Task-related action-state orientation

Reliability was acceptable to strong. Across studies and estimation levels, omega coefficients ranged from .69 to .90. More specifically, within-person reliability ranged from .80 to .87, and the main-study coefficients ranged from .85 to .87 across subscales. Overall, the scale appears to provide good reliability, especially for within-person use.

Validity evidence was supportive and in the expected direction. The final two-factor structure (hesitation and preoccupation) fit the data well and performed better than a one-factor alternative. The scale also showed cross-level isomorphism, meaningful within-person variability, and substantial factor loadings. In addition, its subscales related to theoretically relevant variables as expected: corresponding trait ASO dimensions, procrastination, thought intrusions, conscientiousness, affect, and regulatory depletion. Altogether, the findings provide initial support for factorial and construct validity.

Some of the scale items are based on items suggested by Diefendorff et al. (2018). Therefore, it would also be appropriate to cite this source: Diefendorff, J. M., Richard, E. M., Dinh, P. V., & LeNoble, C. (2018). Action-state orientation at work: Dynamic effects in organizational contexts. In N. Baumann, M. Kazén, M. Quirin, & S. L. Koole (Eds.), Why people do the things they do: Building on Julius Kuhl's contributions to the psychology of motivation and volition (pp. 303–321). Hogrefe. The scale was developed in the context of academic tasks and tested in a university sample. Therefore, if it is to be used in work settings, the wording should first be checked for contextual fit and, ideally, reliability, factor structure, and generalizability should be re-examined in the new sample. Still, because the measure is task-specific and context-sensitive, it has potential for use with work tasks after appropriate adaptation and fresh psychometric evaluation.