This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

Personality and Individual Differences 47 (2009) 174–179

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

The assessment of time management in middle-school students

Ou Lydia Liu *, Frank Rijmen, Carolyn MacCann, Richard Roberts
Educational Testing Service, 666 Rosedale Road, MS16-R, Princeton, NJ 08541, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A self-assessment of time management is developed for middle-school students. A sample of entering
Received 12 August 2008 seventh-graders (N = 814) from five states across the USA completed this instrument, with 340 students
Received in revised form 8 December 2008 retested 6 months later. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis suggested two factors (i.e., Meeting
Accepted 22 February 2009
Deadlines and Planning) that adequately explain the variance in time management for this age group.
Scales show evidence of reliability and validity; with high internal consistency, reasonable consistency
of factor structure over time, moderate to high correlations with Conscientiousness, low correlations with
Keywords:
the remaining four personality dimensions of the Big Five, and reasonable prediction of students’ grades.
Time management
Psychological assessment
Females score significantly higher on both factors of time management, with gender differences in Meet-
Middle school ing Deadlines (but not Planning) mediated by Conscientiousness. Potential applications of the instrument
Personality for evaluation, diagnosis, and remediation in educational settings are discussed.
Meeting Deadlines and Planning Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Factor analysis

1. The assessment of time management in middle-school
students
In our technologically enriched society, individuals are con-
stantly required to multitask, prioritize, and work against dead-
lines in a timely fashion (Orlikowsky & Yates, 2002). Time
management has caught the attention of educational researchers,
industrial organizational psychologists, and entrepreneurs, for its
possible impact on academic achievement, job performance, and
quality of life (Macan, 1994). However, research on time manage-
ment has not kept pace with this enthusiasm, with extant investi-
gations suffering from a number of problems. Claessens, Van Eerde,
Rutte, and Roe’s (2007) review of the literature suggest that there
are three major limitations to research on time management. First,
many measures of time management have limited validity evi-
dence. Second, many studies rely solely on one-shot self-report
assessment, such that evidence for a scale’s generalizability over
time cannot be collected. Third, school (i.e., K-12) populations have
largely been ignored. For example, all studies in the Claessens et al.
(2007) review focus on adult workplace samples (e.g., teachers,
engineers) or university students, rather than students in K-12.
The current study involves the development of a time manage-
ment assessment tailored specifically to middle-school students
(i.e., adolescents in the sixth to eighth grade of schooling). Time
management may be particularly important at the onset of adoles-
cence for three reasons. First, the possibility of early identification
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 609 734 1049.
E-mail address: lliu@ets.org (O.L. Liu).
and remediation of poor time management practices. Second, the
transition into secondary education, from a learning environment
involving one teacher to one of time-tabled classes for different
subjects with different teachers setting assignments and tests that
may occur contiguously. Successfully navigating this new learning
environment requires the development of time management skills.
Third, adolescents use large amounts of their discretionary time on
television, computer gaming, internet use, and sports: Average
estimates are 31=4 and 21=4 h per day for seventh-grade boys and
girls, respectively (Van den Bulck, 2004). With less time left to do
more administratively complex schoolwork, adolescents clearly re-
quire time management skills to succeed academically.
1.1. Definitions and assessments of time management
Time management has been defined and operationalized in sev-
eral different ways: As a means for monitoring and controlling
time, as setting goals in life and keeping track of time use, as prior-
itizing goals and generating tasks from the goals, and as the per-
ception of a more structured and purposive life (e.g., Bond &
Feather, 1988; Britton & Tesser, 1991; Burt & Kemp, 1994; Eilam
& Aharon, 2003). The various definitions all converge on the same
essential element: The completion of tasks within an expected
timeframe while maintaining outcome quality, through mecha-
nisms such as planning, organizing, prioritizing, or multitasking.
To the same effect, Claessens et al. (2007) defined time manage-
ment as ‘‘behaviors that aim at achieving an effective use of time
while performing certain goal-directed activities” (p. 36).
Four instruments have been used to assess time management
in adults: The Time Management Behavior Scale (TMBS;

0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.02.018
 Author's personal copy
O.L. Liu et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 47 (2009) 174–179
Macan, Shahani, Dipboye, & Philips, 1990), the Time Structure
Questionnaire (TSQ; Bond & Feather, 1988), the Time Management
Questionnaire (TMQ; Britton & Tesser, 1991), and the Australian
Time Organization and Management Scales (ATOMS, Roberts,
Krause, & Suk-Lee, 2001). Structural analysis of the TMBS sug-
gested three factors of time management: Setting goals and prior-
ities, mechanics of time management (e.g., use of tools such as
planners), and preference for organization (Macan, 1994). The
TSQ has five factors (sense of purpose, structured routine, present
orientation, effective organization, and persistence [Bond &
Feather, 1988]), the TMQ three (short range planning, time atti-
tudes, and long range planning, [Britton & Tesser, 1991]), and the
ATOMS six (sense of purpose, meeting deadlines, mechanics of
time management, coping with temporal flow, planning, and
organization).
Although these measures show acceptable psychometric prop-
erties, they have been criticized for being excessively lengthy,
which may be of particular concern in younger age groups (Macan,
1994; Macan et al., 1990). In addition, item content is frequently
not transferable to younger age groups (e.g., items refer specifically
to work-related content, or are semantically complex). For these
reasons, the development of a short assessment of time manage-
ment appropriate for adolescents is an important advance for the
field, allowing the examination of time management-achievement
links in early adolescence. The theoretical framework for the
instrument developed in this study builds on these existing theo-
ries of time management, including content areas judged to be rel-
evant to middle-school students.
1.2. Relationships of time management with academic achievement
In general, studies report that time management exerts a posi-
tive influence on student learning outcomes (Claessens et al.,
2007). For example, college GPA is significantly correlated with
time use and can be predicted by planning and time attitudes (Brit-
ton & Tesser, 1991; Kelly, 2002). However, few studies examine
how time management relates to academic achievement in the
pre-college years. The demands of the transition to secondary edu-
cation coupled with the adolescents’ tendency to spend large
amounts of time on television and other activities suggest that
time management might play a key role in academic achievement
in the early teens. For this reason, the current study examines the
time management-achievement link in seventh-graders. In
addition, we consider the relationship of time management to a
cognitive ability test (vocabulary) to test whether the time man-
agement-achievement link is due to time management practices,
or occurs simply because students with good time management
skills tend to be smarter.
1.3. Objectives of this study
The primary purpose of this study was to develop an appropri-
ate instrument for time management to be used in an adolescent
sample, in order to: (a) determine the structure and correlates of
time management in this age group, and (b) examine the relation-
ship between time management and academic achievement. Evi-
dence for the reliability of the assessment is considered in terms
of a replicable structure of time management, internally-consis-
tent scales, and test–retest reliability of scale scores. Evidence
for the assessment’s test-criterion validity will be evaluated
against students’ school grades. Evidence for the assessments’
construct validity is considered to be the independence from con-
ceptually dissimilar constructs of vocabulary and certain aspects
of personality (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism, and
Openness) and relationship with conceptually similar constructs
(Conscientiousness, which includes facets of Order and Delibera-
175
tion conceptually similar to Organization and Planning, Costa &
McCrae, 1995).
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Participants were 814 (414 Female) students, parent-identified
as about to enter the seventh grade at the time of testing. Partici-
pants were located in five cities across the US: Los Angeles, Denver,
Atlanta, Chicago, and Fort Lee. Students’ mean age was 12.00
(SD = 0.46). The ethnic composition of the sample was White
Non-Hispanic and others (60.5%), African American (18.8%), and
Hispanic (20.7%).
2.2. Procedure
Data were collected over two time points, approximately 6
months apart. All students participated in the study at Time 1,
and a subset of 340 students (47.1% female) participated at Time
2. Those students who completed at both Time 1 and 2 are part of
an ongoing longitudinal study being conducted at ETS, where (ow-
ing to the study design) participants are sampled every 6 months.
Time 1. Students completed a self-paced, proctored computer-
ized test battery of measures over a 2-week period in August dur-
ing the summer break from school. Participants were tested at a
local testing site and compensated for their time. The test battery
generally took between 1.5 and 2 h to complete. This test battery
included the time management measures, student self-reported
grades in major subjects, a personality measure, a vocabulary test,
and a brief demographic questionnaire. Students were informed
that there were no right or wrong answers and were encouraged
to endorse the statement that best described themselves.
Time 2. The second subset of students completed a second proc-
tored, computerized test battery 6 months later. Testing took place
over two weekends in February at the same testing sites. The test
battery at Time 2 included a reduced form of the time management
measure (i.e., unreliable items had been removed after analysis of
Time 1 data), and student self-report grades in major subjects. The
ethnic composition of the sample at Time 2 was: 66.8% White Non-
Hispanic and other, 18.1% African American, and 14.4% Hispanic.
2.3. Instruments
2.3.1. Time management
Thirty-two time management items were downward extended
from existing time management indexes for adults, often by
embedding items in situations appropriate for middle-school stu-
dents. These items were in four domains, with 8 items each: plan-
ning (e.g., I change my plans all the time), meeting deadlines (e.g., I
complete my homework on time), effective organization (e.g., I clean
up my bedroom before I leave for school), and mechanics of time
management (e.g., I like to make lists of things to do). Nine items
were reverse-keyed. Items were rated on a five-point Likert scale,
from ‘‘Never” to ‘‘Always”.
2.3.2. International Personality Item Pool Collaboratory Five Factor
Personality Measure (IPIP; Goldberg et al., 2006)
Sixty items taken from the IPIP protocol were used to measure
students’ personality. Participants rated their agreement on a 5-
point scale ranging from (1) ‘‘Very Incorrect” to (5) ‘‘Very Correct.”
Example items include: I am usually active and full of energy (Extra-
version), I trust what other people say (Agreeableness), I cry easily
(Neuroticism), I need things to be arranged in a particular order (Con-
scientiousness), and I like to learn new things (Openness).
 Author's personal copy

176 O.L. Liu et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 47 (2009) 174–179

2.3.3. Vocabulary Levels Test
A subset from the Vocabulary Levels Test (Schmitt, Schmitt, &
Clapham, 2001) was used to measure student vocabulary profi-
ciency. The subset contained 18 items, 6 from each usage level
(2000, 3000, and 5000 most commonly used words in the English
language). Each item asks students to match three target words to
a list of six possible synonyms. Scores range from 0 to 54.
2.3.4. Student self-reported grades
Students reported their grades from the previous semester in
reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies.
Grades were converted to a 13-point scale from 0 (E or Fail) to
12 (A+). Some self-reports of grades were missing or not interpret-
able (e.g., ‘‘pass”) and had to be excluded from the conversion pro-
cedure. The first principal component of these four core subject
grades was used as a measure of overall grade.
3. Results
3.1. Factor structure of time management
Parallel analysis of the 32 time management items indicated a
two-factor structure (based on the 95th percentile of random
eigenvalues), so a two-factor EFA was undertaken using principal
axis factoring and promax rotation. Fourteen items with low or
negative loadings were removed from further analysis. Parallel
analysis and visual inspection of the scree-plot of the remaining
18 items again indicated a two-factor structure. Items descriptive
statistics and factor loadings for the retained items are provided
in Table 1. No cross loadings were observed. Nine items defined
the first factor, labelled Meeting Deadlines and Being Organized
(Meeting Deadlines). The other nine items defined the second fac-
tor, labelled Planning and Using Aids to Manage Time (Planning).
Although one of the Planning items was non-salient (loading < .30),
we considered the value of .29 to be close enough to retain this
item (subject to further trialling via confirmatory factor analysis
[CFA] in this data and in time 2 data). The first and second factors
accounted for 21.3% and 7.5% of the observed variance respectively,
such that the two-factor solution explained 28.8% of the variance.
CFA of these eighteen items at Time 1 was conducted with LIS-
REL 8.8 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993) using maximum likelihood esti-
mation with Pearson correlation and standard deviations matrixes
as input. Model fit was evaluated according to the following heu-
ristics, from Muthen and Muthen (2004): Reasonable fit: CFI/
TLI > .90, RMSEA < .08; Good fit: CFI/TLI < .95, RMSEA < .06. Gener-
ally, fit indices were acceptable (CFI = .91, NNFI = .92, RMSEA = .06).
These two factors were moderately correlated (r = .50). Cronbach
alpha was .81 over all 18 items, and .76 for both the Meeting Dead-
lines and the Planning sub-scales, indicating acceptable internal
consistency at the test and scale level.
Responses from the 340 participants retaking the time manage-
ment measures at Time 2 were also analysed with CFA. Loadings
were similar, and fit indices were again reasonable (CFI = .90,
TLI = .91, RMSEA = .07). The correlation between the factor scores
at Time 1 and Time 2 was .50 at the test level, .52 for Meeting
Deadlines, and .48 for Planning.
3.2. Descriptive statistics of criterion measures
Cronbach alpha and descriptive statistics for personality mea-
sures, vocabulary, and course grades are given in Table 2. Reliabil-
ity is acceptable for research purposes in all cases, with alpha
coefficients greater than .70 for all variables except Extraversion
(which was .68).
3.3. Relationships with personality measures, vocabulary, and course
grades
Correlations between time management scores, external, and
criterion variables are summarized in Table 3. Both the total
score and time management subscales showed no significant
relationship to vocabulary scores, trivial to small relationships
with Extraversion, moderate relationships with Agreeableness,
Neuroticism, and Openness, and a large degree of overlap with
Conscientiousness.
Table 2
Descriptive statistics and reliability of external and criterion measures.

N Alpha Mean SD
Extraversion 811 .68 47.87 6.22
Table 1 Agreeableness 811 .82 46.90 7.16
Descriptive statistics, EFA, and CFA loadings of time management (Time 1) Items. Conscientiousness 811 .80 45.85 7.34
Neuroticism 811 .73 34.36 7.06
Item content EFA CFA Mean SD
Openness 811 .75 45.60 7.35
F1 F2 F1 F2 Vocabulary (Levels Test) 814 .90 45.93 7.19
Course grades (Time 1) 719 9.03a 2.42
When going somewhere, I am latea .75 .18 .64 3.85 0.83
Course grades (Time 2) 315 9.09a 2.41
Arriving on time .62 .00 .73 3.97 0.89
People complaining I am latea .66 .12 .65 4.23 0.91 a
The mean of 9 for course grades approximately corresponds to B+.
Homework completed on time .46 .09 .62 4.26 0.86
Doing homework as soon as home .44 .15 .56 3.62 1.17
from school
Putting off tasksa .41 .18 .58 3.40 1.01 Table 3
Losing thingsa .47 .01 .52 3.13 0.96 Correlations between time management scales (Time 1) and additional study
Having a messy rooma .36 .13 .43 3.11 1.12 measures.
Using other to be organizeda .33 .04 .43 3.76 1.08
Make lists of things to do .08 .76 .77 2.56 1.20 F1: Meeting F2: Planning and Total Time
Marking dates on calendar .01 .62 .64 3.18 1.29 Deadlines and Using Aids to Management
Making a schedule .01 .59 .69 2.55 0.99 Being Organized Manage Time Score
Writing tasks down .06 .54 .57 3.28 1.22 Extraversion .04 .06 .04
Planning for tomorrow .10 .51 .53 2.84 1.18 Agreeableness .29** .31** .36**
Preference for routine .11 .44 .55 3.05 1.08 Conscientiousness .61** .49** .65**
Planning ahead of time .10 .43 .48 3.54 1.00 Neuroticism .31** .08* .22**
Using technology .17 .38 .36 2.44 1.25 Openness .26** .32** .35**
Knowing what to do next weekend .01 .29 .23 3.24 1.20 Vocabulary (Levels Test) .05 .01 .02
Course grades (Time 1) .38** .21** .34**
Notes. F1 = Meeting Deadlines and Being Organized (Meeting Deadlines);
Course grades (Time 2) .42** .25** .37**
F2 = Planning and Using Aids to Manage Time (Planning). Loadings equal or larger
than .30 are in bold font. *
p < .05.
a
Reverse-keyed items. **
p < .01.
 Author's personal copy

O.L. Liu et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 47 (2009) 174–179 177

All three time management scores also related to grades, with a and (c) after controlling for (a) and (b), the independent variable
moderate to large magnitude for Meeting Deadlines, a small to does not significantly predict the dependent variable (if the predic-
moderate magnitude for Planning, and a moderate magnitude for tion is still significant, but the strength of prediction has lowered,
the total score. At Time 2, the correlations between course grades this indicates partial mediation). We tested for mediation effects
and time management factors were slightly stronger than at for each of the five personality factors separately. However, since
Time 1. gender did not significantly predict Extraversion and Openness
(i.e., the first step required for mediation was not fulfilled), steps
3.4. Gender differences in time management and personality b and c were not conducted. Results for the remaining three per-
sonality factors are shown in Table 5, demonstrating that Consci-
Table 4 shows gender differences for time management and entiousness fully mediates the relationship between gender and
personality scores, with the effect size calculated using Cohen’s d Meeting Deadlines. This was the only instance of full mediation
(Cohen, 1988). Females scored higher on both time management by a personality factor, although Agreeableness and Conscientious-
factors, with a large effect size for Planning, and a moderate effect ness partly mediated the relationship between gender and both
size for Meeting Deadlines. Females also scored significantly higher time management factors (Neuroticism did not). In regression
on Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism (with small analyses where all five personality factors and gender predicted
to moderate effect sizes), with no significant gender differences time management factors, personality fully mediated the relation-
observed for Openness to Experience or Extraversion. Gender ship between gender and Meeting Deadlines (B for gender = .517,
differences in personality are consistent with previous findings p = .085), but not Planning (B for gender = 2.623, p < .001).
(e.g., Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001).
4. Discussion
3.5. Personality as a mediator of gender in the prediction of time
management This study identified a two-factor structure for time manage-
ment in middle-school students, where the ‘‘Meeting Deadlines
We hypothesized that personality factors serve to mediate gen- and Being Organized” and ‘‘Planning and Using Aids to Manage
der’s prediction of time management scores. Baron and Kenny Time” factors were linked to both Conscientiousness and to stu-
(1986) proposed three steps to test for full mediation: (a) the inde- dents’ school grades. Females reported higher levels of both Meet-
pendent variable significantly predicts the mediator, (b) the inde- ing Deadlines and Planning, although this was mediated by
pendent variable significantly predicts the dependent variable, personality (particularly Conscientiousness) for the former factor.
Only two distinct factors in time management are observed for
the middle-school sample, which contrasts with most studies of
Table 4 adults or college student populations, which frequently report at
Gender differences in time management (Time 1) and personality scales. least twice this number (e.g., Bond & Feather, 1988; Macan et al.,
Male Female t d
1990). Each group may use their time at a very different level of
(n = 399) (n = 414) complexity and the nature of their tasks and expected outcomes
Mean SD Mean SD
are likely to influence the way that each group manages time.
For example, being able to finish homework in time for school
F1: Meeting Deadlines and Being 32.67 5.10 33.99 5.20 3.64** .26
may be less challenging than obtaining the most updated informa-
Organized
F2: Planning and Using Aids 24.84 5.94 28.43 5.76 8.74 **
.61 tion on products, scheduling multiple client meetings, and
Total Time Management Score 57.51 9.22 62.42 9.03 7.66** .54 responding to various client requests (as in the life of a salesper-
Extraversion 47.62 6.32 48.14 6.12 1.17 .08 son). The relatively simple routine of middle-school life could lead
Conscientiousness 44.58 7.37 47.07 7.12 4.88** .34
students to manage their time using only the two dimensions ob-
Agreeableness 45.94 7.40 47.83 6.81 3.78** .27
Neuroticism 33.24 6.47 35.43 7.44 4.48** .31
served in this study. As the task complexity increases and goals be-
Openness 45.65 7.39 45.56 7.33 0.16 .01 come diversified, more dimensions of time management become
M M appropriate.
Notes. d pffiffiffiffiffiffim2ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffifffi2ffiffiffiffiffiffi .
ðSDm þSDf Þ=2 We confirmed the close association between time management
**
p < .01. factors and Conscientiousness reported in prior research with

Table 5
Unstandardized regression coefficients from the mediator regression analysis.
Agreeableness (A) Conscientiousness (C) Neuroticism (N)
Regression 1a A = a + b(Gender) C = a + b(Gender) N = a + b(Gender)
1.88* 2.48** 2.19**
D(Gender)

Deadlines Planning Deadlines Planning Deadlines Planning

Regression 2b TM = a + b(Gender) TM = a + b(Gender) TM = a + b(Gender)
BGender) 1.30** 3.56** 1.30** 3.56** 1.30** 3.56**
c
Regression 3 TM = a + b1(Gender) + b2(A) TM = a + b1(Gender) + b2(C) TM = a + b1(Gender) + b2(N)
D1(Gender) .92** 3.10** .24 2.60** 1.85** 3.78**
D2(Personality) .20** .23** .43** .38** .25** .11**
a
In Regression 1, gender is the independent variable and the five personality factors are the dependent variable, respectively. Since gender did not significantly predict
Extraversion (B = .52) or Openness (B = .08), mediation analyses were not run for these two personality factors.
b
In Regression 2, gender is the independent variable and the two time management factors are the dependent variable, respectively.
c
In Regression 3, gender is paired with one of the three remaining personality factors as the independent variables, and the two time management factors are the
dependent variable, respectively. Gender is no longer a significant predictor for Meeting Deadlines after Conscientiousness is controlled for.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
 Author's personal copy
178 O.L. Liu et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 47 (2009) 174–179
undergraduate and workforce samples (Pulford & Sohal, 2006; Wil-
liam & Johnson, 2005). Conscientiousness was strongly related to
Planning and very strongly related to Meeting Deadlines. Both time
management factors also correlated with students’ school grades
across two semesters of school. It is noteworthy that time manage-
ment actually correlates more highly with the grades obtained 6
months later, suggesting that time management skills may have
a sustainable impact on student grades. Given that Conscientious-
ness has a robust and well-documented relationship with aca-
demic achievement (e.g., Noftle & Robins, 2007; O’Connor &
Paunonen, 2007), the relationship between time management
and Conscientiousness suggests that time management may be
at least one of the behavioral mechanisms explaining how person-
ality (Conscientiousness) translates into achievement-enhancing
behavior (better management of time) to result in increased
achievement (higher grades). Examination of other behavioral
manifestations of high Conscientiousness may also prove useful
in understanding how personality translates into achievement:
Goal-setting, procrastination, and even attendance records might
constitute some key behavioral differences between high-Consci-
entious and low-Conscientious students. Isolating more specific
behaviors such as time management for their relationship to
achievement may be more useful than examining the broad per-
sonality traits alone, as specific behaviors are more easily modified.
Another interesting finding relates to females’ higher scores on
both time management factors. The gender difference is especially
striking on the Planning factor, and could not be explained by dif-
ferences in personality factors. Gender differences in the amount of
discretionary time used in non-academic activities (computer
gaming, television, sports, and internet, Van den Bulck, 2004)
may be a reflection or even a causal factor of the gender differences
in time management. That is, poor time management practices
may lead boys to spending more time on non-productive activity
(if gender differences in time management lead to gender differ-
ences in the use of time), or else the greater amount of time boys
spend on leisure activities may lead to greater difficulty in time
management. Gender differences in academic achievement (e.g.,
Lietz, 2006) may be partially explained by gender differences in
Planning and other such psychosocial factors.
4.1. Limitations of this study
Two main limitations exist in this study. First, the limited sam-
ple size at time 2 meant that relationships to valued criteria could
only be examined via simple Pearson correlations rather than as a
full structural equation model incorporating all relevant variables
and modelling statistical error. A lagged-panel model design might
address issues of causality in the time management-achievement
link in future research. Second, self-reported grades were obtained
for students attending a number of different schools – even within
the same city, participants were only coincidentally attending the
same school, as data was not collected from schools but rather
from individuals. This meant that grades may not be equivalent
across individuals – a C+ in Science at a high-achieving school
may be equivalent to B+ in Science at an average middle school.
4.2. Future directions
4.2.1. Developmental trends in structure and means
The simpler factorial structure found for middle-schoolers com-
pared to adult samples suggests that the structure of time manage-
ment behaviors may vary with developmental trends. As students’
lives become more complex and multi-faceted (e.g., increasingly
diversified subjects in high school, part-time work), the structure
of time management may also become more complex, reflecting
the greater dimensionality evident in adults. Examining time man-
agement in older adolescents (i.e., in the eighth grade, high school
years) may highlight which components crystallize into different
factors at various developmental stages, as well as which compo-
nents are most strongly linked to valued outcomes (e.g., school
grades). As the data from this study was drawn from the first
and second stages of a multiple-wave data collection effort, we
hope to conduct this research in future, and thereby elaborate on
developmental differences in time management.
4.2.2. Causal direction of time management’s link to academic
achievement
Positing a causal explanation for the association between time
management and student grades would introduce stronger evi-
dence if an experimental manipulation to improve time manage-
ment were employed. Currently, the observed relationships are
correlational rather than causal. Again, with the ongoing project
collecting multiple waves of data from this cohort of students,
we hope to address this issue with longitudinal modelling in the
future.
4.2.3. Diagnosis and remediation of poor time management behaviors
Links between time management and grades suggest that stu-
dents with poor time management are at risk for academic under-
achievement. The development of a time management assessment
specifically for early adolescence can be used to identify ‘‘at risk”
students, allowing educators to correctly attribute poor school per-
formance to poor time management habits rather than to lack of
ability. Likewise, students’ awareness of their time management
scores might prove useful. Providing score feedback on the time
management dimensions (e.g., a percentile band and associated
description) would enable students to better understand their time
management strategies. In addition, remediation programs in time
management may be particularly useful. The nature of time man-
agement as a series of explicit and observable behaviors (e.g., make
a study time-table outlining when tests occur) makes it malleable
or coachable. Provision of materials (e.g., calendars, planners),
along with encouragement and reminders to use the materials
could easily form good time management habits in students that
may lead to enhanced school performance.
References
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Bond, M., & Feather, N. (1988). Some correlates of structure and purpose in the use
of time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 321–329.
Britton, B. K., & Tesser, A. (1991). Effects of time-management practices on college
grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 405–410.
Burt, C. D. B., & Kemp, S. (1994). Construction of activity duration and time
management potential. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 155–168.
Claessens, B. J. C., Van Eerde, W., Rutte, C. G., & Roe, R. A. (2007). A review of the time
management literature. Personnel Review, 36, 255–276.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality
assessment using the revised NEO personality inventory. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 64, 21–50.
Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality
traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 81, 322–331.
Eilam, B., & Aharon, I. (2003). Students planning in the process of self-regulated
learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 304–334.
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R.,
et al. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-
domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modelling with the
SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Kelly, W. E. (2002). Harnessing the river of time: A theoretical framework of time
use efficiency with suggestions for counselors. Journal of Employment
Counseling, 39, 12–21.
Lietz, P. (2006). A meta-analysis of gender differences in reading achievement at the
secondary school level. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32, 317–344.
 Author's personal copy
O.L. Liu et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 47 (2009) 174–179
Macan, T. H. (1994). Time management: Test of a process model. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79, 381–391.
Macan, T. H., Shahani, C., Dipboye, R. L., & Philips, A. P. (1990). College students time
management: Correlations with academic performance and stress. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82, 760–768.
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2004). Mplus user’s guide (3rd ed.). Los Angeles:
Muthen & Muthen.
Noftle, E. E., & Robins, R. W. (2007). Personality predictors of academic outcomes:
Big five correlates of GPA and SAT scores. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 93, 116–130.
O’Connor, M., & Paunonen, S. (2007). Big Five personality predictors of post-
secondary academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 43,
971–990.
Orlikowsky, W. J., & Yates, J. (2002). It’s about time: Temporal structuring in
organizations. Organization Science, 13, 684–700.
179
Pulford, B. D., & Sohal, H. (2006). The influence of personality on HE students’
confidence in their academic abilities. Personality and Individual Differences, 41,
1409–1419.
Roberts, R. D., Krause, H., & Suk-Lee, L. (2001). Australian time organization and
management scales. Unpublished Inventory: University of Sydney.
Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the
behaviour of two new versions of the vocabulary levels test. Language Testing,
18, 55–88.
Van den Bulck, J. (2004). Television viewing, computer game playing, and internet
use and self-reported time to bed and time out of bed in secondary-school
children. Sleep, 27, 101–104.
William, K. E., & Johnson, J. L. (2005). Time use efficiency and the five-factor model
of personality. Education, 125, 511–516.