Reasons for Deferring Exam Learning (GAP)

Abstract

The Reasons for Deferring Exam Learning (GAP) scale is a psychological instrument designed to quantify the specific reasons why students postpone preparatory activities for academic examinations. Developed as part of a comprehensive research project on procrastination at the University of Münster, the scale focuses on two primary dimensions: Mental Distraction (internal cognitive factors) and engagement in Alternative Activities (external behavioral factors). The instrument consists of nine validated items and is developed in German. The instrument’s validation status confirms its utility for assessing specific deferral mechanisms in academic contexts.

Keywords

Procrastination, Academic Procrastination, Learning Deferral, Mental Distraction, Alternative Activities, Exam Preparation, University of Münster.

Authors

Margarita Engberding, Sonja Westermann, Anna Höcker, Fred Rist.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the GAP instrument is to specifically assess the underlying reasons for the postponement of exam learning, distinguishing itself from broader measures of general procrastination tendency. The scale aims to capture two distinct mechanisms of deferral: internal cognitive failures, termed Mental Distraction, and external behavioral diversions, labeled Alternative Activities. This specificity is crucial for tailoring interventions within clinical and academic settings, particularly those dealing with student procrastination.

The scale was developed from self-reports collected at the Psychotherapy Outpatient Clinic of the Psychological Institute I at the University of Münster, specifically focusing on the difficulties students face both in initiating and maintaining their study efforts for examinations. The resulting nine items were selected for their satisfactory psychometric properties from an initial pool of 14 items.

Construct

The scale measures specific facets of academic procrastination. Procrastination is generally defined as the voluntary delay of an intended, personally important activity despite expecting negative consequences from that delay. While delaying activities can sometimes reflect flexible action control, the construct measured here pertains to the dysfunctional delay of crucial tasks (like exam preparation) in favor of less important or more immediately pleasurable activities.

The GAP instrument operationalizes this construct through two correlated dimensions: the inability to sustain focus (Mental Distraction), which relates primarily to difficulties in task maintenance; and the engagement in non-study related activities (Alternative Activities), which relates primarily to difficulties in task initiation. This dual-factor model highlights that procrastination during academic study involves both internal attentional deficits and external behavioral choices, often leading to significant academic disadvantages such as poor grades and increased stress.

Validity

Extensive psychometric analyses confirmed the validity of the GAP scale across three student samples (S1, S2, and ST). Evidence was found for Factorial Validity, Criterion Validity, and Construct Validity.

• Factorial Validity: Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) supported a clear two-dimensional model consisting of Alternative Activities and Mental Distraction. The fit indices supported the acceptable fit of the two-factor solution across the student samples. Analysis also confirmed that gender did not systematically influence scores on the two dimensions.
• Criterion Validity: The GAP dimension ‘Alternative Activities’ showed high positive correlations (ranging from .71 to .79) with measures of Central Procrastination derived from established instruments like the Aitken Procrastination Scale (APS) and the Procrastination Questionnaire for Students (PFS). The ‘Mental Distraction’ dimension showed lower correlations with general procrastination measures, reflecting its focus specifically on task maintenance difficulties rather than initiation delays, thus supporting differential validity.
• Construct Validity: Analyses in the clinical training samples (ST) revealed that the GAP dimensions predicted changes in learning criteria following intervention. Higher baseline scores on Mental Distraction predicted greater improvement in the design of the learning environment (LIST-L) following Guided Self-Help (ASH). Conversely, higher baseline scores on Alternative Activities predicted greater improvement in Time Management (LIST-Z) following Cognitive-Behavioral Training (KVTT), confirming the construct’s predictive utility regarding intervention outcomes.

Reliability

While specific internal consistency coefficients were not provided, reliability was assessed through standardized factor loadings across three samples (S1, S2, and ST). The five items constituting the Mental Distraction dimension consistently demonstrated strong and stable factor loadings, indicating formal reliability and validity for this subscale.

However, the items related to the Alternative Activities dimension showed more restricted psychometric properties and generally lower associations with their intended factor. The developers acknowledged this limitation, noting that revisions and newly constructed items are currently being tested to improve the robustness and reliability of the Alternative Activities subscale for future versions of the instrument.

Factor Analysis

The scale development utilized non-linear Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) based on the 2 Parameter Normalogiven Item Response Theory (IRT) model, employed using Mplus. This advanced statistical approach ensured an appropriate analysis of the ordinal, non-normally distributed response data. Initial analysis of a 14-item pool indicated that a two-factor solution was the most theoretically plausible and statistically acceptable structure after removing redundant and weakly loading items.

The resulting nine-item scale confirmed a stable two-factor structure. The two factors were identified as Alternative Activities (4 items), predominantly covering delays in the initiation of learning, and Mental Distraction (5 items), relating to difficulties in the maintenance of learning due to concentration loss or monotony. The correlation between these two factors was found to be moderate, ranging from .35 to .71 across the different student samples investigated.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire, Psychological Scale.

Format: 9 Items, using a 5-point Likert scale with response options ranging from 1 = (Fast) nie (Almost never) to 5 = (Fast) immer (Almost always).

Language Available: German.

Population Group: Students/Academics experiencing learning deferral and procrastination issues.

Age Group: Studied samples ranged from 19 to 61 years, with mean ages typically between 23 and 26 years.

Population Details: Validation data was collected from three student samples (N=457, N=1228, N=97) at the Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster. These included general student populations across diverse subjects (e.g., Medicine, Psychology, Physics) and a clinical sample participating in procrastination intervention programs (KVTT and ASH).

Test Methodology: The scale was validated using Item Response Theory (IRT) and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to ensure robust psychometric properties for ordinal data. Further studies are recommended to confirm the factorial structure before calculating simple sum scores for the subscales.

Keywords

Academic Procrastination, Learning Difficulties, German Psychological Scales, Student Assessment, Motivation, Psychometrics.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not specified in source.

Affiliation Email addresses: GESIS – Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften ([email protected]); Dipl. Psych. Margarita Engberding ([email protected]); Dipl. Psych. Sonja Westermann ([email protected]); Dipl. Psych. Anna Höcker ([email protected]); Dipl. Psych., Dr., Prof. Fred Rist ([email protected]).

Correspondence Address: GESIS – Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften, P.O. Box 12 21 55, 68072 Mannheim, Germany.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was developed and validated within a research and treatment project at the University of Münster, utilizing data collected primarily between 2005 and 2009. The instrument is documented as validated. Specific details regarding commercial licensing or standard usage fees are not explicitly provided in the source documentation, but contact information for the developers and GESIS is listed for inquiries.

Reference’s

• Aitken, M. (1982). A personality profile of the college student procrastinator. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware.
• Beck, S. (2008). Entwicklung eines Fragebogens zur Erfassung der Prokrastinationsambulanzen. Unveröffentlichte Diplomarbeit, Universität Münster.
• Deters, J. (2006). Zur Validierung eines Fragebogens zur Erfassung der Prokrastination bei Studierenden. Unveröffentlichte Diplomarbeit, Universität Münster.
• Ferrari, J. R., O’Callaghan, J., & Newbegin, I. (2005). Self-report and treatment of procrastination: A comparison of clinical and non-clinical samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(8), 1365-1374.
• Frings, C. (2008). Korrelate der Prokrastination bei Studierenden. Unveröffentlichte Diplomarbeit, Universität Münster.
• Glöckner-Rist, A., & Hoijtink, H. (2003). The two-parameter normal ogive Item Response Theory model. Psychometrika, 68(2), 245-258.
• Helmke, A., & Schrader, F. W. (2000). Die Aitken Procrastination Scale (APS): Deutsche Fassung. Universität Potsdam.
• Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
• Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: Wiley.
• Löwe, B., Spitzer, R. L., Zipfel, S., & Herzog, W. (2002). Gesundheitsfragebogen für Patienten (PHQ-D). Pfeiffer.
• Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus User’s Guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
• Patzelt, S., & Opitz, S. (2005a). Struktur und Korrelate der Prokrastination bei Studierenden. Vortrag auf der 14. Tagung der Fachgruppe Entwicklungspsychologie, Gießen.
• Patzelt, S., & Opitz, S. (2005b). Prokrastination bei Studierenden: Entwicklung und Validierung eines Fragebogens. Unveröffentlichte Diplomarbeit, Universität Münster.
• Rist, F., Engberding, M., & Westermann, S. (2006). Prokrastination: Wenn das Aufschieben zur Qual wird. Psychotherapie im Dialog, 7(4), 312-317.
• Schuler, H., & Prochaska, M. (2000). Leistungsmotivationsinventar (LMI). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
• Steel, P. (2006). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 65-94.
• Steel, P. (2007). The structure of procrastination: A six-factor model. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(6), 1641-1655.
• Westermann, S. (2009). Kognitiv-verhaltenstherapeutisches Training vs. angeleitete Selbsthilfegruppe zur Überwindung von Prokrastination: Eine vergleichende Studie. Unveröffentlichte Diplomarbeit, Universität Münster.
• Wild, K. P., & Schiefele, H. (1994). Inventar zur Erfassung von Lernstrategien im Studium (LIST). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Items of the Reasons for Deferring Exam Learning (GAP)

Instruction: Stellen Sie sich bitte folgende Situation vor: Sie befinden sich mitten in der Vorbereitung für eine wichtige Prüfung. Was wären für Sie typische Schwierigkeiten, mit denen Sie rechnen würden?

Response Format: 5-stufige Ratingskalen mit den Optionen: 1 = (Fast) nie, 2 = Selten, 3 = Manchmal, 4 = Häufig, 5 = (Fast) immer.