中国临床心理学杂志

主动拖延量表在中国大学生群体中的修订及信效度检验

作者：倪士光¹ 2 李虹² 徐继红² JINNAM CHOI³

单位：1. 哈尔滨工业大学威海校区心理咨询中心山东威海264209
2. 清华大学心理学系北京100084
3. 韩国国立首尔大学商学院

分类号：B841

出版年,卷(期):页码：2011,19(4):462-465

摘要：

目的：对主动拖延量表(NAPS)进行中文修订。方法：经过开放性问卷调查、量表翻译和初测、量表检验和重测等步骤修订NAPS，累计施测于1218名大学生。结果：总量表α系数为0.84，结果满意、压力偏好、主动决定拖延、按时完成任务能力的α系数分别为0.82、0.79、0.78、0.80；重测信度为0.82，四个因子的重测信度分别为0.81、0.80、0.78、0.81；主动拖延与被动拖延相关为-0.007(P>；0.05)，与自我效能感、学习成绩和学业满意度呈显著相关(P<0.05)。验证性因素分析显示拟合指数χ2/df值为2.904，GFI、CFI、AGFI的值分别为0.91、0.92、0.87，而RMSEA的值为0.048。结论：主动拖延量表包括结果满意(OS)、压力偏好(PP)、主动决定(ID)和按时完成任务能力(AD)等四个维度；修订的主动拖延量表(NAPS)具有良好的信度和效度，适用于国内大学生群体。

Objective:revise and examine the reliability and validity of a New Active Procrastination Scale(NAPS)for Chinese University Students.Methods:On the basis of an open and semi-structured survey,NAPS was translated in toChinese,and revised and given twice to examine totally 1218 students.Results:The total Cronbach’s α coefficient was0.84,while α coefficients of outcome satisfaction、preference for pressure、intentional decision to procrastination、ability tomeet deadlines were 0.82、0.79、0.78、0.80 respectively;test-retest correlation coefficients was 0.82;The correlation betweenActive Procrastination and Passive one showed no significant correlation (P>0.05),while significantly correlated withSelf-Efficacy、academic satisfaction and performance (P<0.01).Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the fit indexes forχ2/df =3.041,GFI=0.92,AGFI=0.89,NFI=0.87,RMSEA=0.07,CFI= 0.91,RER=0.21.The structural equation modelinganalysis of the structure of academic burnout showed the fit indexes for χ2/df =2.904,GFI=0.91,AGFI=0.92,CFI=0.87,RMSEA=0.07.Conclusion:The expected four-factor structure of the NAPS contains outcome satisfaction(OS)、preferencefor pressure(PP)、intentional decision to procrastination(ID)、ability to meet deadlines(AD).The test has good reliably andvalidly and could be suitable for measuring active procrastination of undergraduate students.

基金项目：

清华大学自主科研计划课题(2010THZ04)；山东省高校第三批人文社科研究计划项目(J10WH70)

作者简介：

参考文献：

1.Frrari JR.Procrastination as self-regulation failure of performance:Effects of cognitive load,self-awareness,andtime limits on “working best under pressure”.EuropeanJournal of Personality,2001,15(7):391-406;
2.Van-Eerde W.A meta-analytically derived nomologicalnetwork of procrastination.Personality and Individual Differences,2003,35(4):1401-1418;
3.Sirois FM.“I’ll look after my health,later”:A replicationand extension of the procrastination-health model withcommunity-dwelling adults.Personality and Individual Differences,2007,43(11):15-26;
4.Steel P.The nature of procrastination:A meta-analytic andtheoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure.Psychological Bulletin,2007,133(1):65-94;
5.O’Brien WK.Applying the transtheoretical model to academicprocrastination.Unpublished doctoral dissertation.University of Houston,2002;
6.Onwuegbuzie AJ.Academic procrastinators and perfectionistictendencies among graduate students.Journal of SocialBehavior and Personality,2000,15(5):103-109;
7.Harriott J,Ferrari JR.Prevalence of procrastination amongsamples of adults.Psychological Reports,1996,78(7):611-616;
8.Chu AH,Choi JN.Rethinking procrastination:Positive effectsof “active” procrastination behavior on attitudes andperformance.The Journal of Social Psychology,2005,145(6):245-264;
9.Alexander ES,Onwuegbuzie,AJ.Academic procrastinationand the role of hope as a coping strategy.Personality andIndividual Differences,2007,42(8):1301-1310;
10.Howell AJ,Watson DC.Procrastination:Associations withachievement goal orientation and learning strategies.Personalityand Individual Differences,2007,43(6):167-178;
11.Bui NH.Effect of evaluation threat on procrastination behavior.The Journal of Social Psychology,2007,14;
7.(5):197-209;
12.Choi JN,Moran SV.Why not procrastinate Developmentand validation of a new active procrastination scale.TheJournal of Social Psychology,2009,149(2):195-211;
13.王有智,罗静.高低拖延者的冲动性特征与延迟折扣差异研究.心理科学,2009,32(2):371-374;
14.王才康,胡中锋,刘勇.一般自我效能感量表的信度和效度研究.应用心理学,2001,7(1):37-40

服务与反馈：

【文章下载】【加入收藏】