, 2006); 3) a Turkish model with two components reflecting positive aspects of avoidance and negative aspects of avoidance (Ferrari, Özer, & Demir, 2009). Moreover, two models using the Adult Inventory of Procrastination and the Decisional Procrastination Scale were analyzed using scores on the AIP: the four-component model of Díaz Morales et al. (2006) and Steel’s (2010) three-factor model of procrastination. Results showed that the original uni-dimensional model provided the best fit. Both internal consistency for reliability, and convergent and discriminant validity with other measures supported the uni-dimensional psychometric properties of the Italian AIP.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
