Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Researchers continue to attempt to resolve the psychometric problems associated with the five-factor Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory through the development of shortened forms of the scale. These atheoretical efforts have been data driven and have resulted in scales whose reliability and validity have not been subsequently supported. The purpose of this paper was to explore the factorial validity and reliability of new short scales on samples independent from which they were developed. We used data from five different samples in four different countries (Australia, Britain, Slovenia, and the United States) to examine the psychometric validity and reliability of three recently developed scales, the ZTPI-20, ZTPI-17, and ZTPI-15. Results regarding validity were equivocal for all scales and reliability coefficients were suboptimal in all samples. We conclude by stressing the necessity for a theoretically driven approach to enhancing the psychometric assessment of time perspective rather than simply sacrificing reliability or discriminant validity for improved model fit in a shorter scale.

Keywords

Confirmatory factor analysis exploratory structural equation modelling Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory cross-cultural internal consistency

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cheung GW and Rensvold RB (2002) Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling 9: 233–255.

Clark

Watson

(1995) Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment 7: 309–319.

Cortina

(1993) What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology 78: 98–104.

Crockett

Weinman

Hankins

, et al. (2009) Time orientation and health-related behaviour: Measurement in general population samples. Psychology and Health 24: 333–350.

Dunn

Baguley

Brunsden

(2013) From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology 105: 399–412.

Fornell

Larcker

(1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18: 39–50.

Geisinger

(2003) Testing and assessment in cross-cultural psychology. In: Graham

VJR

Naglieri

Weiner

(eds) Handbook of Psychology, Assessment Psychology Vol. 10, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 95–119.

Heene

Hilbert

Draxler

, et al. (2011) Masking misfit in confirmatory factor analysis by increasing unique variances: A cautionary note on the usefulness of cutoff values of fit indices. Psychological Methods 16: 319–336.

Bentler

(1999) Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling 6: 1–55.

10.

Kelley K and Lai K (2012) MBESS: MBESS. R package version 3.3.2. Available at: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MBESS10705519909540118 (accessed 25 August 2016).

11.

Knowles

Condon

(2000) Does the rose still smell sweet? Item variability across test forms and revisions. Psychological Assessment 12: 245–252.

12.

Košt’ál

Klicperová-Baker

Lukavská

, et al. (2016) Short version of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI–short) with and without the future-negative scale, verified on nationally representative samples. Time and Society 25: 169–192.

13.

Laghi F, Baiocco R, Liga F, et al. (2013) Identity status differences among Italian adolescents: Associations with time perspective. Child and Youth Services Review 35: 482–487.

14.

Marsh

Hau

K-T

Wen

(2004) In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cut-off values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling 11: 320–341.

15.

Marsh

Nagengast

Morin

AJS

(2012) Measurement invariance of Big-Five factors over the life span: ESEM tests of gender, age, plasticity, maturity, and La Dolce Vita effects. Developmental Psychology 49: 1194–1218.

16.

Meade AW, Johnson EC, and Braddy PW (2008) Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology 93: 568–592.

17.

McKay MT, Worrell FC, Temple EC, et al. (2015) Less is not always more: The case of the 36-item short form of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences 72: 68–71.

18.

Mello

Worrell

(2015) The past, the present, and the future: A conceptual model of time perspective in adolescence. In: Stolarski

Fieulaine

van Beek

(eds) Time Perspective Theory: Review, Research, and Application. Essays in Honor of Phillip G. Zimbardo Zug, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 115–129.

19.

Muthén

(1998–2012) Mplus User’s Guide, 7th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén and Muthén.

20.

Orkibi

(2015) Psychometric properties of the Hebrew short version of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory. Evaluation and the Health Professions 38: 219–245.

21.

Orosz

Dombi

Tóth-Király

, et al. (2017) The less is more: The 17-item Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory. Current Psychology 36: 39–47.

22.

Perry

McKay

Worrell

, et al. (2015) Measuring time perspective in adolescents: Can you get the right answer by asking the wrong questions? Personality and Individual Differences 78: 53–57.

23.

R Development Core Team (2012) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: The R Foundation. Available at: http://www.R-project.org/ (accessed 20 July 2016).

24.

Schmitt

(1996) Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment 8: 350–353.

25.

Shipp AJ, Edwards JR, and Schurer-Lambert L (2009) Conceptualization and measurement of temporal focus: The subjective experience of the past, present, and future. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 110: 1–22.

26.

Sircova

van de Vijver

FJR

Osin

, et al. (2014) A global look at time: A 24-country study of equivalence of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory. SAGE Open 4: 1–12.

27.

Strathman A, Gleicher F, Boninger DS, et al. (1994) The consideration of future consequences: Weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66: 742–752.

28.

Streiner

(2003) Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment 80: 99–103.

29.

Worrell

Mello

(2007) The reliability and validity of Zimbardo Time Perspective scores in academically talented adolescents. Educational and Psychological Measurement 67: 487–504.

30.

Worrell

Temple

McKay

, et al. (2018) A theoretical approach to the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory: Results from America, Australia, Slovenia, and the UK. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 34: 41–51.

31.

Zhang

Howell

Bowerman

(2013) Validating a brief measure of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory. Time and Society 22: 391–409.

32.

Zimbardo

Boyd

(1999) Time perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77: 1271–1288.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.07 MB

The Zimbardo time perspective inventory: Time for a new strategy,not more new shortened versions

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material