Learning and Instruction 58 (2018) 193–200

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning and Instruction

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

Does it matter if students procrastinate more in some courses than in others? T

A multilevel perspective on procrastination and academic achievement
Kristina Kljajic∗, Patrick Gaudreau
University of Ottawa, Canada

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: We proposed and tested a novel multilevel perspective on procrastination by examining the prospective relation
Procrastination between procrastination and grades across students (i.e., between-person level) and across the courses taken by
Academic achievement each student (i.e., within-person level). A sample of 208 university students completed repeated measures of
Multilevel modeling procrastination for each of their courses during the semester and the official final grades were obtained at the
Time management
end of the semester. The results of multilevel modeling revealed that students who procrastinated more than
Tertiary education
other students received lower grades than these students (i.e., between-person level). Moreover, the results
revealed that in the courses in which students procrastinated more than their own average, they received lower
grades than their own average (i.e., within-person level). These findings build upon past findings on procras-
tination across students while also moving this research field forward by offering a new understanding of
procrastination as a within-person risk factor for academic difficulties.

1. Introduction frequent stressors reported by university students (Hurst, Baranik, &

Philip and Sophia are university students who believe that they have
obtained low midterm grades because they needlessly delayed studying
for their exams. An academic counsellor offers them to complete a
questionnaire that evaluates the frequency of their academic procras-
tination (see Fig. 1, panel A). Their average scores reveal that Philip
frequently procrastinates, whereas Sophia rarely procrastinates (see
Fig. 1, panel B). At first glance, the academic counsellor is more worried
about Philip than Sophia. However, Sophia explains that although she
does not frequently procrastinate in general in her courses, she worries
that her procrastination in Chemistry affects her performance and her
likelihood of entering graduate school. The counsellor is intrigued and
asks Philip and Sophia to complete the same questionnaire of procras-
tination for each of their courses. Although Philip's scores are all the
same, Sophia's scores vary from one course to another. Despite her re-
latively low scores of procrastination in Psychology, Philosophy, and
Biology, she procrastinates in Chemistry as frequently as Philip gen-
erally procrastinates in his schoolwork. The counsellor wonders whe-
ther he should also be worried about Sophia's procrastination in
Chemistry despite her low average score of procrastination.
Poor time management is often portrayed by the media as the cul-
prit of many academic difficulties experienced by university students.
Time is a limited resource and the lack of time is one of the most
Daniel, 2013). Despite the fact that time is a limited and useful resource
for academic success (Credé & Kuncel, 2008), many students procras-
tinate by unreasonably delaying their schoolwork despite knowing that
their delay will lead them to experience undesirable outcomes
(Klingsieck, 2013a; Steel, 2007). Meta-analytical findings have shown
that procrastination relates to worse academic achievement including
lower assignment grades, course grades, and grade point averages (see
Kim & Seo, 2015; Richardson, Abraham, & Bond, 2012; Steel, 2007; van
Eerde, 2003). We argue that procrastination should negatively relate to
academic achievement even among many students – like Sophia – who
are not typically considered as procrastinators.
1.1. A novel multilevel perspective on procrastination
In this study, we proposed a multilevel perspective in which pro-
crastination is expected to fluctuate across students (i.e., between-person
level) and across the courses taken by each student during the semester
(i.e., within-person level). Both assertions are complementary and should
be empirically investigated in order to refine our understanding of
procrastination and its influence on academic achievement.
On the one hand, procrastination is often defined as a personality
trait (e.g., Schouwenburg, 2004; Sirois, 2014; Steel, 2007; Steel &
Ferrari, 2013), partly because the construct displays substantial

∗
Corresponding author. School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, 136 Jean-Jacques Lussier, room 5067, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1N 6N5.
E-mail address: kklja060@uottawa.ca (K. Kljajic).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.06.005
Received 24 February 2018; Received in revised form 26 June 2018; Accepted 29 June 2018
0959-4752/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Kljajic, P. Gaudreau
Fig. 1. An illustration of a questionnaire measuring procrastination (panel A)
that was hypothetically filled out by two fictional university students (panel B).
In panel B, the number at the top of each oval represents the average score of
procrastination of the student. The number at the bottom of each rectangle
represents the score of procrastination for the course. Darker shades of grey
reflect higher levels of procrastination. The filled arc with two arrows re-
presents the between-person level of analysis comparing students to one an-
other. The dotted arcs with multiple arrows represent the within-person level of
analysis comparing courses to one another for each student. PSY = Psychology.
PHI = Philosophy. BIO = Biology. CHM = Chemistry. MAT = Mathematics.
ECO = Economy.
temporal stability through test-retest reliability (see Steel, 2007) and
across three time points during a semester (Rice, Richardson, & Clark,
2012). Genetic factors also explain a substantial proportion of the
variation in procrastination (Gustavson et al., 2017; Gustavson, Miyake,
Hewitt, & Friedman, 2014, 2015). Studies at the between-person level
have generally found that students who procrastinate more than their
counterparts are at greater risk of experiencing psychological and
academic maladjustment, such as higher anxiety and depression (Steel,
2007; van Eerde, 2003) and lower academic achievement (e.g., Kim &
Seo, 2015; Richardson et al., 2012). Individual differences in procras-
tination are thus undeniable and consequential.
On the other hand, procrastination can also be defined as a state
(e.g., Steel & Ferrari, 2013) and measured across time during a semester
(e.g., Dewitte & Schouwenburg, 2002; Goda et al., 2015; Steel, Svartdal,
Thundiyil, & Brothen, 2018), across academic tasks (Clark & Hill, 1994;
Özer, Demir, & Ferrari, 2009; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984), and across
life domains (Klingsieck, 2013b). The majority of students – even those
who are not considered as procrastinators based on their typical be-
havior – procrastinate from time to time depending on the circum-
stances. Therefore, researchers should not only follow the mainstream
research interested in who procrastinates more compared to others (i.e.,
between-person level), but also investigate under which circumstances
individuals procrastinate more compared to their own average (i.e.,
within-person level).
Theoretical and empirical advances in personality (e.g., Fleeson,
2004; Fleeson & Noftle, 2012) and human achievement (e.g., Dalal,
Bhave, & Fiset, 2014) have outlined many advantages of differentiating,
comparing, and integrating psychological constructs at distinct levels of
analysis. Research has even shown that robust and replicable effects
observed at the between-person level can fail to generalize at the
within-person level (e.g., Sitzmann & Yeo, 2013). In the fictional cases
of Philip and Sophia, the extant literature on procrastination and
194
Learning and Instruction 58 (2018) 193–200
academic achievement is useful to assume that Philip is more likely to
underperform than Sophia. However, research at the within-person
level is required to inform academic counsellors whether Sophia is more
likely to have significantly lower performance in Chemistry compared
to her other courses. Hence, our multilevel perspective offers a needed
roadmap to reshape our research agenda and to better understand the
influence of procrastination on the achievement outcomes of students
like Sophia and Philip.
1.2. The present study
We conducted a study in which students reported their level of
procrastination in each of their courses during a semester. Our main
goal was to investigate the prospective relation between procrastination
during the semester and grades at the end of the semester at the be-
tween-person and within-person levels. Our complementary goal was to
propose a stringent test of the relation between procrastination and
grades by controlling for variables that could act as confounders at both
levels of analysis.
At the between-person level, some students may have experienced
difficulties in obtaining good grades before entering university (i.e.,
admission GPA) which would decrease their likelihood of obtaining
good grades in university. Moreover, students who have to manage the
requirements of multiple courses during the semester (i.e., number of
courses) and students who have just started university and did not get
the chance to adjust their learning strategies in a new environment (i.e.,
year of study) may be less likely to obtain high grades at the end of the
semester. Therefore, admission GPA, the number of courses taken
during the semester, and the year of study could act as confounders in
the relation between procrastination and grades at the between-person
level.
At the within-person level, students may attach less importance to
their performance in some courses (i.e., course importance) or they may
be overwhelmed by the amount of work they have to accomplish in
some courses (i.e., course workload) which could potentially decrease
their engagement and success in these courses. Furthermore, students
may be less engaged and experience less success in some courses be-
cause the professor is generally perceived as being unclear and dis-
organised (i.e., teaching evaluation) or because of the feeling of dis-
tance between the professor and the students in large classrooms (i.e.,
number of students in the course). Hence, personal (i.e., course im-
portance), contextual (i.e., course workload) and environmental vari-
ables (i.e., teaching evaluation and the number of students registered in
the course) could act as confounders in the relation between procras-
tination and grades at the within-person level.
In this study, our between-person hypotheses were that (1a) students
who procrastinate more than others should obtain lower grades and
(1b) this finding should still be significant over and above admission
GPA, the number of courses taken during the semester, and the year of
study. Our within-person hypotheses were that (2a) in the courses in
which students procrastinate more than their own average, they should
obtain lower grades than their own average and (2b) this finding should
still be significant over and above personal, contextual, and environ-
mental variables likely to influence academic achievement.
2. Method
2.1. Design and sample
We used a two-level design in which we recruited participants in
order to evaluate the procrastination and achievement in each of their
courses during a semester. Courses (i.e., level 1) are nested within each
student (i.e., level 2), as frequently seen in intensive longitudinal stu-
dies (e.g., daily diaries). The between-person sample corresponded to
participants who took part in the study, whereas the within-person
sample corresponded to courses taken by the participants during the
K. Kljajic, P. Gaudreau
semester.
The between-person sample consisted of 208 undergraduate uni-
versity students (64.3% female) aged between 17 and 37 years
(M = 19.53, SD = 2.46) enrolled at a four-year public university lo-
cated in an urban area in Canada. The within-person sample consisted
of 727 courses (before dealing with missing data). Participants reported
that they were taking one (0.5%), two (1.5%) three (2.4%), four
(22.4%), five (69.3%), or six (3.9%) courses during the semester. They
were in the first (70%), second (17.4%), third (7.2%), and fourth
(5.3%) year of their undergraduate degree. They were enrolled at the
faculties of social sciences (34.3%), health sciences (28.9%), science
(23%), arts (9.8%), management (2.5%), and engineering (1.5%).
Participants described their ethnic background as Caucasian (64.7%),
Arabic (7.7%), Asian (7.2%), African-American (6.8%), Aboriginal
(4.8%), Hispanic (2.4%), and other (6.3%). They lived with their par-
ents (42.8%), in a residence (30.3%), or in an apartment (26.9%) and
they reported that they received a full scholarship (10.1%), a partial
scholarship (49.5%), or no scholarship (40.4%) to cover their tuition
fees. A total of 97 participants (46.9%) noted that they had to work
during the semester and they were working on average 16.6 h per week.
Most students received one point toward their introductory psychology
course for their participation in this study. Other students received a
compensation of five Canadian dollars. All participants completed a
consent form and the study was approved by the Research Ethics Board
of the university.
2.2. Procedure and measures
University students were recruited to participate in a study to de-
scribe their experience in each of their courses during the semester.
They completed an online consent form and a separate form to au-
thorize the second author to have access to their official grades of the
winter semester through the Registrar's Office. Participants then com-
pleted an online survey within the last month before the final exams to
ensure that they could reflect on their overall experience during the
semester. The survey included socio-demographic questions, general
questions, and repeated course-related questions for each course taken
during the semester. For each of their courses, participants provided
their course code (e.g., PSY1101 L) and the name of their professor
before they could answer a series of questions referring to that course.
Participants were then asked if they were registered in a second course.
Depending on their answer to that question, they were either redirected
to a series of questions referring to that second course or to the last part
of the survey if they were not enrolled in a second course. Students
went through this process for as many courses as they reported taking
during the semester.
2.2.1. Number of courses (level-2 variable)
Before completing course-related questions, participants were asked
to indicate the number of courses that they were taking during the
semester on a scale ranging from 1 to 6.
2.2.2. Year of study (level-2 variable)
Before completing course-related questions, participants were asked
to select their level of academic training from first year to fourth year.
We used contrast coding to compare students who were in their first
year (coded as −1) to students who were in their second, third, and
fourth year (coded as 0.33).
2.2.3. Procrastination (level-1 and level-2 variable)
Three items were used to measure procrastination in each course
based on two items from the Procrastination Assessment Scale –
Students (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984) and one item from the Irrational
Procrastination Scale (Steel, 2010). Participants were asked to rate the
degree to which they procrastinate, they feel that procrastination is a
problem for them, and they delay tasks beyond what is reasonable on a
195
Learning and Instruction 58 (2018) 193–200
scale ranging from 1 (not at all agree) to 5 (totally agree). The internal
consistency of the scale in this study was good (within-person α = .83;
between-person α = .95). Multilevel confirmatory factor analysis
(MCFA) was conducted to evaluate whether the fit of the model to the
data was comparable at the two levels of analysis. The analyses were
performed with the maximum likelihood estimator with robust stan-
dard errors (MLR) and the factor loadings were constrained to equality
at both levels of analysis. The results of MCFA revealed that the fit of
the model was acceptable: χ2 (3) = 17.38 (scaling correction
factor = 1.55), p < .01, CFI = .955, TLI = .910, RMSEA = .077,
within-person SRMR = .010, between-person SRMR = .032. The stan-
dardized loadings of the items ranged between .75 and .84 at the
within-person level and between .88 and .99 at the between-person
level. The fit of this model suggests that this three-item scale has a
comparably acceptable factor structure at the within-person level and
between-person level.
2.2.4. Importance (level-1 variable)
Two items were used to measure the perceived importance of each
course for the students. Participants assessed the importance of per-
forming well in each course on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5
(totally). In this study, the internal consistency of the scale was good
(within-person α = .86; between-person α = .97).
2.2.5. Workload (level-1 variable)
One item taken from the student evaluation of teaching (i.e., S-
Report; see below) was used to measure perceived workload in each
course on a scale ranging from 1 (very light) to 5 (very heavy).
2.2.6. Student evaluation of teaching (level-1 variable)
The S-Report is a 13-item questionnaire developed by the admin-
istration of the university to enable students to evaluate their professors
and their courses. The evaluation results are published online and ac-
cessible to students and faculty members affiliated to the university.
The Research Ethics Board of the university authorized us to use this
information for our research purposes. The S-Report was administered
uniformly and mandatorily across all courses on campus during the
10th and 11th week of the semester. Data are available for all courses
which were evaluated by at least six students. In each course, at least
two students were asked to volunteer to read the instructions and dis-
tribute the questionnaire to all the students at the start of a class while
the professor remained outside of the classroom during the evaluation.
Students had at least 15 min to fill out the questionnaire and write
additional comments. All answers were anonymous and confidential.
Once the procedure was completed, the volunteers were instructed to
put all questionnaires in an envelope and seal it before depositing the
envelope in a designated area on campus.
We selected six items that specifically evaluated the professor's
teaching. Two items assessing the preparedness of the professor and
their effectiveness in conveying the subject matter were rated on a scale
ranging from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). Three items assessing
whether the teaching is stimulating, the course is well organized, and
the expectations of students are clear were rated on a scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). One item assessing the
professor as a teacher was rated on a scale ranging from 1 (very poor) to
5 (excellent). Given that the questionnaire included 4-point and 5-point
scales with varied labels, we decided to create a sum of all the scores on
this questionnaire instead of creating an average score. Moreover, we
decided to consider the aggregated teaching evaluation of the students
in a course instead of specifically considering the teaching evaluation of
our participants in our online survey. There is consensus that ag-
gregating the responses of the students in a course is “the appropriate
unit of analysis” (Marsh, Ginns, Morin, Nagengast, & Martin, 2011, p.
735). Furthermore, we wanted to minimize common method bias
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012) and the risk that a student's
evaluation of his/her professor would be contaminated by the grades
K. Kljajic, P. Gaudreau
obtained in that course (e.g., Grimes, Millea, & Woodruff, 2004). In this
study, the internal consistency of the 6-item questionnaire with the
aggregated responses was excellent (within-person α = .97).
2.2.7. Number of students registered in the course (level-1 variable)
In the cases of participants who authorized us to get access to their
grades, the Registrar's Office of the university also provided the number
of students who were registered in each course during the semester. The
numbers ranged between 5 and 415 students.
2.2.8. Grade (level-1 and level-2 variable) and admission GPA (level-2
variable)
The Registrar's Office provided us the official grades of our parti-
cipants in each of their courses during the winter 2012 semester. The
following grading scale is used in the university where the study took
place: 0 = F (0–39%), 1 = E (40–49%), 2 = D (50–54%), 3 = D+
(55–59%), 4 = C (60–64%), 5 = C+ (65–69%), 6 = B (70–74%),
7 = B+ (75–79%), 8 = A- (80–84%), 9 = A (85–89%), and 10 = A+
(90–100%). The Registrar's Office also provided the admission GPA of
the participants which represents their achievement level before they
were admitted to university (e.g., GPA of the last year of high school).
The admission GPA was converted from a percentage notation to the
grading scale used by the university.
3. Results
3.1. Preliminary analyses
The initial sample of 209 undergraduate students was screened for
outliers on the main variables of this study. Whenever possible, the
correlation between course procrastination and course grade was
computed for each participant. The correlations were then transformed
into z-scores to facilitate the detection of outliers. A visual inspection
did not reveal z-scores that were considerably extreme and different
from the rest of the sample (i.e., z-scores varied between −1.30 and
2.11). Therefore, we did not exclude participants due to outliers.
However, one participant did not complete any of the questionnaires
used in this study and was thus excluded from the analyses. The final
level-2 sample consisted of 208 undergraduate students. Based on a
simulation study, a level-2 sample size of 50 is sufficient to provide an
accurate estimation of the various parameters, although a sample size
of at least 100 is preferable (Maas & Hox, 2005). Thus, our final sample
size is sufficiently large to conduct the analyses and obtain accurate
estimates of our parameters.
Descriptive statistics and correlations for within-person variables
(i.e., level 1) and between-person variables (i.e., level 2) are presented
in Table 1. Multilevel modeling was performed using Mplus (version 8;
Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017) with the Bayes estimator to handle
missing data. We decided to keep the default non-informative priors to
ensure that the estimates were computed based only on our data. One of
the many advantages of using the Bayes estimator compared to the
traditional full information maximum likelihood estimator (ML) is that
it can provide more accurate results when parameters are non-normally
distributed and skewed (Muthén, 2010; van de Schoot et al., 2013;
Zyphur & Oswald, 2013). For many models, the Bayes estimator is also
a more flexible and less burdensome computational method compared
to ML (Muthén, 2010; Zyphur & Oswald, 2013). In this study, we
decided to use the Bayes estimator because the traditional full in-
formation ML implemented in Mplus was not able to handle the type of
missing data (i.e., some participants with no data available on the de-
pendent variable) in the context of multilevel modeling with random
intercepts and slopes.
When using a Bayes estimator, it is important to monitor the con-
vergence of the iteration process and increase the number of iterations
when needed. The Proportional Scale Reduction (PSR) factor is a con-
vergence criterion that should be close to 1 (Muthén, 2010). All our
196
Learning and Instruction 58 (2018) 193–200
models converged at between 10 000 and 45 000 iterations and the PSR
values were between 1.000 and 1.004. The significance testing was
based on the posterior probability intervals (also known as credibility
intervals). The 95% credibility interval can be interpreted as a “95%
probability that the population value is within the limits of the interval”
(van de Schoot et al., 2013, p. 844). If the credibility interval did not
cover zero, the parameter was interpreted as being statistically sig-
nificant. Three sets of models were created to test the hypotheses of this
study: (a) null model, (b) main model, and (c) complementary model.
The results of all the models can be found in Table 2.
3.2. Null model
The null models – also known as unconditional models – were used
to determine the percentage of variance that is attributable to each level
of analysis. The null models can only be estimated with the main
variables (i.e., procrastination and grades) and control variables that
were measured across courses (i.e., course importance, workload,
teaching evaluation, and the number of students registered in the
course). In these models, each variable was entered separately as an
outcome variable at level 1 without including any predictors. The intra-
class correlation (ICC) was then calculated to estimate the proportion of
the total variance that could be accounted by between-person variance.
The results revealed that considerable variance in procrastination
(38.93%; σ2 = 0.547; τ = 0.858), grades (38.65%; σ2 = 2.468;
τ = 3.918), course importance (54.17%; σ2 = 0.468; τ = 0.396), per-
ceived workload (97.20%; σ2 = 0.765; τ = 0.022), teaching evaluation
(99.32%; σ2 = 6.387; τ = 0.044) and the number of students registered
in the courses (83.80%; σ2 = 8819.314; τ = 1705.429) was attributable
to within-person variability. Taken together, these results demonstrate
the importance of conceptualizing procrastination and grades with
multilevel modeling, while also integrating control variables that sub-
stantially fluctuate across the courses taken by the students during the
semester.
3.3. Main model
The main model was used to examine the relation between pro-
crastination and grades at the between-person and the within-person
levels. In this model, grades were entered as the outcome variable,
procrastination across courses was entered as a group-centered pre-
dictor at level 1, and the average score of procrastination for each
student was entered as a grand-mean centered predictor at level 2. The
level-1 residual variance decreased by 13.45% after adding procrasti-
nation at level 1. The level-2 intercept variance decreased by 2.81%
after adding procrastination at level 2.1 Procrastination was sig-
nificantly and negatively associated with grades at both levels of ana-
lysis, thus supporting Hypotheses 1a and 2a.
At the between-person level, the finding revealed that students who
procrastinated more than their colleagues also received lower grades
than their colleagues. Specifically, each 1-point increase in average
procrastination (e.g., going from 2 to 3 in the 5-point procrastination
scale) was related to a drop of 0.433 point in average grade. In other
words, the expected average grade at the 15th percentile of average
procrastination was 6.45 (i.e., between B and B+), whereas the ex-
pected average grade at the 85th percentile of average procrastination
was 5.56 (i.e., between C+ and B).
1
The proportional reduction in variance was calculated at each level of
analysis with the following equation: (varianceNoPredictor – variancePredictor)/
varianceNoPredictor. The variance refers to the level-1 residual variance (σ2) or
the level-2 intercept variance (r0). The subscript “NoPredictor” refers to the
variance of the null model predicting grades, whereas the subscript “Predictor”
refers to the variance of the model with predictors (see Peugh, 2010, p. 98;
Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).
K. Kljajic, P. Gaudreau Learning and Instruction 58 (2018) 193–200

Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlations between variables at the within-person and between-person levels of analysis.
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

a
Within-person level
1. Course procrastination 2.66 1.17 –
2. Course importance 3.96 0.92 −.10∗ –
3. Course perceived workload 3.21 0.88 .12∗ .09∗ –
4. Course teaching evaluation 24.84 2.53 −.09∗ .10∗ −.04 –
5. Course number of students 182.37 102.34 .01 .02 .08∗ −.04 –
6. Course grade 5.97 2.51 −.24∗ .19∗ −.16∗ .06∗ −.10∗ –
Between-person levelb
7. Average procrastination 2.69 1.02 –
8. Admission GPA 8.04 1.50 −.04 –
9. Number of courses 4.70 0.69 .02 .11 –
10. Year of study – – −.07 −.23∗ −.16∗ –
11. Average grade 6.01 2.11 −.21∗ .40∗ −.08 .20∗ –

∗
Note. p < .05.
a
N = 1248 courses (after dealing with missing data).
b
N = 208 students. Year of study was coded with contrast coding (first year = −1; second, third, and fourth year = 0.33).

Table 2
Results of multilevel models predicting grades.
Null Model Main Model Complementary Model

Estimate [95% PPI] SD Estimate [95% PPI] SD Estimate [95% PPI] SD

Level 1 fixed effect

β00 = Intercept 6.027∗ [5.698, 6.355] 0.168 6.006∗ [5.686, 6.328] 0.164 6.613∗ [6.203, 7.024] 0.210
β10 = Course procrastination −0.580∗ [−0.818, −0.342] 0.120 −0.423∗ [−0.673, −0.182] 0.126
β20 = Course importance 0.260 [−0.003, 0.507] 0.131
β30 = Course workload −0.425∗ [−0.633, −0.202] 0.110
β40 = Course teaching evaluation 0.035 [−0.022, 0.095] 0.030
β50 = Course number of students −0.002 [−0.006, 0.002] 0.002
Level 2 fixed effect
Intercept as outcome
β01 = Procrastination −0.433∗ [−0.750, −0.113] 0.162 −0.357∗ [−0.643, −0.074] 0.145
β02 = Admission GPA 0.639∗ [0.442, 0.840] 0.102
β03 = Number of courses −0.213 [−0.647, 0.214] 0.220
β04 = Year of study 0.986∗ [0.504, 1.477] 0.248

Random effects Variance [95% PPI] SD Variance [95% PPI] SD Variance [95% PPI] SD

σ2 2.468∗ [2.202, 2.781] 0.148 2.136∗ [1.878, 2.441] 0.144 1.733∗ [1.450, 2.061] 0.156
r0 3.918∗ [3.044, 5.080] 0.522 3.808∗ [2.966, 4.908] 0.495 2.940∗ [2.275, 3.813] 0.393
r1 0.393∗ [0.097, 0.870] 0.199 0.196∗ [0.018, 0.600] 0.155
r2 0.142∗ [0.006, 0.621] 0.164
r3 0.326∗ [0.058, 0.747] 0.179
r4 0.005∗ [0.001, 0.021] 0.005
r5 < 0.001∗ [ < 0.001, 0.001] < 0.001

Note. ∗p < .05. PPI = posterior probability interval (also known as credibility interval). SD = standard deviation of the posterior distribution. The parameters are
unstandardized. Random effects were included in all the models. Year of study was coded with contrast coding (first year = −1; second, third, and fourth
year = 0.33). The significance testing was based on the credibility intervals. If the credibility interval did not cover zero, the parameter was interpreted as being
statistically significant.

At the within-person level, the finding revealed that in the courses
in which students procrastinated more than their own average, they
also received lower grades than their own average. Specifically, each 1-
point increase in course procrastination (e.g., going from 2 to 3 in the 5-
point procrastination scale) was related to a drop of 0.580 point in
course grade. In other words, the expected course grade at the 15th
percentile of course procrastination was 6.68 (i.e., between B and B+),
whereas the expected course grade at the 85th percentile of course
procrastination was 5.33 (i.e., between C+ and B).
We compared the between-person and within-person relation be-
tween procrastination and grades to determine whether one is sig-
nificantly stronger than the other. The result revealed that the relation
did not significantly differ when comparing the two levels of analysis
(coefficient = 0.148, SD = 0.202, 95% PPI = −0.252, 0.549, p > .05).
3.4. Complementary model
The complementary model was used to test whether procrastination
could predict grades at the between-person and within-person levels
over and above control variables. In the complementary model, grades
were entered as the outcome variable. Course procrastination, course
importance, course workload, course teaching evaluation, and the
number of students registered in the course were entered as group-
centered predictors at level 1. The average score of procrastination, the
admission GPA, the number of courses taken during the semester, and
the year of study were entered as grand-mean centered predictors at
level 2. The level-1 residual variance decreased by 29.78% after adding
procrastination and four control variables at level 1. The level-2 in-
tercept variance decreased by 24.96% after adding procrastination and
three control variables at level 2.
At the within-person level, higher perceived course workload was

197
K. Kljajic, P. Gaudreau
significantly associated with lower grades. Course importance, teaching
evaluation, and the number of students registered in the course were
not significantly associated with grades. At the between-person level,
lower admission GPA was significantly associated with lower grades.
Moreover, students who were in their first year had significantly lower
grades than students who were in their second, third, and fourth year of
study. The number of courses taken during the semester was not sig-
nificantly associated with grades. Over and above these control vari-
ables, higher procrastination was still associated with lower grades at
the between-person and within-person levels. Therefore, both
Hypotheses 1b and 2b were supported.
4. Discussion
The purpose of this study was to propose a multilevel framework of
procrastination and to investigate the association between procrasti-
nation and grades at the between-person and within-person levels of
analysis. Our findings showed a significant and negative association
between procrastination and grades at both levels of analysis. Although
the association did not significantly differ in magnitude when com-
paring the two levels, the key feature of this study is that the results
hold a distinct conceptual meaning depending on the level of interest.
At the between-person level, the finding revealed that students who
procrastinated more than other students also achieved lower grades
than other students. At the within-person level, the finding indicated
that in the courses in which students procrastinated more than their
own average, they achieved lower grades than their own average. The
relation between procrastination and grades remained significant at
both levels over and above various control variables. These results
highlight the value and richness of a multilevel framework of procras-
tination by showing the importance of differentiating, comparing, and
integrating the construct at two levels of analysis.
4.1. A multilevel perspective on procrastination
In our study, higher scores of procrastination in some courses came
at the price of obtaining lower grades in these courses. University stu-
dents often have to handle the requirements of multiple courses while
also managing several competing activities and responsibilities (e.g.,
work, exercise, and social relationships). Given that time is a limited
resource, even students who are not typically considered as procrasti-
nators will sometimes irrationally delay the completion of their
schoolwork. This result is consistent with qualitative findings with 67
students (Schraw, Wadkins, & Olafson, 2007) and quantitative findings
with more than 2000 students (Schouwenburg, 2004) indicating that
almost all university students procrastinate to a certain extent. More
studies are needed to fully explore the extent to which procrastination
across courses can also influence subjective indicators of academic
adjustment and success (e.g., course goal progress and course satisfac-
tion).
Our findings also revealed that a higher average level of procrasti-
nation came at the price of obtaining a lower average grade at the end
of the semester. Although momentary increases of procrastination from
time to time seem almost inevitable for most students, some students
display a general pattern of procrastination across all of their courses
which negatively influences their overall academic achievement over
the long haul. This result is consistent with numerous meta-analytical
findings showing a negative association between procrastination and
academic achievement at the between-person level of analysis (Kim &
Seo, 2015; Richardson et al., 2012; Steel, 2007; van Eerde, 2003).
Overall, our multilevel study strengthens past findings comparing the
average score of procrastination of students to one another while also
raising attention toward fluctuations of procrastination within the same
person.
198
Learning and Instruction 58 (2018) 193–200
4.2. Limitations and future directions
The within-person unit of analysis proposed in this study (i.e.,
courses) represents only one of the many ways in which procrastination
can be conceptualized within a multilevel perspective. Preliminary re-
sults have shown that university students seem to generally procrasti-
nate more in some life domains (Klingsieck, 2013b) and in some types
of academic tasks than in others (e.g., Clark & Hill, 1994; Özer et al.,
2009). As such, future studies could focus on within-person fluctuations
in procrastination across life domains and academic tasks. Alter-
natively, future research could enrich the multilevel framework of
academic procrastination by adding levels of analysis. For instance,
academic tasks (level 1) could be nested within courses (level 2),
courses could be nested within semesters (level 3), and semesters could
be nested within students (level 4). This novel multilevel framework
would offer a richer understanding of the experience of procrastination
in post-secondary education.
Future studies would be needed to explain why students procrasti-
nate more in some courses than in others. Past research conducted at
the between-person level can inform future research at the within-
person level. For example, Steel (2007) found in his meta-analysis that
self-efficacy and task aversiveness were moderately negatively and
positively associated with procrastination, respectively. At the within-
person level, we could suggest that students may be more likely to
procrastinate in the courses in which they do not believe in their ca-
pacity to successfully perform in evaluations (i.e., self-efficacy) or in
which they perceive the course material and evaluations as being un-
pleasant (i.e., task aversiveness). Additionally, some in-class behaviors
known to influence academic achievement – namely laptop usage (e.g.,
Gaudreau, Miranda, & Gareau, 2014; Kraushaar & Novak, 2010) and
cell phone usage (e.g., Clayson & Haley, 2012; Rosen, Lim, Carrier, &
Cheever, 2011) – could also influence procrastination in some courses.
Thus, future studies are needed to test whether these variables could be
potential within-person antecedents of course procrastination.
The prospective and correlational design used in this study limits
the possibility of suggesting that procrastination causally influences
grades. Students are often evaluated throughout the semester in each of
their courses. As such, their final grades generally reflect a weighted
average of all their grades in the courses rather than a single mea-
surement of their achievement at the end of the semester. A cross-
lagged design – in which procrastination and grades would be measured
around the same time and across multiple time points during the se-
mester – could offer some insights on the unidirectional or bidirectional
nature of the relation between procrastination and academic achieve-
ment.
The grades obtained in a course could also have an influence on
procrastination in another course. According to research conducted on
the Dimensional Comparison Theory, higher achievement in a course
(e.g., math) is related to lower self-concept in another course (e.g.,
English; see Möller & Marsh, 2013 for a review). Therefore, we could
suggest that if students obtain higher grades in math courses, they
might not feel confident in their abilities and even undervalue the
importance of language art courses which would lead them to pro-
crastinate more in these courses. The Dimensional Comparison Theory
would be difficult to test in a university setting because of the large
number of varied courses. However, it would be interesting to in-
corporate the hypotheses of this theory within our multilevel model of
procrastination in high schools where students take the same manda-
tory courses that can be compared more easily.
In addition to the possibility that grades may influence future pro-
crastination, grades obtained during the semester could also influence
the perception of past procrastination in at least two ways. On the one
hand, students who obtain relatively good grades after having pro-
crastinated in their academic tasks might believe retrospectively that
they started or completed their academic tasks earlier than they actu-
ally did. On the other hand, students who obtain relatively good grades
K. Kljajic, P. Gaudreau
after having procrastinated in their academic tasks might forget some
undesirable outcomes that were more salient while they were pro-
crastinating (e.g., anxiety, lack of sleep). Given that procrastination is
considered as an irrational delay (e.g., Steel, 2007, 2010), these stu-
dents might believe retrospectively that they were not procrastinating
and that their delay was the best course of action at that time. Future
studies are needed to test whether the perception of past procrastina-
tion can change after receiving a grade for an academic task (e.g., exam,
term paper, assignment).
This study was conducted with a sample of university students
which limits our ability to generalize these results to other educational
contexts. University is a complex learning environment where students
are enrolled in various programs with different norms, expectations,
and learning agendas. Therefore, the results found in this study might
not be comparable to studies conducted in more homogeneous and
structured learning environments (i.e., elementary and high schools) in
which students usually have the same courses with the same professor
and classmates. Given the substantial contextual variations, future re-
search should examine if the results of this study can be replicated
across different educational levels.
5. Conclusion
A large number of studies have found that students who procrasti-
nate more than their counterparts tend to obtain lower grades than
their counterparts. Based on these findings, we would expect Philip to
obtain a lower average grade at the end of the semester compared to
Sophia. However, we often overlook students like Sophia who do not
have the typical profile of procrastination, but remain at risk of ex-
periencing negative outcomes as a result of their procrastination in
some courses. This study highlighted the value of a multilevel per-
spective on procrastination while also shedding light on the importance
of studying procrastination as a within-person risk factor for academic
difficulties.
Author note
This research was supported by a scholarship from the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) awarded
to the first author and a research grant from SSHRC (410-2011-1774)
and a teaching release from the Faculty of Social Sciences awarded to
the second author. The granting agency had no role in the design, data
collection, analyses, and writing/reporting of this manuscript. We
thank Gabrielle Martinelli for her help with data screening and the
members of the Laboratory for research on Achievement, Motivation,
and the Regulation of Action (LAMRA) for their feedback on an earlier
version of this manuscript.
References
Clark, J. L., & Hill, O. W. J. (1994). Academic procrastination among African-American
college students. Psychological Reports, 75, 931–936. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.
1994.75.2.931.
Clayson, D. E., & Haley, D. A. (2012). An introduction to multitasking and texting:
Prevalence and impact on grades and GPA in marketing classes. Journal of Marketing
Education, 35, 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475312467339.
Credé, M., & Kuncel, N. R. (2008). Study habits, skills, and attitudes: The third pillar
supporting collegiate academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3,
425–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00089.x.
Dalal, R. S., Bhave, D. P., & Fiset, J. (2014). Within-person variability in job performance:
A theoretical review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 40, 1396–1436.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314532691.
Dewitte, S., & Schouwenburg, H. C. (2002). Procrastination, temptations, and incentives:
The struggle between the present and the future in procrastinators and the punctual.
European Journal of Personality, 16, 469–489. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.461.
van Eerde, W. (2003). A meta-analytically derived nomological network of procrastina-
tion. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1401–1418. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0191-8869(02)00358-6.
Fleeson, W. (2004). Moving personality beyond the person-situation debate: The chal-
lenge and the opportunity of within-person variability. Current Directions in
199
Learning and Instruction 58 (2018) 193–200
Psychological Science, 13, 83–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.
00280.x.
Fleeson, W., & Noftle, E. E. (2012). Personality research. In M. R. Mehl, & T. S. Conner
(Eds.). Handbook of research methods for studying daily life (pp. 525–538). New York,
NY: The Guilford Press.
Gaudreau, P., Miranda, D., & Gareau, A. (2014). Canadian university students in wireless
classrooms: What do they do on their laptops and does it really matter? Computers &
Education, 70, 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.08.019.
Goda, Y., Yamada, M., Kato, H., Matsuda, T., Saito, Y., & Miyagawa, H. (2015).
Procrastination and other learning behavioral types in e-learning and their re-
lationship with learning outcomes. Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 72–80.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.11.001.
Grimes, P. W., Millea, M. J., & Woodruff, T. W. (2004). Grades—who’s to blame? Student
evaluation of teaching and locus of control. The Journal of Economic Education, 35,
129–147. https://doi.org/10.3200/JECE.35.2.129-147.
Gustavson, D. E., du Pont, A., Hatoum, A. S., Rhee, S. H., Kremen, W. S., Hewitt, J. K.,
et al. (2017). Genetic and environmental associations between procrastination and
internalizing/externalizing psychopathology. Clinical Psychological Science, 5,
798–815. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702617706084.
Gustavson, D. E., Miyake, A., Hewitt, J. K., & Friedman, N. P. (2014). Genetic relations
among procrastination, impulsivity, and goal-management ability: Implications for
the evolutionary origin of procrastination. Psychological Science, 25, 1178–1188.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614526260.
Gustavson, D. E., Miyake, A., Hewitt, J. K., & Friedman, N. P. (2015). Understanding the
cognitive and genetic underpinnings of procrastination: Evidence for shared genetic
influences with goal management and executive function abilities. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 144, 1063–1079. https://doi.org/10.1037/
xge0000110.
Hurst, C. S., Baranik, L. E., & Daniel, F. (2013). College student stressors: A review of the
qualitative research. Stress and Health, 29, 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.
2465.
Kim, K. R., & Seo, E. H. (2015). The relationship between procrastination and academic
performance: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 82, 26–33.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.038.
Klingsieck, K. B. (2013a). Procrastination: When good things don't come to those who
wait. European Psychologist, 18, 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/
a000138.
Klingsieck, K. B. (2013b). Procrastination in different life-domains: Is procrastination
domain specific? Current Psychology, 32, 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-
013-9171-8.
Kraushaar, J. M., & Novak, D. C. (2010). Examining the affects of student multitasking
with laptops during the lecture. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21(2),
241–251.
Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling.
Methodology, 1, 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.86.
Marsh, H. W., Ginns, P., Morin, A. J. S., Nagengast, B., & Martin, A. J. (2011). Use of
student ratings to benchmark universities: Multilevel modeling of responses to the
Australian Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ). Journal of Educational Psychology,
103, 733–748. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024221.
Möller, J., & Marsh, H. W. (2013). Dimensional comparison theory. Psychological Review,
120, 544–560. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032459.
Muthén, B. (2010). Bayesian analysis in Mplus: A brief introductionTechnical Report (ver-
sion 3) . Retrieved from http://www.statmodel2.com/download/IntroBayesVersion
%203.pdf.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2017). Mplus User's Guide (8th ed.). [Software and
user guide]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Özer, B. U., Demir, A., & Ferrari, J. R. (2009). Exploring academic procrastination among
Turkish students: Possible gender differences in prevalence and reasons. The Journal
of Social Psychology, 149, 241–257. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.149.2.241-257.
Peugh, J. L. (2010). A practical guide to multilevel modeling. Journal of School Psychology,
48, 85–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2009.09.002.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in
social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of
Psychology, 63, 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data
analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Rice, K. G., Richardson, C. M. E., & Clark, D. (2012). Perfectionism, procrastination, and
psychological distress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 288–302. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0026643.
Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university
students' academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 138, 353–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838.
Rosen, L. D., Lim, A. F., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. (2011). An empirical examination
of the educational impact of text message-induced task switching in the classroom:
Educational implications and strategies to enhance learning. Psicologia Educativa,
17(2), 163–177.
van de Schoot, R., Kaplan, D., Denissen, J., Asendorpf, J. B., Neyer, F. J., & van Aken, M.
A. G. (2013). A gentle introduction to Bayesian analysis: Applications to develop-
mental research. Child Development, 85, 842–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.
12169.
Schouwenburg, H. C. (2004). Procrastination in academic settings: General introduction.
In H. C. Schouwenburg, C. H. Lay, T. A. Pychyl, & J. R. Ferrari (Eds.). Counseling the
procrastinator in academic settings (pp. 3–17). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Schraw, G., Wadkins, T., & Olafson, L. (2007). Doing the things we do: A grounded theory
of academic procrastination. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 12–25. https://
K. Kljajic, P. Gaudreau
doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.12.
Sirois, F. M. (2014). Out of sight, out of time? A meta-analytic investigation of procras-
tination and time perspective. European Journal of Personality, 28, 511–520. https://
doi.org/10.1002/per.1947.
Sitzmann, T., & Yeo, G. (2013). A meta-analytic investigation of the within-person self-
efficacy domain: Is self-efficacy a product of past performance or a driver of future
performance? Personnel Psychology, 66, 531–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.
12035.
Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency and
cognitive-behavioral correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 503–509.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.31.4.503.
Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of
quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 65–94. https://doi.
200
Learning and Instruction 58 (2018) 193–200
org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65.
Steel, P. (2010). Arousal, avoidant and decisional procrastinators: Do they exist?
Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 926–934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.
2010.02.025.
Steel, P., & Ferrari, J. (2013). Sex, education and procrastination: An epidemiological
study of procrastinators' characteristics from a global sample. European Journal of
Personality, 27, 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1851.
Steel, P., Svartdal, F., Thundiyil, T., & Brothen, T. (2018). Examining procrastination
across multiple goal stages: A longitudinal study of temporal motivation theory.
Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00327.
Zyphur, M. J., & Oswald, F. L. (2013). Bayesian estimation and inference: A user's guide.
Journal of Management, 41, 390–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313501200.