Scoping review and semantic analysis reveals high construct redundancy across subjective time scales, highlighting persistent gaps between theoretical definitions and survey measurement.
The proliferation of self-report measures in psychology, often developed without systematic differentiation from existing tools, raises concerns about construct redundancy and the interpretability of research findings. This study reviews self-report scales designed to assess subjective time, combining a scoping literature analysis with embeddings-based automated semantic analysis to map relationships among them. Thirty scales met inclusion criteria, drawn from experimental psychology, personality research, and organizational behavior. Hierarchical clustering revealed two broad groupings: Temporal Experience, which covers how individuals perceive, feel, and conceptualize time, and Time Perspective, which covers orientations toward the past, present, and future temporal frames. This two-cluster solution partially maps onto previous frameworks of subjective time but diverges in ways that reflect a recurring gap between theoretically motivated distinctions and how researchers operationalize constructs in items. Within the Time Perspective cluster, several Future Time Perspective instruments showed high semantic overlap without a principled account of their differences, suggesting a possible case of micro-level redundancy. Discrepancies between construct definitions and scale content were also identified across both clusters, with direct implications for measurement validity. A post hoc validation study found that model similarity scores correlated with human semantic judgments, supporting the method as a viable first-pass mapping tool. Embedding-based analysis can flag redundancy, but domain expertise remains necessary to interpret findings and draw theoretical conclusions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bonifácio et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: