The validity and reliability of the Turkish brief version of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory for adolescents

Objective: The study aimed to examine the psychometric properties of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI) developed by Zimbardo and Boyd with a sample of subjects in late adolescence (aged between 17 and 24 years).Method: In order to determine how well the identified model of the shortened version of the ZTPI (five subscales with 15 items) fits the Turkish adaptation, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were performed to understand the factor structure of ZTPI.Results: The results of the initial CFA suggested that the original factor structure of the ZPTI shortened version with 15 items fit the data for adolescents’ ratings of time perspective on the measures. The EFA revealed a five-factor structure for ZPTI with a shortened scale. CFA using competing models strategy also supported the five-factor structure. Convergent validity study yielded moderate correlations with other mental health indicators.Conclusion: The findings of the current study provided a good starting point for further ZTPI developments in Turkish culture. It is proposed that a proper balance between past, present, and future are now considered preconditions for success, mental health, and personal happiness. Considering the findings of the current study, time perspective may be useful for evaluating the personality concerns and well-being of clients in counseling and therapy.

PDF

___

1. Zimbardo PG, Boyd JN. Putting time in perspective: a valid, reliable, individual differences metric. J Pers Soc Psychol 1999; 77:1271-1288.

2. Zimbardo P, Boyd J. The time paradox: The new psychology of time that can change your life. New York: Free Press, 2008.

3. Holman EA, Silver RC. Getting “stuck” in the past: temporal orientation and coping with trauma. J Pers Soc Psychol 1998; 74:1146-1163.

4. van Beek W, Berghuis H, Kerkhof A, Beekman A. Time perspective, personality and psychopathology: Zimbardo’s time perspective inventory in psychiatry. Time and Society 2011; 20:364-374.

5. Anagnostopoulos F, Griva F. Exploring time perspective in Greek young adults: validation of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory and relationships with mental health indicators. Soc Indic Res 2012; 106:41-59.

6. Gilbert SP, Sifers SK. Bouncing back from a breakup: attachment, time perspective, mental health, and romantic loss. J College Stud Psychother 2011; 25: 295-310.

7. Zhang JW, Howell RT, Bowerman T. Validating a brief measure of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory. Time and Society 2013; 22;391-409.

8. Barnett E, Spruijt-Metz D, Unger J, Rohrbac LA, Sun P, Sussman S. Bidirectional associations between future time perspective and substance use among continuation high-school students. Subst Use Misuse 2013; 48:574-580.

9. Sansone G, Fong GT, Hall PA, Guignard R, Beck F, Mons U, et al. Time perspective as a predictor of smoking status: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Surveys in Scotland, France, Germany, China, and Malaysia. BMC Public Health 2013; 13:346.

10. Gellert P, Ziegelmann JP, Lippke S, Schwarzer, R. Future time perspective and health behaviors: Temporal framing of self-regulatory processes in physical exercise and dietary behaviors. Ann Behav Med 2012; 43: 208-218.

11. Guthrie LC, Lessl K, Ochi O, Ward MM. Time perspective and smoking, obesity, and exercise in a community sample. Am J Health Behav 2013; 37:171-180.

12. Hall PA, Fong GT, Yong HH, Sanson, G, Borland R, Siahpush M. Do time perspective and sensation-seeking predict quitting activity among smokers? Findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Addict Behav 2012; 37: 1307-1313.

13. Laghi F, Liga F, Baumgartner E, Baiocco R. Time perspective and psychosocial positive functioning among Italian adolescents who binge eat and drink. J Adolesc 2012; 35:1277-1284.

14. Bernstein MJ, Benfield JA. Past perspective is related to present relationships: Past-positive and negative time perspectives differentially predict rejection sensitivity. Psychological Record 2013; 63:615-627.

15. Taber BJ. Time perspective and career decision-making difficulties in adults. J Career Assess 2013; 21:200-209.

16. Gonzales A, Zimbardo PG. Time in perspective: A Psychology Today survey report. Psychol Today 1985; 19:21-26.

17. Boniwell I, Zimbardo PG. Balancing time perspective in pursuit of optimal functioning: In Linley PA, Joseph S (editors). Positive Psychology in Practice. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2004, 165-178.

18. Stolarski M, Matthews G, Postek S, Zimbardo PG, Bitner J. How we feel is a matter of time: Relationships between time perspectives and mood. J Happiness Stud 2014; 15:809-827.

19. Zimbardo PG, Keough KA, Boyd JN. Present time perspective as a predictor of risky driving. Pers Individ Dif 1997; 23:1007-1023.

20. Keough KA, Zimbardo PG, Boyd JN. Who’s smoking, drinking, and using drugs? Time perspective as a predictor of substance use. Basic Appl Soc Psych 1999; 21:149-164.

21. Apostolidis T, Fieulaine N, Soule F. Future time perspective as predictor of cannabis use: exploring the role of substance perception among French adolescents. Addict Behav 2006; 31:2339-2343.

22. D’Alessio M, Guarino A, De Pascalis V, Zimbardo PG. Testing Zimbardo’s Stanford Time Perspective Inventory (STPI) – Short form: an Italian study. Time and Society 2003;12:334-347.

23. Apostolidis T, Fieulaine N. French validation of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI). Eur Rev Appl Psychol 2004: 54:207-217.

24. Diaz-Morales JF. Factorial structure and reliability of Zimbardo Time Perspective. Psicothema 2006; 18:565-571. (Spanish)

25. Lukavska K, Klicperova-Baker M, Lukavsky J, Zimbardo PG. ZTPI – Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory. Cesk Psychol 2011; 55: 356-373. (Czech)

26. Mitina, O Sircova, A. Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI): Results of Russian version psychometrics analysis. Moscow University Psychology Bulletin 2008; 7385. 67-89.

27. Carelli MG, Wiberg B, Wiberg M. Development and construct validation of the Swedish Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory. Eur J Psychol Assess 2011; 27:220-227.

28. Liniauskaite A, Kairys, A. The Lithuanian version of the Zimbardo time perspective inventory. Psichologija 2009; 40:66-87.

29. Milfont TL, Andrade PR, Belo RP, Pessoa VS. Testing Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory in a Brazilian sample. Interam J Psychol 2008; 42:49-58.

30. Sircova, A, van de Vijver FJR, Osin E, Milfont TL, Fieulaine N, Kislali-Erginbilgic A, et al. A global look at time: a 24-country study of the equivalence of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory. Sage Open 2014; 4:1-12.

31. Kostal J, Klicperova-Baker M, Lukavska K, Lukavsky J. 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 2016; 25:169-192.

32. Sahin-Baltaci H, Tagay O, Worrell FC, Mello ZR. Psychometric properties of Turkish Adolescent Time Inventory-Time Attitude (ATI-TA) scores. International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Practice, Consultation 2017; 6:47-59.

33. Eren A. Coskun H. Time perspectives and boredom coping strategies of undergraduate students from Turkey. Educational Research for Policy and Practice 2015; 14:53-75.

34. Akirmak U. How is time perspective related to perceptions of self and of interpersonal relationships? Span J Psychol 2014; 17.

35. Robins RW, Fraley RC, Roberts BW, Trzesniewski KH. A longitudinal study of personality change in young adulthood. J Pers 2001;69: 617-640.

36. Joreskog KG, Sorbom D. Lisrel 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language. Lincolnwood IL: Scientific Software International, 1993.

37. Steiger, J. H. Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behav Res 1990; 25:173-180.

38. MacCallum RC, Wegener DT, Uchino BN, Fabrigar LR. The problem of equivalent models in applications of covariance structure analysis. Psychol Bull 1993; 114:185-199.

39. Simsek OF, Kocayoruk E. Affective reactions to one’s whole life: preliminary development and validation of the Ontological Well-Being Scale. J Happiness Stud 2013; 14:309-343.

40. Benet-Martinez V, John OP. Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait-multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. J Pers Soc Psychol 1998; 75:729-750.

41. Sumer HC, Bilgic R, Sumer N, Erol T. Personality attributes as predictors of psychological well-being for NCOs. J Psychol 2005; 139:529-544.

42. Diener E, Wirtz D, Tov W, Kim-Prieto C, Choi DW, Oishi S, et al. New well-being measures: short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Soc Indic Res 2010; 97:143-156.

43. Akin A, Fidan M. The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Flourishing Scale: In Third International Conference on New Trends in Education and their Implications (ICONTE) Istanbul, 2012, 26-28.

44. Boniwell I, Osin E, Alex LP, Ivanchenko GV. A question of balance: time perspective and well-being in British and Russian samples. J Posit Psychol 2010; 5:24-40.

45. Dunkel CS, Weber JL. Using three levels of personality to predict time perspective. Curr Psychol 2010; 29:95-103.

46. Zhang JW, Howell RT. Do time perspectives predict unique variance in life satisfaction beyond personality traits? Pers Individ Dif 2011; 50:1261-1266.

47. Zhang JW, Howell RT, Stolarski M. Comparing three methods to measure a balanced time perspective: the relationship between a balanced time perspective and subjective well-being. J Happiness Stud 2013; 14:169-184.