Background Academic procrastination is a persistent challenge in higher education. Although disciplinary contexts and learning methodologies are theorized to influence procrastinatory behavior, empirical evidence—particularly from Latin America—remains limited and inconsistent. Objective To examine whether academic procrastination differs across academic areas and learning contexts among undergraduate students, and to assess the extent to which sociodemographic factors explain these differences. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted with 260 undergraduate students from three academic areas (Health Sciences, Engineering-Architecture, and Law & Business) at a private university in Peru. Academic procrastination was assessed using the Academic Procrastination Scale–Short Form (APS-S). Confirmatory factor analysis evaluated the scale's psychometric structure, and measurement invariance was tested across sex and academic area. Structural equation modeling examined associations with academic area, sex, year of study, age group, economic support, and displacement condition. Results The APS-S demonstrated a robust one-factor structure with excellent fit (CFI = .999; RMSEA = .040), and measurement invariance was supported across all groups. The full model, comprising academic area and sociodemographic variables, explained a minimal proportion of variance (R 2 = .028); academic area alone accounted for 1.8%. The Health Sciences–Engineering contrast did not meet the α = .05 criterion adopted in this study (β = −0.167, 95% CI [−0.334, 0.000], p = .050), and it was not significant under alternative specifications or estimators. No other differences were identified. Conclusion Academic procrastination appears to operate transversally across disciplines and contexts. The Health Sciences–Engineering association was sensitive to model specification and estimation method. Because instructional practices and psychological characteristics were not directly measured, their relative contributions remain undetermined. Future studies should assess both jointly.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cuya-Zevallos et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: