The study was conducted on undergraduate pre-clinical students selected by voluntary response which consisted of 182 (105 males, 77 females) third-graders, 64 (26 males, 38 females) second-graders, and 39 (21 males, 18 females) first-graders. Frequencies are shown on Table 1.
Table 1
Frequencies based on grade and gender
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Valid Percent
|
Cumulative Percent
|
|
1. Grade
|
39
|
13,7
|
13,7
|
13,7
|
2. Grade
|
64
|
22,5
|
22,5
|
36,1
|
3. Grade
|
182
|
63,9
|
63,9
|
100,0
|
Male
|
152
|
53,3
|
53,3
|
53,3
|
Women
|
133
|
46,7
|
46,7
|
100,0
|
Total
|
285
|
100,0
|
100,0
|
|
Results of descriptive analysis showed that the mean of the sample’s Turkish version of the Tuckman Procrastination Scale (TPS-TV) scores was 36.95 (SD = 7). For Factor 1 with a score range between 9 and 36, the mean of the sample’s score was found to be 19.2 (SD = 5,86); for Factor 2 with a score range between 5 and 20, the mean of the sample’s score was found to be 11.82 (SD = 3,22) (Table 2).
Table 2
|
Total
|
Factor1
|
Factor2
|
N
|
|
285
|
285
|
285
|
Mean
|
31,02
|
19,20
|
11,82
|
Median
|
30,00
|
19,00
|
12,00
|
Std. Deviation
|
8,23
|
5,86
|
3,22
|
Range
|
42
|
27
|
15
|
Minimum
|
14
|
9
|
5
|
Maximum
|
56
|
36
|
20
|
There was no significant difference found between genders (for males:\(\stackrel{-}{x}\) ±S.D = 30,68±7,94; for females:\(\stackrel{-}{x}\) ±S.D = 31,42±7,858; t=.-0,754, p = 0,453) (Table 3.) and between grades on which the students were studying (for 1. graders: \(\stackrel{-}{x}\)± S.D = 31,77±7,24; for 2. graders: \(\stackrel{-}{x}\) ± S.D = 29.06±7,04; for 3. graders: \(\stackrel{-}{x}\) \(\)±S.D = 31,56±8,75; F = 2,382, p = 0,094) (Table 4).
Table 3
Descriptive statistics and independent samples t-test based on gender
|
|
N
|
Mean
|
Std. Deviation
|
t
|
p
|
Tv-TPS
score
|
Male
|
152
|
30,6842
|
7,93802
|
-754
|
0,452
|
Female
|
133
|
31,4211
|
8,58488
|
|
|
Factor 1
|
Male
|
152
|
18,7434
|
5,69942
|
-1048
|
0,160
|
Female
|
133
|
19,7218
|
6,02564
|
|
|
Factor 2
|
Male
|
152
|
11,9408
|
3,13965
|
629
|
0,530
|
Female
|
133
|
11,6992
|
3,33708
|
|
|
Table 4
Descriptive statistics and variance analysis based on grade
|
N
|
Mean
|
Std. Deviation
|
Min.
|
Max.
|
F
|
p
|
Total
|
1.Grade
|
39
|
31,76
|
7,24
|
21,00
|
47,00
|
2,382
|
,094
|
2.Grade
|
64
|
29,06
|
7,03
|
16,00
|
42,00
|
|
|
3.Grade
|
182
|
31,56
|
8,74
|
14,00
|
56,00
|
|
|
Total
|
285
|
31,02
|
8,23
|
14,00
|
56,00
|
|
|
Factor1
|
1.Grade
|
39
|
19,97
|
5,27
|
10,00
|
32,00
|
1,822
|
,164
|
2.Grade
|
64
|
18,01
|
4,71
|
9,00
|
29,00
|
|
|
3.Grade
|
182
|
19,45
|
6,29
|
9,00
|
36,00
|
|
|
Total
|
285
|
19,20
|
5,86
|
9,00
|
36,00
|
|
|
Factor2
|
1.Grade
|
39
|
11,79
|
2,76
|
6,00
|
16,00
|
2,596
|
,076
|
2.Grade
|
64
|
11,04
|
3,24
|
5,00
|
17,00
|
|
|
3.Grade
|
182
|
12,10
|
3,28
|
5,00
|
20,00
|
|
|
Total
|
285
|
11,82
|
3,22
|
5,00
|
20,00
|
|
|
Table 5. Factors loadings*
|
|
Component
|
1
|
2
|
f7
|
,737
|
|
f5
|
,736
|
|
f9
|
,707
|
|
f13
|
,704
|
|
f8
|
,687
|
|
f1
|
,682
|
|
f11
|
,646
|
|
f2
|
,593
|
|
f4
|
,590
|
|
f12
|
|
,807
|
f6
|
|
,696
|
f14
|
|
,666
|
f10
|
|
,548
|
f3
|
|
,499
|
Eigenvalues
|
5,870
|
1,380
|
% of Variance
|
41,925
|
9,856
|
Cronbach’s Alpha
|
0,88
|
0,701
|
Total cumulative variance %
|
51,781
|
Kaiser Meyer Olkin (KMO)
|
0,923
|
Barlett’s Test of Sphericity
|
1513,041
|
Cronbach’s Alpha
|
0,824
|
*Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
|
Table 6. Spearman correlation test results
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
(1) 1. Exam
|
1,000**
|
,747**
|
,631**
|
-,289**
|
-,229**
|
-,316**
|
(2) 2. Exam
|
|
1,000**
|
,566**
|
-,261**
|
-,211**
|
-,282**
|
(3) 3. Exam
|
|
|
1,000**
|
-,254**
|
-,209**
|
-,272**
|
(4) Tv-TPS
|
|
|
|
1,000**
|
,941**
|
,814**
|
(5) Factor 1
|
|
|
|
|
1,000**
|
,582**
|
(6) Factor 2
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,000**
|
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01
|
Both KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO = .923) and Barlett’s Test of Sphericity (BTS = 1513, p < 0.001) indicated the data gathered from the Turkish version of the Tuckman procrastination scale is suitable for factor analysis. In factor analysis, all the factors that have eigenvalues greater than one were considered. Two factors; Factor 1 with eigenvalue = 5.870, percent variance = 41.925 and Factor 2 with eigenvalue = 1.38, percent variance = 9.8 appeared (Table 5).
Principal Component Analysis and Varimax with Kaiser Normalization implied items 6, 10, 12, 14,3 loaded on factor 2 and items 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 1, 9, 11, 13 loaded on factor 1. Values and details of the factor loadings can be seen on Table 5. The correlation coefficient between the two factors was found to be \(\rho\)=.582 (Table 6).
Cronbach’s alpha for the Tv-TPS was calculated 0,824 indicating high internal consistency, considering the students were expected to answer the questionnaire on an online platform. For Factor 1 and Factor 2 Cronbach’s alpha was found 0,88 and 0,701 respectively.
Details of correlational analyses between participants’ exam results and Tv-TPS scores are shown in Table 6. Tv-TPS scores and both factors are negatively related with exam results, with all the correlations that are significant at the 0.01 level.
The component showed the highest correlations with the exam scores emerged as Factor 2 (with the correlation coefficients − .316, − .282 and − .282) followed by total Tv-TPS score (with the correlation coefficients − .289, − .261, − .254). Factor 1 was found to be the least correlated component by a small margin (with the correlation coefficients − .229, − .211, − .209).
As can be seen from the table and the Spearman correlation test results, this descending sort of measurements of procrastination (Factor 2; Tv-TPS; Factor 1) is consistent with each exam, as first exam being the most and third exam being the least correlated (Table 6).