Procrastination Test

We couldn't match these 12 statements to a published questionnaire, so treat this as a self-reflection questionnaire. The topics overlap with published scales: starting late, saying "I'll do it tomorrow," rushing near a deadline and the stress afterward. But no statement is worded like an item on the two scales Piers Steel published in 2010, the 12-item Pure Procrastination Scale (PPS) and the 9-item Irrational Procrastination Scale (IPS).

The four ranges (low, moderate, noticeable, frequent) are this page's own. We didn't find them in the PPS or IPS papers or in any other paper we read.

Steel's 2007 meta-analysis of procrastination drew on 691 correlations. The strongest and most consistent predictors were task aversiveness, task delay, self-efficacy and impulsiveness, plus conscientiousness and its facets, while neuroticism, rebelliousness and sensation seeking showed only weak links. Sirois and Pychyl argued in a 2013 review that procrastination has a great deal to do with short-term mood repair, often when a task feels aversive. That's an argument built on earlier studies, not a trial.

The nearest published scales have limits that apply here too. In a global sample of 4,169 people, five procrastination scales, including the PPS and IPS, separated low and medium levels well but measured less reliably at the high end. The authors advised supplementing them with other measures in clinical settings. Our "frequent" band sits in that high range.

On treatment, a 2018 review of 12 randomized trials (21 comparisons, 718 people) found a small average benefit from psychological treatments (Hedges' g 0.34, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.56). A subgroup of three CBT studies with 236 people gave 0.55 (0.32 to 0.77). The authors noted that the studies varied widely and that the CBT evidence rests on only three studies.

No published source gives these ranges. They fall at about 31%, 56% and 77% of the 48-point maximum. Steel's site points to a separate paper on cut-offs for the PPS, which we didn't read, and it wouldn't apply to these statements anyway.

As far as we could find, nobody has tested these 12 statements. We can't say how steady the score is from week to week or how well it matches missed deadlines or other measures of procrastination. The ranges are this page's own choices, not clinical categories.

It's all self-report, so it reflects how you see your habits today. It counts delay and its costs but not the reasons. Steel's meta-analysis linked procrastination to many factors, so a score can't tell you which ones apply to you.

Use the result as a prompt to notice what you delay and what you feel just before you put it off. A higher number doesn't diagnose anything. If you retake it after a few weeks, keep the same stretch of time in mind so the two scores compare.

If putting things off keeps costing you at work, school or home, or comes with constant worry, low mood or poor sleep, consider talking with a therapist or doctor. CBT has some trial support for procrastination, though the evidence is limited. For related reading, see procrastination and anxiety and perfectionism and fear of mistakes.

More on this topic: Procrastination and anxiety, Perfectionism and fear of mistakes, Bedtime procrastination, Behavioral activation.

Your answers are scored in your browser. If you sign in and choose to save a result, we store the score and its label, not your individual answers. Without an account, nothing is saved.

• Steel, Psychological Bulletin, 2007 (PubMed): abstract only: meta-analysis based on 691 correlations; the predictors listed above.
• Sirois and Pychyl, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2013 (Crossref record): abstract only, read through Crossref: the argument that procrastination relates to short-term mood repair. A review, not a test of the idea.
• Svartdal and Steel, Frontiers in Psychology, 2017 (PubMed Central): open-access full text: the 12 PPS and 9 IPS items (with the three reversed IPS items), the origin of the PPS items in three older scales, 4,169 people, weaker measurement at high levels.
• Svartdal, Pfuhl, Nordby and colleagues, Frontiers in Psychology, 2016 (PubMed Central): open-access full text: the PPS has 12 items, all keyed toward procrastination and rated 1 to 5; the IPS has nine items, three reversed; 2,893 people in six countries.
• Rozental, Forsell, Svensson, Forsström, Andersson and Carlbring, BMC Psychology, 2014 (PubMed Central): open-access full text of a Swedish-language study: a second printing of the English PPS and IPS item wording, used to cross-check the first.
• Guilera, López-Martínez, Barrios, Hidalgo, Steel and Gómez-Benito, Frontiers in Psychology, 2023 (PubMed Central): open-access full text: Spanish PPS validation; the English PPS wording in brackets and the anchors 1 (very seldom or not true of me) to 5 (very often true or true of me).
• Rozental and colleagues, Frontiers in Psychology, 2018 (PubMed): abstract only: 12 randomized trials, small average benefit, moderate benefit in a CBT subgroup of three studies.
• Steel, About the Measure (procrastinus.com): the author's page for the IPS and PPS: free use for research or clinical purposes, a pointer to the PPS cut-off paper. Mentioned only for context; this page does not use either scale.
• Steel, 2007, Psychological Bulletin (PubMed): Abstract: meta-analysis of 691 correlations; strong and consistent predictors were task aversiveness, task delay, self-efficacy and impulsiveness, plus conscientiousness and its facets; neuroticism was only weakly linked. Used for the sentence on the result page about what procrastination is linked to.