Measurement Instrument Critique: The Academic Procrastination Scale (APS)

Measurement Instrument Critique: The Academic Procrastination Scale (APS)

The Academic Procrastination Scale (APS) by McCloskey (2011) represents one significant breakthrough in measuring procrastination behaviors within academic contexts. The 25-item scale has been specifically developed as a measure of the disposition to procrastinate or postpone academic work and has special appropriateness for graduate student populations. A five-point Likert scale of responses has been applied, and examples of items are “I delay beginning work on things I don’t like to do” and “I procrastinate making difficult decisions,” both of which reflect directly the behavioral expression of academic procrastination.

The psychometric properties of the APS are of remarkably high quality from various validation studies. The internal consistency reliability is high, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients frequently being indicated as .94 or higher across various population groups. The cross-cultural validation studies also supported this reliability, and the overseas adaptations also exhibit similar internal consistency. The construct validity of the scale has been established through extensive factor analyses, and both the exploratory and the confirmatory routes supported its unidimensional form. The convergent validity has been reinforced by high correlations with validated procrastination measures, like the Tuckman Procrastination Scale, and discriminant validity has been demonstrated through proper divergence from inappropriate constructs.

Among the advantages of the APS is its specificity to academic settings, which differentiates it from general procrastination measures with the potential to blur academic and non-academic delay behaviors. Scaling development followed tight psychometric guidelines, with an initial large item pool being sequentially reduced via statistical analysis and expert judgment. The scale yielded through this procedure covered 25 items and strikes an equitable balance between content coverage and admin feasibility. The scale also has demonstrated measurement invariance across diversely sampled demographic groups, providing justification for its use with heterogeneous student groups.

The APS does, however, include some limitations, which are to be regarded. The unidimensional factor, although statistically justified, may be oversimplifying the explanation for the complex dynamics of academic procrastination. Some researchers argue that procrastination has faces or features, behavioral, cognitive, and affective, and one factor cannot ideally represent all those features. Further, the scale relies only on self-report methodology, and this may lead to response bias, such as the social desirability effect or misinformation about self-understanding of procrastination behaviors. The temporal stability of the scores from the APS, although adequate for psychological studies, indicates that procrastination may also be more changeable than how the scale comprehends it.

References

McCloskey, J. (2011). Finally, my thesis on academic procrastination [Master’s thesis, University of Texas at Arlington]. UTA ResearchCommons. https://mavmatrix.uta.edu/psychology_theses/30/

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Measurement Instrument Critique: The Academic Procrastination Scale (APS)

Locate a standardized measurement instrument that would be in alignment with your study, and then complete an evaluation of the instrument as described below using the assignment template in this week’s resources. Your evaluation will be in the form of a presentation. There are a few different ways to locate a measurement instrument with published psychometrics.

The Academic Procrastination Scale (APS)

Use the information found in this week’s resources to locate a test instrument by one of these methods:
Use the Roadrunner Search on the home page of the NCU Library to identify a measurement instrument used in a peer-reviewed study you have read, and then use the reference list to find the origin of that instrument.
Use one of the Library databases listed to identify a test instrument.
Try searching for a commercially published test or measurement, or information about them on the Internet.
If you still cannot find an instrument, chat with a librarian or sign up for a one-on-one consultation with a librarian for support.
The standardized measurement instrument used in the critique must be located from a scholarly source containing validity and reliability information. Remember to include a link to your instrument in your references.
After the critique of the instrument, write a one-page summary tying to Week 4 material and Week 4 assignment. For full points, make sure to: 1) identify particular items on the instrument relevant to measuring each variable identified in Week 4, 2) identify the scale of measurement of each variable as identified in Week 4, and 3) discuss the conceptual definitions and operational definitions of your concepts and how they relate to this instrument.
Length: 1 page
References: An Applied Guide to Research Designs: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods by W. Alex Edmonds; Thomas D. Kennedy
ISBN: 9781483317274
Publication Date: 2016-05-30
Edmonds, W. A., & Kennedy, T. D. (2017). An applied guide to research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (2nd ed.). SAGE.
This resource will explain the basics of validity and reliability and help you think about measurement issues within your design. Please read and focus on pages 4-13, 29-34 this week. You can also look at Appendix G: Validity, Control, and Causal Inferences Checklist.

* There is a “Show Page Numbers” function available when you access the book’s chapters. It is above the title of the chapter, off to the right. This is an example:
How Results Can Be Misleading: Problems with Reliability and Validity
Lam, K. (2012). How results can be misleading: Problems with reliability and validity [Streaming video]. SAGE Research Methods.
This resource explains validity and reliability and problems that occur when your study does not have high validity and reliability.
EDR-8500 Week 5 Instrument Critique Template
National University. (n.d.). EDR-8500 Week 5 instrument critique template [PowerPoint]. Author.
Use this template to complete this week’s assignment.
Tests and Measurements
Northcentral University Library. (2020). Tests and measurements. Northcentral University.
This guide will walk you through how to find an instrument for your assignment.