Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences 43 (2022) 223–230

Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences

journal homepage: http://kjss.kasetsart.org

Academic procrastination behavior among college undergraduates:

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
Sorrapakksorn Chatrakamollathas*, Kanu Priya Moha†, Oraphin Choochom†
Behavioral Science Research Institute, Srinakharinwirot University, Watthana, Bangkok 10110, Thailand

Article Info Abstract

Article history: The aim of this study was to develop and examine the causal model of academic
Received 9 July 2020
Revised 8 March 2021 procrastination behavior of college undergraduates using structural equation
Accepted 3 April 2021 modeling (SEM). Sample were 611 college undergraduates at one public
Available online 31 January 2022
university in the eastern region of Thailand. The sample was selected by
multi-stage random sampling technique. The results revealed that the proposed
Keywords: theoretical model of academic procrastination behavior fitted well with
academic procrastination behavior,
college undergraduates,
the empirical data by adding the path effect from self-efficacy for self-regulated
interactionism learning to academic self-efficacy. Results were discussed from relevant
theoretical viewpoints and empirical findings for implications.
© 2022 Kasetsart University.

Introduction also experience state of emotional upset, shame and guilt

(Martinčeková & Enright, 2020).
Academic procrastination behavior is a behavioral Previous studies have shown the effects from both
sequence of postponement of the important academic situational factors and psychological factors influencing
activities for an academic achievement (Pourabdol, academic procrastination behavior; however, no research
Sobhi-Gharamaleki, & Abbasi, 2015). Academic studies have examined the influence of both situational
procrastination behavior is a widespread phenomenon in factors and psychological factors on academic
the academic world (Liu, 2010) as shown in the study that procrastination behavior in the same model. Therefore, to
83 percent of adolescents and university students reported bridge the gap between psychological factors and
more than one hour procrastinating each day (Klassen & situational factors, the researcher was interested to
Kuzucu, 2008). Academic procrastination behavior has a examine the effects from situational factors (instructor
significant and negative influence on learning and support and class organization), the effects from
achievement of university students (Kader, 2014). psychological traits (perfectionism and self-esteem), and
Besides academic achievement, academic procrastinators effects from psychological states (academic self-efficacy
and self-efficacy for self-regulated learning), influencing
* Corresponding author. academic procrastination behavior through a structural
E-mail address: sorrapakksorn@yahoo.com (S. Chatrakamollathas). equation modelling (SEM) based on the interactionism
† Co-first authors.
E-mail address: kanupm@gswu.ac.th (K. P. Mohan).
theory.
E-mail address: aoyora@gswu.ac.th (O. Choochom).

https://doi.org/10.34044/j.kjss.2022.43.1.30
2452–3151/© 2022 Kasetsart University.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

224 S. Chatrakamollatha et al. / Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences 43 (2022) 223–230

self-regulated learning showed a strong inverse

Literature Review relationship with and was the strongest predictor of
procrastination for students.
Bhanthumnavin (1998, 1997) as cited in Bhanthumnavin Perfectionism is a complex characteristic and
(2007) stated that the interactionism model is the main a multidimensional personality character as striving for
idea about the causal variables of human behavior and flawlessness and setting exceedingly high standards of
concluded that the causes of human behavior were performance accompanied by being obsessively critical
situational factors, psychological traits, interaction with self-evaluations (Stoeber, 2018). The study by
between situational factors and psychological traits, and Mohammed, Sherit, Eissa, and Mostafa (2013) indicated
psychological states. that self–oriented perfectionism was a significant positive
Academic procrastination behavior refers to intentionally predictor of academic procrastination. Moreover, the
putting off doing academic work that must be completed study by Seo (2008) found self-efficacy mediated the
(Schraw, Wadkins, & Olafson, 2007). Academic relationship between procrastination and perfectionism.
procrastination behavior is the behavior that is linked to a Self-esteem refers to an individual’s sense of his or
specific task considered as a form of situational procrastination her value or worth, or the extent to which a person values,
(Harris & Sutton, 1983). approves of, appreciates, prizes, or likes himself or herself
Instructor support may be defined as emotional or (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991). The study by Lekich
personal support as the instructors are perceived as warm (2006) found a significant negative correlation between
and caring, including academic support as how helpful an self-esteem and procrastination, while the study by
instructor is perceived when it comes to providing Batool, Khursheed, and Jahangir (2017) revealed that
academic assistance (Patrick, Kaplan, & Ryan, 2011). academic self-efficacy fully mediated the relationship
Instructor support will lead college students to experience between self-esteem and academic procrastination
a positive influence on their psychological state of
development (Nielsen, Newman, Smyth, Hirst, &
Heilemann, 2016). The study by Corkin, Yu, Wolters, and Methodology
Wiesner (2014) found that self-efficacy mediated the
effect of instructor support on procrastination. Participants
The conceptualization of class organization covers
the course content, instructor expectations, and evaluation Participants were recruited during Spring 2020
criteria (Winston et al., 1994 as cited in Corkin, 2012). semester at one big university in the eastern region of
The qualitative study of Grunschel, Patrzek, and Fries Thailand. The sample were 623 college undergraduates
(2013) reported that students also indicated unorganized who volunteered to complete a questionnaire. The sample
and lax teachers to be a reason for their procrastination, was selected by multi-stage random sampling technique.
whereas the study by Corkin et al. (2014) revealed that Stratified sampling was used in stage 1 by dividing the
instructors with high expectations had been found to entire population according to the educational field and
increase students’ class enjoyment and interest and to using the field of study as the strata. There were three
reduce student procrastination. Furthermore, this study fields of study which were humanities and social sciences,
found that self-efficacy mediated the effect of instructor health science, and science. Random sampling was used
organization on procrastination. in stage 2 by random sampling the faculties in each
Within an academic context, self-efficacy is frequently stratum. Random sampling also was used in stage 3 by
described in terms of academic self-efficacy, which random sampling the 2 classes in each sampling faculty.
defines a student’s judgements about one’s ability to achieve Missing values, outliers and normal distribution of all
an academic task or a specific academic goal (Elias & measured variables were examined to purify the data.
MacDonald, 2007). The studies found a significant After data screening, 611 participants were used in the
negative relationship between academic self-efficacy and analyses as the sample.
procrastination (Melton, 2013; Chang, 2018).
Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning is defined as Data Collection
the individuals’ beliefs in their capability to use self-
regulatory strategies effectively for achieving their This study was approved by the Ethics and Research
learning goals (Usher & Pajares, 2008). The study by Standardization Section prior to conducting the study.
Klassen and Kuzucu (2008) found that self-efficacy for The students in the class were approached by an invitation
 S. Chatrakamollatha et al. / Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences 43 (2022) 223–230 225

message and the participant information message asking measurement models which were perfectionism, self-
them for volunteering to complete the online questionnaire esteem, and self-efficacy for self-regulated learning.
by scanning the QR code. These models were examined by confirmatory factor
analysis. From EFA, principal component analysis was
Measurement used to extract the factors and remove some items that
weaken the measure of the main factors including cross
This study consisted of different instruments to loading items. Then, to assess the convergent and
measure different variables. The back-translation discriminative validity of the revised instruments,
procedure was applied to all instruments. All instrument confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted.
used a 5-point Likert scale. Academic procrastination Lastly, the structural path analysis was conducted by
behavior instrument adapted the 4 dimensions of using structural equation modeling (SEM).
Academic Procrastination Scale (APS) created by
McCloskey (2011). The modified instrument after validity
and reliability testing consisted of 16 items (α = .924). Results
Instructor support instrument adapted instructor support
dimension of classroom climate scale of Corkin (2012). To evaluate the convergent and discriminative validity
The modified instrument after validity and reliability of all 7 measurements and fit of the model as a whole,
testing consisted of 12 items (α = .934). Class organization evaluation was done by using goodness-of-fit indices and
instrument adapted class organization dimension of the degree of fit between the model and the sample
classroom climate scale of Corkin (2012). The modified including norm chi-square (χ 2 /df: < 5.0 indicating
instrument after validity and reliability testing consisted acceptable; Schumacker & Lomax, 2004), Comparative
of 10 items (α = .886). Academic self-efficacy instrument Fit Index (CFI: > .90 indicating good fit; Hair, Black,
adapted 2 dimensions the College Self-Efficacy Inventory Babin, & Anderson, 2010), Norm Fit Index (NFI: > .90
(CSEI) created by Solberg, O’Brien, Villareal, Kennel, indicating good fit; Bentler & Bonett, 1980), Non-Norm
and Davis (1993). The modified instrument after validity Fit Index (NNFI: > .90 indicating good fit; Bentler &
and reliability testing consisted of 13 items (α = .926). Bonett, 1980), Rooth Mean Square Error of Approximation
Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning instrument (RMSEA: .03–.08 indicating good fit; Hair et.al., 2010),
adapted Self-regulated Learning Scale created by Standard Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR: < .05
Zimmerman, Bandura, and Martinez-Pons (1992). The indicating good fit; Kelloway, 1998, as high as 0.08 is
modified instrument after validity and reliability testing acceptable; Hu & Bentler, 1999), Goodness of Fit Index
consisted of 8 items (α = .922). Perfectionism instrument (GFI: > .90 indicating good fit; Kelloway, 1998), and
adapted Self-Oriented Perfectionism dimension of Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI: > .90 indicating
Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale created by Hewitt good fit; Kelloway, 1998).
and Flett (1991). The modified instrument after validity
and reliability testing consisted of 15 items (α = .895). Measurement Model
Self-esteem instrument adapted Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem
Scale (SE) created by Rosenberg (1965 as cited in Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
Rosenberg, Schooler, Schoenbach, & Rosenberg, 1995). As shown in Table 1, the result from CFA indicated
The modified instrument after validity and reliability that the revised measurements were good validity in
testing consisted of 10 items (α = .768). measuring instructor support, class organization, perfectionism,
self-esteem, academic self-efficacy, self-efficacy for self-
Data Analysis regulated learning and academic procrastination behavior.
The details are explained in Table 1.
The data were analyzed by using statistical software.
From the initial measurement models, there were 4 The Structural Model
considered multidimensional measurement models,
which were instructor support, class organization, The full model was tested. In Table 2, standardized
academic self-efficacy and academic procrastination covariance among latent variables in the structural
behavior. These models were examined by exploratory equation model are shown. In Figure 1, variance in all
factor analysis following with confirmatory factor dependent variables, the standardized path coefficients,
analysis. There were 3 considered unidimensional and goodness-of-fit indices are explained.
226 S. Chatrakamollatha et al. / Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences 43 (2022) 223–230

Table 1 Reliability and factor loadings of the latent variables

Observed Variables Item Construct Reliability (CR) Factor loading
Instructor support (insup)b 10 .907 .503**–.859**
χ2 /df = 3.840, CFI = .983, NNFI = .977, RMSEA = .075, SRMR = .035, GFI = .952
Class organization
Evaluation (evalu) 3 .340 .583**
Class content (ccont) 3 .946 .973**
Instructor expectation (expec) 3 .988 .994**
χ2 /df = 4.328, CFI = .983, NNFI = .961, RMSEA = .080, SRMR = .037, GFI = .963
Perfectionism (soperf)b 14 .838 .328**–.720**
χ /df = 4.216, CFI = .967, NNFI = .954, RMSEA = .072, SRMR = .049, GFI = .940
2

Self-esteem (globse)b 9 .848 .390**–.792**

χ /df = 4.976, CFI = .980, NNFI = .965, RMSEA = .080, SRMR = .048, GFI = .964
2

Academic self-efficacya
Study efficacy (study) 3 .895 .946**
Assignment efficacy (assign) 3 .974 .987**
Academic/social efficacy (acdsoc) 5 .353 .594**
χ2 /df = 2.268, CFI = .982, NNFI = .973, RMSEA = .051, SRMR = .038, GFI = .970
Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning (sesrl)b 8 .748 .408**–.604**
χ /df = 3.232, CFI = .987, NNFI = .979, RMSEA = .060, SRMR = .034, GFI = .977
2

Academic procrastination behaviora

Distractions (distract) 5 .706 .840**
Social factors (soc) 3 .455 .674**
Laziness (laz) 4 .986 .993**
Time management (tmgt) 3 .343 .586**
χ2 /df = 2.577, CFI = .075, NNFI = .970, RMSEA = .058, SRMR = .047, GFI = .940
Note: a = second order confirmatory factor analysis; b = first order confirmatory factor analysis.
**p < .01.

Table 2 Standardized covariance among latent variables in the structural equation model
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
distract .587
soc .317 .774
laz .366 .374 .609
tmgt .152 .083 .168 .411
study -.147 -.083 -.140 -.175 .397
assign -.113 -.117 -.118 -.111 .219 .425
socacd -.092 -.061 -.086 -.091 .158 .183 .636
sesrl -.141 -.067 -.140 -.091 .142 .127 .121 .483
insup -.057 -.034 -.073 -.086 .123 .154 .355 .098 .550
evalu -.037 -.029 -.025 -.073 .094 .118 .213 .043 .285 .595
ccont -.015 -.096 -.054 -.025 .072 .118 .134 .061 .207 .216 .510
expec -.005 -.062 -.042 -.032 .109 .122 .178 .079 .243 .227 .358 .566
globse -.171 -.110 -.166 -.173 .224 .191 .213 .152 .134 .100 .085 .101 .332
soperf -.048 -.028 -.087 -.061 .094 .088 .078 .106 .039 .022 .049 .074 .119 .328
Note: insup = instructor support; evalu = evaluation; ccont = class content; expec = instructor expectation; soperf = self-oriented perfectionism;
globse = global self-esteem; socacd = social/academic self-efficacy; assign = assignment self-efficacy; study = study self-efficacy; sesrl =
self-efficacy for self-regulated learning; distract = distractions; soc = social factors; laz = liziness; tmgt= time management.
 S. Chatrakamollatha et al. / Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences 43 (2022) 223–230 227

Table 3 Direct, indirect, and total effects of variables on academic procrastination behavior
ase sefsrl apb
DE IE TE DE IE TE DE IE TE
ase – – – – – – .011 – .011
sefsrl .573** – .573** – – – -.821** .006 -.815**
instruct .359** .099* .459** .173* – .173* -.128 -.137 -.265*
classorg .018 .067 .085 .116 – .116 .208 -.095 .114
perfect -.021 .173** .153** .302** – .302** .086 -.246** -.161*
esteem .000 .172** .172** .300** – .300** -.057 -.244** -.301**
Note: – = effect not included in the model; ** = significant at the .01 level (2-tailed); * = significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

distract .721
.721** R2 = .279

.123 insup soc .928

R2 = .682 .721** R2 = .072
R2 = .877 .937**
-.170
instruct apb .721**
laz .727
.552 evalu .122 R2 = .27
R2 = .448 .669** .384 .721**
.231
-.872**
.557** classorg tmgt .614
.690 .184
ccont -.094 R2 = .386
R = .310
2
.022

.603** .054 R2 = .384

.636
expec sefsrl .915**
.288**
R2 = .364 perfect
sesrl .163
.903**
-.003 R2 = .837
.184 .600**
soperf -.115 .306**
R2 = .816 ase
.892** esteem .028
R2 = .675
.204 globse
R2 = .796 .806** .695** .766**

socacd assign study

R2 = .649 R2 = .483 R2 = .587

.351 .517 .413

χ2 = 221.982, df = 54, p = .000, GFI = .951, AGFI = .906, SRMR = .052, RMSEA = .071,
NFI = .951, NNFI = .936, CFI = .962, χ2/df = .926

Figure 1 The latent variable structure model of academic procrastination behavior (n = 611)
Note: insup = instructor support; instruct = instructor support; evalu = evaluation; ccont = class content; expec =
instructor expectation; classorg = class organization; soperf = self-oriented perfectionism; perfect = perfectionism;
globse = global self-esteem; esteem = self-esteem; socacd = social/academic self-efficacy; assign = assignment self-efficacy;
study = study self-efficacy; ase = academic self-efficacy; sesrl = self-efficacy for self-regulated learning; sefsrl = self-efficacy
for self-regulated learning; distract = distractions; soc = social factors; laz = liziness; tmgt = time management; apb = academic
procrastination behavior.
228 S. Chatrakamollatha et al. / Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences 43 (2022) 223–230

According to the data analysis, the path from

self-efficacy for self-regulated learning to academic Discussion
self-efficacy was added to the hypothesized latent
variable model as suggested by the modification index, This study was the first study on academic
and the structural model of academic procrastination procrastination behavior based on the interactionism
behavior fit with the empirical data under the criteria of model. The results of this study found that self-efficacy
RMSEA was .071, indicating an acceptable to good fit. for self-regulated learning had a significant role as
CFI was .962, NFI was .951, and NNFI was .936, all predictor and mediator to academic procrastination
exceeding the cut off criterion of .90 which indicated the behavior, which followed with the interactionism model,
good fit. The chi-square (χ2) was 221.982 (p = .000.), because it’s a psychological state which is the result in the
however normed chi-square (χ2 /df) of 4.111 indicated an current situation combined with the psychological trait of
acceptable model fit. GFI was .951, AGFI was .906, both the individual that is the characteristic that support as a
exceeding the cut off criterion of .90, but SRMR was .052 mediator for both psychological trait and situational
almost meeting the criteria of .05. Therefore, the fit of the factors. Besides, the psychological state is closely related
full structural model as a whole was considered to be to behavior, so this supports the most powerful predictor
good. (Bhanthumnavin, 2007). Students who have a high self-
Four of six variables contributed to the explanation of efficacy for self-regulated learning believe that they do
the variance in academic procrastination behavior well in a set of strategies including planning and
significantly, namely, self-efficacy for self-regulated organizing academic work, structuring a productive study
learning (total effect = -.815**), self-esteem (total = environment, overcoming distractions, and participating
-.301**), instructor support (total effect = -.265*), in class as the basis for self-efficacy for self-regulated
and perfectionism (total effect = -.161*). Four of five learning as cited in (Zimmerman et al., 1992). They then
variables contributed to the explanation of the variance in might feel confident to take action to do academic work
academic self-efficacy significantly, namely, self-efficacy and do not procrastinate Therefore, students possessing
for self-regulated learning (total effect = -.573**), self-regulatory efficacy procrastinated much less than
instructor support (total effect = -.459*), self-esteem other students (Tan et al., 2008).
(total = -.172**), and perfectionism (total effect = The results also showed that the proposed theoretical
-.153*). Three of four variables contributed to the model of academic procrastination behavior with adding
explanation of the variance in self-efficacy for the path effect from self-efficacy for self-regulated
s e l f - r e g u l a t e d l e a r n i n g s i g n i fi c a n t l y, n a m e l y, learning to academic self-efficacy fitted with the empirical
perfectionism (total effect = -.302**), self-esteem data. The self-efficacy for self-regulated learning also
(total = -.300**), and instructor support (total = -.173**). showed positive direct effect on academic self-efficacy
Only one variable had the largest negative direct effect significantly. Therefore, enhancing the self-efficacy for
on academic procrastination behavior significantly, self-regulated learning might bring about academic self-
namely, self-efficacy for self-regulated learning efficacy more. This result was consistent with the study
(direct effect = -.821, p ≤ .01,). This means that a college by Joo, Bong, and Choi (2000) which revealed that
undergraduate who obtains high self-efficacy for students’ self-efficacy for self-regulated learning
self-regulated learning results in low academic positively related to Korean students’ academic self-
procrastination behavior due to the negative effect. efficacy. Moreover, the study by Tavakolizadeha and
Although, perfectionism, self-esteem had insignificant Qavamb (2011) provided the training in self-regulated
direct effect on academic procrastination behavior, learning strategies to 2nd grade middle-school boys. The
both variables had significant total effect due to the results showed that the training of self-regulated learning
significant indirect effect through mediating variable, strategies increased self-efficacy.
namely, self-efficacy for self-regulated learning, while
instructor support had both insignificant direct and
indirect effect, but had significant total effect. Therefore, Conclusion and Recommendation
self-efficacy for self-regulated learning was proven to
be a relevant mediating variable to academic procrastination This study examined the academic procrastination
behavior. behavior among college undergraduates through a
structural equation modeling based on the Interactionism
model. The findings from the model revealed that the
 S. Chatrakamollatha et al. / Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences 43 (2022) 223–230 229

negative effects from self-esteem, instructor support and 987–995. doi: 10.1177/001872678303601102
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social
perfectionism influenced academic procrastination
contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and association with
behavior significantly through self-efficacy for self- psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
regulated learning as the full mediator. Moreover, only 60(3), 456–470. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.456
self-efficacy for self-regulated learning had a statistically Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
significant negative direct effect on academic
alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
procrastination behavior. Therefore, a training program Journal, 6(1), 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
should be developed to foster self-efficacy for self- Joo, Y. J., Bong, M., & Choi, H. J. (2000). Self-efficacy for self-
regulated learning in order to treat the academic regulated learning, academic self-efficacy, and internet self-efficacy
in web-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and
procrastination behavior among college undergraduates. Development, 48(2), 5–17. doi: 10.1007/BF02313398
Kader, A. (2014). Academic procrastination and student achievement in
an introductory economics course. SSRN Electronic Journal, 2014,
Conflict of Interest 1–25. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2404767
Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling:
A researcher’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
There is no conflict of interest. Klassen, R. M., & Kuzucu, E. (2008). Academic procrastination and
motivation of adolescents in Turkey. Educational Psychology, 29(1),
69–81. doi: 10.1080/01443410802478622
Lekich, N. (2006). The relationship between academic motivation,
References self-esteem, and academic procrastination in college students
(Unpublished master’s thesis). Truman State University, Missouri.
Batool, S. S., Khursheed, S., & Jahangir, H. (2017). Academic Liu, K. (2010). The relationship between academic procrastination and
procrastination as a product of low self-esteem: A mediational role of academic achievement in Chinese university students (Unpublished
academic self-efficacy. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, master’s thesis). Truman State University, Missouri.
32(1), 195–211. Retrieved from http://www.pjprnip.edu.pk/pjpr/ Martinčeková, L., & Enright, R. (2020). The effects of self-forgiveness
index.php/pjpr/article/view/393 and shame-proneness on procrastination: exploring the mediating
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness- role of affect. Current Psychology, 39(2), 428–437. doi: 10.1007/
of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, s12144-018-9926-3
88, 588–606. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588 McCoskey, J. D. (2011). Finally, my thesis on academic procrastination.
Bhanthumnavin, D. (2007). Interactionism model and way to set (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Texas at Arlington,
the assumption in psycho-behavioral science research in Arlington, TX.
Thailand. Journal of Social Development, 9(1), 85–117. [in Thai] Melton, R. M. (2013). Academic underachievement: The relationship
Retrieved from https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jsd/article/ between motivation and study skills (Unpublished doctoral
view/31222/26855 dissertation). Chicago School of Professional Psychology, Chicago, IL.
Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of self-esteem. In J. P. Mohammed, A. A., Sherit, A. M. A., Eissa, M. A., & Mostafa, A. A.
Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of (2013). Academic procrastination among college students with
social psychological attitudes (Vol. 1, pp. 115–160). San Diego, CA: learning disabilities: The role of positive and negative self-oriented
Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-590241-0.50008-3 perfectionism in terms of gender, specialty and grade. International
Chang, C. (2018). Psychological factors associated with procrastination Journal of Psycho-Educational Sciences, 2(1), 1–14. Retrieved from
among college students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Chicago https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED565623
School of Professional Psychology, Chicago, IL. Nielsen, I., Newman, A., Smyth, R., Hirst, G., & Heilemann, B. (2016).
Corkin, D. M. (2012). The influence of personal motivational beliefs The influence of instructor support, family support and psychological
and classroom climate dimensions on academic procrastination in capital on the well-being of postgraduate students: a moderated
college mathematics courses (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). mediation model. Studies in higher education, 42(11), 2099–2115.
University of Houston, Houston, TX. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1135116
Corkin, D. M., Yu, S. L., Wolters, C. A., & Wiesner, M. (2014). The Patrick, H., Kaplan, A., & Ryan, A. M. (2011). Positive classroom
role of the college classroom climate on academic procrastination. motivational environments: Convergence between mastery goal
Learning and Individual Differences, 32, 294–303. doi: 10.1016/j. structure and classroom social climate. Journal of Educational
lindif.2014.04.001 Psychology, 103(2), 367–382. doi: 10.1037/a0023311
Elias, S. M., & MacDonald, S. (2007). Using past performance, proxy Pourabdol S., Sobhi-Gharamaleki, N., & Abbasi, M. (2015). A
efficacy, and academic self-efficacy to predict college performance. comparison of academic procrastination and academic vitality in
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(11), 2518–2531. doi: students with and without specific learning disorder. Journal of
10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00268.x learning disabilities, 4(3), 22–38. Retrieved from https://www.sid.ir/
Grunschel, C., Patrzek, J., & Fries, S. (2013). Exploring the reasons en/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?ID=441650
and consequences of academic procrastination: An interview study. Rosenberg, M., Schooler, C., Schoenbach, C., & Rosenberg, F. (1995).
European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28, 841–861. doi: Global self-esteem and specific self-esteem: different concepts,
10.1007/s10212-012-0143-4 different outcomes. American Sociological Review, 60, 141–156.
Hair, J. F., Black, W., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate doi: 10.2307/2096350
Data Analysis (7th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Schraw, G., Wadkins, T., & Olafson, L. (2007). Doing the things we do: A
Harris, N. N., & Sutton, R. I. (1983). Task procrastination in grounded theory of academic procrastination. Journal of Educational
organizations: A framework for research. Human Relations, 36(11), Psychology, 99(1), 12–25. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.12
230 S. Chatrakamollatha et al. / Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences 43 (2022) 223–230

Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to Tan, C. X., Ang, R. P., Klassen, R. M., Yeo, L. S., Wong, I. Y. F., Huan,
structural equation modeling (2nd ed.).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence V. S., & Chong, W. H. (2008). Correlates of academic procrastination
Erlbaum Associates. and students’ grade goals. Current psychology-Research & reviews,
Seo, E. H. (2008). Self-efficacy as a mediator in the relationship between 27(2), 135–144. doi: 10.1007/s12144-008-9028-8
self-oriented perfectionism and academic procrastination. Social Tavakolizadeha, J. & Qavamb, S. E. (2011). Effect of teaching of self-
Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 36(6), 753–764. regulated learning strategies on self-efficacy in students. Procedia
doi: 10.2224/sbp.2008.36.6.753 - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1096 – 1104. doi: 10.1016/j.
Solberg, V. S., O’Brien, K., Villareal, P., Kennel, R., & Davis, B. (1993). sbspro.2011.11.343
Self-efficacy and Hispanic college students: Validation of the college Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Self-efficacy for self-regulated
self-efficacy instrument. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, learning: A validation study. Educational and Psychological
15(1), 80–95. doi: 10.1177/07399863930151004 Measurement, 68(3), 443–463. doi: 10.1177/0013164407308475
Stoeber, J. (Ed.). (2018). The psychology of perfectionism: Critical Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-
issues, open questions, and future directions. In The psychology motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs
of perfectionism: Theory, research, applications (pp. 333–352). and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal,
London, UK: Routledge. 29(3), 663–676. doi: 10.3102/00028312029003663