Since the Time Management Questionnaire is a new instrument used for this study, some reliability and validity tests are warranted to determine a level of confidence to place in this instrument.
A Cronbach’s Alpha score was computed on the 11 items making up the “Time Management Survey”. The reliability of this scale was found to be 0.351 which is a very low reliability score. An interitem correlation of the 11 questions was then computed to see if any of the scale questions were related to each other.
Table 1: Time Management Survey InterItem Correlation Matrix

Q2 
Q3 
Q4 
Q5 
Q6 
Q7 
Q8 
Q9 
Q10 
Q11 
Q1 
.029 
.091 
.106 
.349 
.306 
.317 
.142 
.153 
.067 
.427 
Q2 

.567 
.265 
.049 
.357 
.068 
.451 
.226 
.402 
.013 
Q3 


.230 
.059 
.110 
.265 
.165 
.166 
.421 
.133 
Q4 



.077 
.124 
.007 
.106 
.060 
.081 
.157 
Q5 




.256 
.308 
.105 
.290 
.019 
.159 
Q6 





.293 
.333 
.292 
.049 
.310 
Q7 






.226 
.379 
.256 
.020 
Q8 







.222 
.444 
.281 
Q9 








.031 
.231 
Q10 









.150 
A Spearman correlation was also conducted between the 11 questions and student’s academic performance (Table 2). None of the 11 survey questions seem to correlate with academic performance.
Table 2: Spearman correlation between Time Management Survey Questions and Academic Performance


Exam 1 
Cumm. Perf 
Q1 
Correlation Coefficient 
.135 
.053 

Sig. (2tailed) 
.439 
.763 
Q2 
Correlation Coefficient 
.150 
.024 

Sig. (2tailed) 
.390 
.890 
Q3 
Correlation Coefficient 
.113 
.080 

Sig. (2tailed) 
.517 
.646 
Q4 
Correlation Coefficient 
.187 
.168 

Sig. (2tailed) 
.283 
.335 
Q5 
Correlation Coefficient 
.035 
.007 

Sig. (2tailed) 
.842 
.967 
Q6 
Correlation Coefficient 
.149 
.145 

Sig. (2tailed) 
.394 
.406 
Q7 
Correlation Coefficient 
.011 
.017 

Sig. (2tailed) 
.952 
.923 
Q8 
Correlation Coefficient 
.173 
.085 

Sig. (2tailed) 
.319 
.625 
Q9 
Correlation Coefficient 
.321 
.286 

Sig. (2tailed) 
.060 
.096 
Q10 
Correlation Coefficient 
.020 
.011 

Sig. (2tailed) 
.909 
.951 
Q11 
Correlation Coefficient 
.017 
.048 

Sig. (2tailed) 
.921 
.783 
Next, the students’ estimates of the amount of time they spent on various recreational activities were compared to the time management scale using a Spearman coefficient matrix. Although it was expected that students with a low score on the Time Management Survey would spend a greater proportion of their time on recreational activities, no significance was found between these two dimensions (Table 3).
Table 3: Correlation of selfestimates of recreational activities and self assessment of time management skills


Pleasure Reading 
Watching TV 
Time with Friends 
Chatting online 
Computer Games 
Console Games 
Social Networking 
Surfing Internet 
Shopping 
Volunteering 
Total Recreation Time 
Time Management Scale 
Exercising 
Corr. Coef. 
.482(**) 
.053 
.255 
.108 
.068 
.157 
.172 
.052 
.166 
.239 
.422(*) 
.166 
Sig. (2tailed) 
.002 
.380 
.139 
.538 
.698 
.368 
.324 
.765 
.339 
.167 
.012 
.339 

Pleasure Reading 
Corr. Coef. 

.153 
.309 
.200 
.091 
.026 
.189 
.049 
.278 
.048 
.517(**) 
.000 
Sig. (2tailed) 

.380 
.071 
.249 
.602 
.881 
.277 
.780 
.106 
.783 
.001 
.998 

Watching TV 
Corr. Coef. 


.137 
.166 
.116 
.234 
.475(**) 
.021 
.188 
.279 
.218 
.321 
Sig. (2tailed) 


.433 
.340 
.508 
.175 
.004 
.904 
.279 
.104 
.209 
.060 

Time with Friends 
Corr. Coef. 



.082 
.085 
.021 
.122 
.215 
.407(*) 
.042 
.511(**) 
.115 
Sig. (2tailed) 



.638 
.629 
.906 
.487 
.214 
.015 
.813 
.002 
.509 

Chatting online 
Corr. Coef. 




.271 
.142 
.240 
.027 
.115 
.137 
.510(**) 
.069 
Sig. (2tailed) 




.115 
.417 
.165 
.880 
.509 
.433 
.002 
.693 

Computer Games 
Corr. Coef. 





.179 
.070 
.229 
.123 
.262 
.368(*) 
.245 
Sig. (2tailed) 





.304 
.689 
.185 
.481 
.129 
.029 
.157 

Console Games 
Corr. Coef. 






.271 
.032 
.218 
.338(*) 
.367(*) 
.271 
Sig. (2tailed) 






.115 
.857 
.209 
.047 
.030 
.116 

Social Networking 
Corr. Coef. 







.138 
.155 
.176 
.291 
.238 
Sig. (2tailed) 







.428 
.375 
.312 
.090 
.169 

Surfing Internet 
Corr. Coef. 








.224 
.062 
.417(*) 
.113 
Sig. (2tailed) 








.195 
.725 
.013 
.518 

Shopping 
Corr. Coef. 









.119 
.224 
.050 
Sig. (2tailed) 









.498 
.195 
.776 

Volunteering 
Corr. Coef. 










.198 
.323 
Sig. (2tailed) 










.255 
.059 

Total Recreation Time 
Corr. Coef. 











.286 
Sig. (2tailed) 










. 
.096 

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2tailed). 
Turning our attention to testing the proposed hypotheses, a Pearson Product Coefficient was calculated between each of the BFI indicators and academic performance (Table 4). Conscientiousness was the only scale to show a significance (p<0.05)—albeit a negative one—when correlated with the first midterm exam. However, this correlation was less significant when Conscientiousness was compared with academic performance over the entire semester (p@0.06).
In analyzing whether learning styles as measured by the ILS can predict academic performance, there appeared to be no significance at all (Table 5).
Table 4: Pearson product coefficients between BFI factors and performance on the first midterm and cumulative academic performance

Exam #1 
Academic Performance 

Extraversion 
Pearson Correlation 
.201 
.026 

Sig. (2tailed) 
.247 
.882 
Agreeableness 
Pearson Correlation 
.184 
.202 

Sig. (2tailed) 
.291 
.245 
Conscientiousness 
Pearson Correlation 
.374(*) 
.321 

Sig. (2tailed) 
.027 
.060 
Neuroticism 
Pearson Correlation 
.023 
.087 

Sig. (2tailed) 
.896 
.621 
Openness 
Pearson Correlation 
.057 
.091 

Sig. (2tailed) 
.747 
.603 
Exam #1 
Pearson Correlation 

.856(**) 

Sig. (2tailed) 

.000 
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2tailed). 
Table 5: Pearson product coefficients comparing ILS styles with academic performance
ILS Style 

Academic Performance 

ACT 
Pearson Correlation 
.190 


Sig. (2tailed) 
.275 

REF 
Pearson Correlation 
.186 


Sig. (2tailed) 
.284 

SNS 
Pearson Correlation 
.101 


Sig. (2tailed) 
.563 

INT 
Pearson Correlation 
.101 


Sig. (2tailed) 
.563 

VIS 
Pearson Correlation 
.117 


Sig. (2tailed) 
.505 

VRB 
Pearson Correlation 
.117 


Sig. (2tailed) 
.505 

SEQ 
Pearson Correlation 
.193 


Sig. (2tailed) 
.268 

GLO 
Pearson Correlation 
.193 


Sig. (2tailed) 
.268 

Students’ selfassessment of time management practices and ability was also compared to academic performance. This analysis involved two phases. In the first phase, the participants’ assessment of their own timemanagement skills and abilities as measured from the first 11 questions were correlated to their academic performance. However, this relationship was not found to be significant (.146, p=0.403). In the second phase, participants’ estimates of the time they spent on a variety of recreational activities were also collected. A frequency chart showing the number of students who reported engaging in the different activities is shown in Figure 1. This chart compares the median values of time spent per week for each activity with the number of students reporting that value.
Figure 1: Frequency of students participating in various recreational activities by hours spent per week in each activity.
The time spent by each student on each recreational activity was then correlated with academic performance (Table 6). A positive correlation was found between time spent playing computer games and academic performance; however, no other recreational activities appeared to correlate with exam results.
Table 6: Spearman rho correlations between participants' estimates of time spent on recreational activities and academic performance
Recreational Activities 
Exam #1 
Academic Performance 

Total Recreation Time 
Correlation Coefficient 
.193 
.103 

Sig. (2tailed) 
.266 
.558 
Exercising 
Correlation Coefficient 
.141 
.213 

Sig. (2tailed) 
.419 
.219 
Pleasure Reading 
Correlation Coefficient 
.158 
.208 

Sig. (2tailed) 
.365 
.231 
Watching TV 
Correlation Coefficient 
.038 
.000 

Sig. (2tailed) 
.829 
.999 
Time with Friends 
Correlation Coefficient 
.098 
.084 

Sig. (2tailed) 
.576 
.632 
Chatting online 
Correlation Coefficient 
.231 
.302 

Sig. (2tailed) 
.183 
.078 
Computer Games 
Correlation Coefficient 
.447(**) 
.319 

Sig. (2tailed) 
.007 
.062 
Console Games 
Correlation Coefficient 
.084 
.109 

Sig. (2tailed) 
.633 
.532 
Social Networking 
Correlation Coefficient 
.198 
.325 

Sig. (2tailed) 
.254 
.057 
Surfing Internet 
Correlation Coefficient 
.126 
.001 

Sig. (2tailed) 
.470 
.995 
Shopping 
Correlation Coefficient 
.144 
.166 

Sig. (2tailed) 
.408 
.342 
Volunteering 
Correlation Coefficient 
.112 
.061 

Sig. (2tailed) 
.524 
.728 
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2tailed). 
Of the questions posed in the problem solving and logical thinking portion of the prestudy instrument, questions 11 and 9 (p≤0.01), as well as questions 7, 12 and 4 (p≤0.05) showed the strongest correlations with academic performance (Table 7). Conversely, problems 1 and 8, 2, 3, 5 and 10 showed almost no correlation at all.
Table 7: Spearman Rho Correlation Matrix between Problem Solving Questions and Academic Performance


Problem 2 
Problem 3 
Problem 4 
Problem 5 
Problem 6 
Problem 7 
Problem 9 
Problem 10 
Problem 11 
Problem 12 
Academic Performance 
Problems 1 & 8 
Correlation Coefficient 
.180 
.240 
.377(*) 
.049 
.147 
.103 
.165 
.196 
.053 
.094 
.097 

Sig. (1tailed) 
.150 
.082 
.013 
.391 
.200 
.279 
.172 
.129 
.380 
.295 
.289 
Problem 2 
Correlation Coefficient 

.125 
.059 
.111 
.076 
.053 
.232 
.153 
.167 
.139 
.000 

Sig. (1tailed) 

.237 
.368 
.263 
.332 
.380 
.090 
.190 
.169 
.212 
.500 
Problem 3 
Correlation Coefficient 


.141 
.257 
.249 
.240 
.101 
.000 
.000 
.186 
.202 

Sig. (1tailed) 


.209 
.068 
.075 
.082 
.283 
.500 
.500 
.143 
.122 
Problem 4 
Correlation Coefficient 



.083 
.061 
.245 
.586(**) 
.144 
.354(*) 
.066 
.320(*) 

Sig. (1tailed) 



.319 
.364 
.078 
.000 
.204 
.019 
.354 
.030 
Problem 5 
Correlation Coefficient 




.117 
.310(*) 
.042 
.200 
.093 
.139 
.136 

Sig. (1tailed) 




.251 
.035 
.405 
.125 
.297 
.213 
.218 
Problem 6 
Correlation Coefficient 





.260 
.061 
.307(*) 
.298(*) 
.245 
.273 

Sig. (1tailed) 





.065 
.363 
.036 
.041 
.078 
.056 
Problem 7 
Correlation Coefficient 






.447(**) 
.131 
.187 
.253 
.388(*) 

Sig. (1tailed) 






.004 
.227 
.141 
.071 
.011 
Problem 9 
Correlation Coefficient 







.123 
.452(**) 
.182 
.481(**) 

Sig. (1tailed) 







.241 
.003 
.148 
.002 
Problem 10 
Correlation Coefficient 








.117 
.038 
.014 

Sig. (1tailed) 








.252 
.414 
.468 
Problem 11 
Correlation Coefficient 









.248 
.531(**) 

Sig. (1tailed) 









.076 
.001 
Problem 12 
Correlation Coefficient 










.345(*) 

Sig. (1tailed) 










.021 
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1tailed).
Links
[1] https://niedermayer.ca/user/login?destination=node/110%23commentform
[2] https://niedermayer.ca/user/login?destination=node/111%23commentform
[3] https://niedermayer.ca/user/login?destination=node/112%23commentform
[4] https://niedermayer.ca/user/login?destination=node/113%23commentform