The Chronic Time Pressure Inventory: further assessment of factorial structure and validity.

Background: Chronic time pressure represents a prevalent concern within modern society, and effective measurement is crucial for research advancement. The Chronic Time Pressure Inventory (CTPI) has thus far demonstrated adequate psychometric properties. However, only two studies have examined the measure and evidence of its validity is limited. Accordingly, the current investigation, via two independent studies, assessed the factorial composition and validity (convergent/discriminant) of the CTPI. Methods: Study 1 (N = 398) examined competing factorial models and validity in relation to the Big Five personality traits (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, Openness). Study 2 (N = 358) replicated the analysis of factor structure and assessed validity in comparison with five time perspectives (Past Negative, Present Fatalistic, Future, Past Positive, Present Hedonistic). Participants across both studies completed standardized self-report measures capturing the variables. Results: Comparison of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and exploratory structural equation modelling (ESEM) factor solutions indicated that an ESEM bifactor model provided the strongest data-model fit. This included a general chronic time pressure component alongside specific subfactors of Feeling Harried and Cognitive Awareness of Time Shortage. All scale items reflected the general factor; however, some items loaded weakly on the intended specific factor. The CTPI is thus a robust indicator of chronic time pressure but needs refinement as a measure of the specific factors. Convergent/discriminant validity analyses inferred that the CTPI captured chronic time pressure as a related, but distinct, construct to perceived stress, and evidenced a relationship with theoretically associated constructs (Big Five personality traits and time perspective). Overall, the CTPI is a sound measure of chronic time pressure and has the potential to further cohesive research efforts on the contribution of this construct to various life domains.

The General Hopelessness Scale: Development of a measure of hopelessness for non-clinical samples.

Noting concerns about the non-clinical efficacy of the Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS), specifically the instrument's ability to discriminate between lower levels of hopelessness, this paper describes the development of the General Hopelessness Scale (GHS) for use with general samples. Following a literature review an item pool assessing the breadth of the hopelessness construct domain was created. This was then placed in survey form and assessed within two independent studies. Study 1 (N = 305, 172 women, 133 men, Mage = 28.68) explored factorial structure, item performance, and convergent validity of the GHS in relation to standardised measures of self-esteem and trait hopelessness. In Study 2 (N = 326, 224 women, 102 men, Mage = 26.52), scrutiny of the GHS occurred using confirmatory factor analysis and invariance tests, alongside item performance and convergent validity analyses relative to measures of affect, optimism, and hope. Factor analysis (using minimum average partial correlations and exploratory factor analysis) within Study 1 revealed the existence of four dimensions (Negative Expectations, Hope, Social Comparison, and Futility), which met Rasch model assumptions (i.e., good item/person fit and item/person reliability). Further psychometric assessment within Study 2 found satisfactory model fit and gender invariance. Convergent validity testing revealed moderate to large associations between the GHS and theoretically relevant variables (self-esteem, trait hopelessness, affect, optimism, and hope) across Study 1 and 2. Further examination of performance (reliability and ceiling and floor effects) within Study 1 and 2 demonstrated that the GHS was a satisfactory measure in non-clinical settings. Additionally, unlike the BHS, the GHS does not assume that administrators are trained professionals capable of advising on appropriate interventions.

Comparative analysis of marine ecosystems: international production modelling workshop.

Understanding the drivers that dictate the productivity of marine ecosystems continues to be a globally important issue. A vast literature identifies three main processes that regulate the production dynamics of such ecosystems: biophysical, exploitative and trophodynamic. Exploring the prominence among this 'triad' of drivers, through a synthetic analysis, is critical for understanding how marine ecosystems function and subsequently produce fisheries resources of interest to humans. To explore this topic further, an international workshop was held on 10-14 May 2010, at the National Academy of Science's Jonsson Center in Woods Hole, MA, USA. The workshop compiled the data required to develop production models at different hierarchical levels (e.g. species, guild, ecosystem) for many of the major Northern Hemisphere marine ecosystems that have supported notable fisheries. Analyses focused on comparable total system biomass production, functionally equivalent species production, or simulation studies for 11 different marine fishery ecosystems. Workshop activities also led to new analytical tools. Preliminary results suggested common patterns driving overall fisheries production in these ecosystems, but also highlighted variation in the relative importance of each among ecosystems.