Skip to main content

Psychometric properties of an Arabic translation of the briefest version of the Zimbardo time perspective inventory (ZTPI-15)



Self-perceived temporal perspectives has been shown to vary across cultures. Although cross-cultural differences may be blurred by the globalization, accelerated pace-of-life worldwide and spread of multitasking; the way Arab individuals deal with time has its specificities. However, research in this area is scant in the Arab world. One of the main reasons for this scarcity of research is the lack of psychometrically sound and convenient-to-use measures. We aimed to examine the psychometric properties of an Arabic translation of the briefest version of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZPTI-15).


A sample of community Arabic-speaking Adults from Lebanon (N = 423, 68.6% females, mean age 29.19 ± 12.54 years) were administered the Arabic ZPTI-15. The forward and backward translation method was adopted.


Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) revealed that the five-factor model exhibited a good fit to the data. The five ZTPI-15 subscales yielded a McDonald’s omega ranging from 0.43 to 0.84. Multi-group CFA ascertained the invariance of the Arabic ZTPI-15 across gender at the configural, metric, and scalar levels. Our findings support divergent validity of the scale by showing positive correlations between past negative, present fatalistic, present hedonistic dimensions, and psychological distress; as well as negative correlations between past positive, future focused dimensions, and distress.


The Arabic ZTPI-15 is easy-to-use, valid, reliable, and will hopefully enable the conduction of future research in the field to purposively provide comprehensive insight into the time perspective patterns and correlates in Arab countries, and the broad Arabic-speaking community globally.

Peer Review reports


Time perspective is a psychological construct that refers to “the often non-conscious process whereby the continual flows of personal and social experiences are assigned to temporal categories, or time frames, that help give order, coherence, and meaning to those events” ([1], p. 1271). In other words, it represents the different ways in which the flow of one’s personal experiences is partitioned into temporal categories or time zones [2]. During the last decades, time perspective has gained a growing research interest due to its potential utility in understanding how this construct relates to a wide range of psychopathology and human behavior. Previous studies have, for example, documented significant and relevant associations between time perspective and depression, anxiety symptoms [1, 3, 4], aggression [1], risky driving [5], substance use [6, 7], maladaptive personality traits [8], self-esteem [4], self-regulation [9], self-efficacy [10], coping behavior [11], subjective well-being [12], life satisfaction [13], happiness [14], and academic achievement [15]. For instance, boredom and sadness predicted a perceived slowing down of the passage of time [16]. Additionally, depressed individuals overestimate the likelihood of negative events in their future, undervalue the prospect of positive events, and have dark expectations for the future [17]. As for alcohol use disorder, a rational decision to engage in heavy drinking may depend on individuals thinking about, or placing greater value on, the positive short-term effects more than they think about, or ‘dis-value’, the negative longer-term effects—i.e. having more future-orientated time perspective [18]. On the other hand, Konowalczyk et al. revealed that adolescents who had a positive perspective exercised more and had more self-esteem and, as a result, did not seek to engage in risky behaviors [19].

With the raise of awareness about the relevance of temporal psychology in the fields of clinical psychology and psychiatry, a number of measures have been developed to assess this entity, including the Adolescent and Adult Time Inventory–Time Attitudes Scale [20, 21], and the Temporal Focus Scale [22]. Nevertheless, these are rather narrowly focused measures, exclusively reflecting affect and cognitions, respectively; which may limit investigations and understandings of the time perspective construct. One of the first developed and largely used research instruments designed to assess broader facets of the time perspective construct (i.e., affect, cognition, and behavior) is the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI; [1]). The original ZTPI is composed of 56 items and five dimensions, i.e. (1) past positive (PP), which evaluates happiness and warmth regarding past events; (2) past negative (PN), which evaluates an overall sense of pessimism about past events; (3) present fatalistic (PF), which relates to the feeling of being powerlessness over life and the fate as determined by uncontrolled external force; (4) present hedonistic (PH), which describes the feelings of risk taking, pleasure, and enjoyment of life; and (5) future (F), which describes plans of achieving long-term outcomes and goals.

Apart from its utility in community research, the ZTPI has recently been recognized as a valuable diagnostic, preventive and therapeutic tool in clinical practice [23]. For these reasons, the original version of the ZTPI has been translated to different languages and validated in different countries, including France [24], Spain [25], Ukraine [26], Russia [27], Portugal [28], Brazil [29], Greece [4], the Netherlands [30], Serbia [31], Sweden [32], Mexico [33], Japan [34], and Algeria [35]. All these versions supported the validity and reliability of the ZTPI to assess individual differences in five time perspective categories. Its invariance across many countries and cultures has also been demonstrated [36]. At the same time, the original version has been largely criticized for its numerous limitations. Indeed, due to its length, the original ZTPI may be challenging to administer for both the clinician (or researcher) and the examined individual, especially where resources and time are a concern. This has resulted in the use of the incomplete scale (only three-time perspective or fewer instead of all five dimensions, e.g., [5, 37,38,39,40]); which has led in turn to missing information. In addition, the original 56-item ZTPI has presented factorial validity issues [41]. Therefore, several brief versions have been designed with the purpose of overcoming these gaps (36-item [36], 25-item [42], 20-item [43], 17-item [44], and 15-item [45, 46]), by removing the items with the lowest factor loadings and reducing the number of estimated parameters [41]. The ZTPI-15 has been considered as “the most comprehensive validation of a short ZTPI” [41]. To our knowledge, the 56-item ZTPI is the only version that has previously been validated in the Arabic language in 2009 among Algerian university students [35]; and no Arabic brief versions exist so far.

The present validation study

The subjective self-perceived temporal perspectives or time duration and synchrony has been shown to vary across cultures [47]. For instance, people in “clock-time” cultural contexts strictly adhere to punctuality and schedules, while people in “event-time” cultural backgrounds tend to rely more on the natural flow of social events [48]. Although these cross-cultural differences may possibly be blurred by the globalization, accelerated pace-of-life worldwide and spread of multitasking; the way Arab individuals deal with time, perceive pace-of-life, or view the present, past, and future still has its specificities. Arab people often deal with time based on God willing (“inshallah”), lack of punctuality (failure to stick to appointments between family and friends), perceived shortage of time (“I do not have time”), huge time waste (e.g., customers are most of the time asked to wait or come back next day in governmental institutions), and a highly required flexibility (e.g., people may spend hours waiting for an appointment or a late meeting) [49]. To highlight the perception of time perspective in Arab countries, studies showed that the current time of economic crises in many Arab countries, those with insecure economic situations incline to move away from a focus on the future of saving and investing toward a more pragmatic routine, living each day as it comes [50]. Another study [49] revealed that Arab people are mostly oriented by the present-hedonistic and future and are not really oriented by fatalistic issues. In addition, the same study shows that there are significant differences among the five dimensions of TP and no balance in TP is recognized as a main prerequisite for psychological health, happiness, satisfaction in life, self-esteem and general wellbeing.

However, it is worth noting that research in this area is scant in the Arab world. We could identify only two studies focusing on time perspective, the Algerian validation study mentioned above, and another study that used the original 56-item English version of ZPTI among 122 community adults living in five Arab countries (Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Sudan) [49]. One of the main reasons for this scarcity of research is the lack of psychometrically sound and convenient-to-use measures.

In this context, we aimed to examine the psychometric properties of an Arabic translation of the briefest version of the ZPTI (i.e. the ZPTI-15) in terms of factor structure, internal consistency, discriminant validity as well as gender invariance in a sample of community Arabic-speaking Adults from Lebanon. We expected that the Arabic version will confirm the five-factor structure of the scale, and will show adequate internal consistency reliability, appropriate discriminant validity, and measurement invariance across gender groups.



Four hundred twenty-three participants participated in this study, with a mean age of 29.19 ± 12.54 years (min = 18; max = 85) and 68.6% females. Other descriptive statistics of the sample can be found in Table 1.

Table 1 Sociodemographic and other characteristics of the sample (N = 423)


The ZTPI-15

The ZPTI has originally been developed in its 56-item version by Zimbardo and Boyd [1], and shortened later to the 15-item version in English, Slovak and Czech languages by two groups of researchers [45, 46]. In this study, we translated and validated the English version of the ZPTI-15 [45]. The forward and backward translation method was applied to the ZTPI scale. A common procedure of back-translation was followed in the present study, in which a text is translated from a source into a target language, and then independently back-translated into the source language by a second interpreter. Therefore, the English version of the ZTPI-15 was translated to Arabic (Appendix 1) by a Lebanese translator who was completely unrelated to the study. Afterwards, a Lebanese psychologist with a full working proficiency in English, translated the Arabic version back to English. To evaluate the accuracy of the translation, the initial and back-translated English versions were compared [51, 52]; and any inconsistencies were detected and eliminated by a committee composed of the research team and the two translators. A pilot study was done on 20 participants to make sure that the questions are well understood; no changes were done afterwards [53].

Each item of the scale is scored on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (less important) to 5 (very important), with higher scores indicating a stronger applicability of the statement applies to the respondent.

Depression anxiety stress Scale-8 (DASS-8)

The DASS-8 contains eight items divided into three subscales: stress (two items), anxiety (three items), and depression (three items). The DASS-8 has been developed and validated in the Arabic language [54]. In this study, the subscales yielded the following McDonald’s omega values : stress (0.71), anxiety (0.84), and depression (0.80).


Participants were asked to provide their demographic details consisting of age, sex, highest educational attainment, marital status and the Household Crowding Index (HCI); the latter reflecting the socioeconomic status of the family [55], is the ratio of the number of persons living in the house over the number of rooms in it (excluding the kitchen and the bathrooms).


The “Snowball Sampling” technique using Google Forms was carried out to collect the necessary data for the investigation, between August to November 2022. The project was advertised on social media and included an estimated duration. Indeed, participants were first invited to complete the questionnaire which link was initially distributed via social media applications such as ‘WhatsApp’, ‘Instagram’ and ‘Facebook’, and then asked to share it with their acquaintances, friends and/or family members.

Inclusion criteria for participation included being of a resident and citizen of Lebanon of adult age (≥ 18 years). Excluded were those who refused to fill out the questionnaire. Internet protocol (IP) addresses were examined to ensure that no participant took the survey more than once. After providing digital informed consent, participants were asked to complete the instruments described above, which were presented in a pre-randomised order to control for order effects. The survey was anonymous and participants completed the survey voluntarily and without remuneration. Before proceeding with the questionnaire, participants were informed of the purpose of the study, assured of the anonymity of their participation and provided with a virtual informed consent form via ‘Google Forms’. The latter had to be ‘signed’, after reading, by clicking the box ‘Yes, I acknowledge having read the above-mentioned information and I agree to participate in this study voluntarily and without any pressure’ to which the answer is required in order to continue with the self-administration. Participants had the right to accept or refuse to respond and no financial compensation was provided in exchange for their submission [56].

Analytic strategy

Confirmatory factor analysis

There were no missing responses in the dataset. We used data from the total sample to conduct a CFA using the SPSS AMOS v.26 software. The minimum sample size to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis ranges from 3 to 20 times the number of the scale’s variables [57]. Therefore, we assumed a minimum sample of 240 participants needed to have enough statistical power based on a ratio of 20 participants per one item of the scale, which was exceeded in our sample. Our intention was to test the original model of the ZTPI scores (i.e., five-factor model). Parameter estimates were obtained using the maximum likelihood method and fit indices. Additionally, evidence of convergent validity was assessed in this subsample using the average variance extracted (AVE) values of ≥ 0.50 considered adequate [58] and meaning that a latent variable is able to explain more than half of the variance of its indicators on average (i.e., items converge into a uniform construct).

Gender invariance

To examine gender invariance of ZTPI scores, we conducted multi-group CFA [59] using the total sample. Measurement invariance was assessed at the configural, metric, and scalar levels [60]. Configural invariance implies that the latent scales variable(s) and the pattern of loadings of the latent variable(s) on indicators are similar across gender (i.e., the unconstrained latent model should fit the data well in both groups). Metric invariance implies that the magnitude of the loadings is similar across gender; this is tested by comparing two nested models consisting of a baseline model and an invariance model. Lastly, scalar invariance implies that both the item loadings and item intercepts are similar across gender and is examined using the same nested-model comparison strategy as with metric invariance [59]. Following the recommendations of Cheung and Rensvold (2002) [61] and Chen (2007) [59], we accepted ΔCFI ≤ 0.010 and ΔRMSEA ≤ 0.015 or ΔSRMR ≤ 0.010 (0.030 for factorial invariance) as evidence of invariance.

Further analyses

Composite reliability in both subsamples was assessed using McDonald’s (1970) ω, with values greater than 0.70 reflecting adequate composite reliability [62]. McDonald’s ω was selected as a measure of composite reliability because of known problems with the use of Cronbach’s α (e.g., [63]). To assess divergent validity, we examined bivariate correlations between ZTPI and mental health scores measured by DASS-8. Based on Cohen (1992) [64], values ≤ 0.10 were considered weak, ~ 0.30 were considered moderate, and ~ 0.50 were considered strong correlations.


Confirmatory factor analysis of the ZTPI scale

CFA indicated that fit of the five-factor model of the ZTPI scale was acceptable: χ2/df = 242.17/80 = 3.03, RMSEA = 0.069 (90% CI 0.059, 0.079), SRMR = 0.070, CFI = 0.880, TLI = 0.842. When adding a correlation between residuals of items 6 and 7, the fit indices improved as follows: χ2/df = 190.70/79 = 2.41, RMSEA = 0.058 (90% CI 0.047, 0.068), SRMR = 0.064, CFI = 0.917, TLI = 0.890. The standardised estimates of factor loadings were all adequate (see Table 2). The convergent validity for this model was borderline, as AVE = 0.57.

Composite reliability

Composite reliability of scores was adequate in the total sample for the past negative (ω = 0.84), past positive (ω = 0.66), present fatalistic (ω = 0.43), present hedonistic (ω = 0.61) and future focused (ω = 0.71).

Table 2 Items of the ZTPI in English and Factor Loadings Derived from the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) in the total sample

Gender invariance

As reported in Table 3, all indices suggested that configural, metric, and scalar invariance was supported across gender. Given these results, we computed an independent-samples t-test to examine gender differences in ZTPI scores. The results showed that there was no statistically significant difference between men and women in all ZTPI dimensions. Higher mean past positive and future focused scores, as well as lower mean present hedonistic scores were significantly found in married people compared to single ones. Finally, a higher mean present fatalistic score was found in participants with a secondary level of education or less compared to those with a university education level (Table 4).

Table 3 Measurement Invariance of the ZTPI scale in the total sample
Table 4 Comparison between sexes in terms of the ZTPI scale and subscales scores in the total sample

Divergent validity

To assess the validity of the scores, we examined bivariate correlations with mental health issues in the present study using the total sample. Higher past negative and present fatalistic scores were significantly and positively correlated with higher depression, anxiety and stress. Higher past positive and future focused scores were significantly associated with less depression. Higher present hedonistic scores were significantly associated with more anxiety. Finally, older age was significantly associated with lower past negative, and present hedonistic scores and higher past positive scores (Table 5).

Table 5 Correlations of the ZTPI total scale and subscales scores with the other measures in the total sample


In the present study, we aimed to translate into Arabic and validate the shortened 15-item version of the “Gold standard” measure of time perspective, i.e. the ZPTI. Our findings suggest that the Arabic ZPTI-15 is internally consistent and psychometrically robust. As such, this brief and easy-to-use measure enables the conduction of future research in the field to purposively provide comprehensive insight into the time perspective patterns and correlates in Arab countries and the broad Arabic-speaking community globally.

CFA revealed that the five-factor model exhibited a good fit to the data, thus aligning with the original [1], other short forms’ validations [36, 42,43,44], as well as the English [45], Czech and Slovak [46] 15-item versions of the ZTPI [45, 46]. Besides, our findings demonstrated that the five ZTPI-15 subscales yielded a McDonald’ omega ranging from 0.43 to 0.84. Similarly, the validation study of the Czech and Slovak versions of the ZTPI-15 showed good internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha varying from 0.65 to 0.78 [46]. Other previous translations also showed adequate internal consistency of the ZTPI as evidence by appropriate Cronbach’s alpha values (e.g., French (0.70–0.79) [24], Spanish (0.64–0.80) [25], Swedish (0.65–0.84) [32], and Lithuanian (0.63–0.79) [65]). We also found that multi-group CFA ascertained the invariance of the Arabic ZTPI-15 scale across gender at the configural, metric, and scalar levels; thus confirming that the 15 items were understood in the same way by our male and female participants. Consistently, gender invariance has previously been demonstrated with other short versions in different populations [47, 66]. These findings, therefore, suggest that the Arabic ZTPI-15 is recommended for future research on time perspective, and is useful for gender comparisons among Arabic-speaking people.

Our findings support divergent validity of the Arabic ZTPI-15 by showing positive correlations between past negative, present fatalistic, present hedonistic dimensions, and psychological distress; as well as negative correlations between past positive, future focused dimensions, and distress. These results were expected, and further confirm the findings of the validation study of the 15-item ZTPI [45] which demonstrated identical patterns of correlations with outcome variables to those of the long ZTPI. Having an increased sense of positivity towards the past predicts better psychological health and well-being [67] and enhances life satisfaction [45]; whereas endorsing a negative or unpleasant view of the past relates to greater psychological distress [1, 4, 68, 69] and reduced life satisfaction [70]. In line with our findings, previous studies also highlighted that both hedonistic and fatalistic present positively correlated with more severe depressive and anxiety symptoms [1, 67, 71]. In addition and similar to our results, Papastamatelou et al. found that Present Fatalistic and Past Negative orientations were linked to higher levels of perceived stress among Greek students [72]. Overall, negative attitude towards the past, hedonistic attitude towards life, and a hopeless/fatalistic view of present seem to be consistently involved in psychopathology and distress [17], while positive past and general future orientation seem to negatively predict positive psychological indicators [73].

In line with a previous study [74], our results showed that higher means past positive and future focused scores, as well as lower means present hedonistic scores were significantly found in married people compared to single ones, proving the Zimbardo’s (1999) hypothesis that married people with a positive experience in the past tend to see positive prospects for their future. Furthermore, marital status as a predictor of the past, present or future time perspective determines how the person perceives and reacts to the world. Thus, the family context in which the people are, in turn, determines expectations (positive or negative), as well as the readiness and skill to interact with the environment, to get to know their selves and to develop their abilities [74]. In addition, through the family, the continuity in the social development is ensured. The marriage is thought as a source of well-being that brings social and personal benefits in human life [75]; hence, marriage may itself lead to a surge in the expectations of each individual about their lives. This has been called the protective effect of marriage [76]. In other words, married people look forward to the future through the eyes of their children.

Our findings revealed that higher mean present fatalistic score was found in participants with a secondary level of education or less compared to those with a university education level, in line with a previous study [77]. Academic achievement was positively associated with positive attitudes toward the future and negatively associated with present fatalistic attitudes. In other words, individuals who achieved academically were more optimistic about their future and less pessimistic about their present than their less academically achieving counterparts.

Study limitations

This study has some limitations that should be acknowledged. The first limitations lie to the self-report nature, cross-sectional design and recruitment method (online convenient sampling of non-clinical adults from Lebanon); which prevent causal inferences and generalization of our findings to the wider Arabic-speaking population. Future validations of the Arabic ZTPI-15 in clinical populations are still required. Another limitation consists of the fact that we did not assess other relevant psychometric properties of the ZTPI-15, such as test–retest reliability and predictive validity. Additional studies should consider addressing this limitation. In addition, while this study was able to confirm discriminant validity by correlation time perspective dimensions to depression, anxiety and stress, future studies still need to explore the patterns of correlations with other psychological and behavioral functioning (such as substance use, risky behaviors, coping strategies, and self-esteem). Information regarding the profession/occupation of the participants was not collected. Furthermore, given the method of recruitment, which was performed online, and mostly attracted educated and female participants, it is unlikely that our sample is representative of the wider Lebanese population. Consequently, the gender invariance results should be interpreted with caution because of the numbers inequality between males and females. Finally, while our sample comprises adults aged 65–85 years, we did not consider excluding persons with cognitive impairment, which could have influenced the results of our paper. Future studies should consider addressing this issue, while being aware that this may also decrease the clinical utility of research findings [78].


We contribute the literature by providing clinicians and researchers with a brief, reliable and valid measure of the time perspective construct, the ZTPI-15. We believe that making available this psychometrically robust measure of the psychological dimension of time in the Arabic language will help foster cross-national and local research on this important construct in relation to various psychosocial and psychological indicators.

Data Availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are not publicly available to maintain the privacy of the individuals’ identities. The dataset supporting the conclusions is available upon request to the corresponding author.


  1. Zimbardo PG, Boyd JN. Putting time in perspective: a valid, reliable individual-differences metric. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1999;77:1271–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Zimbardo P, Boyd J. The time paradox: the new psychology of time that will change your life. Simon and Schuster; 2008.

  3. McKay MT, Cole JC, Andretta JR. Temporal profiles relate meaningfully to anxiety and depression in university undergraduates. Pers Indiv Differ. 2016;101:106–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Anagnostopoulos F, Griva F. Exploring time perspective in greek young adults: validation of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory and relationships with mental health indicators. Soc Indic Res. 2012;106(1):41–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Zimbardo PG, Keough KA, Boyd JN. Present time perspective as a predictor of risky driving. Pers Indiv Differ. 1997;23(6):1007–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. McKay MT, Andretta JR, Magee J, Worrell FC. What do temporal profiles tell us about adolescent alcohol use? Results from a large sample in the United Kingdom. J Adolesc. 2014;37(8):1319–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Keough KA, Zimbardo PG, Boyd JN. Who’s smoking, drinking, and using drugs? Time perspective as a predictor of substance use. Basic Appl Soc Psychol. 1999;21(2):149–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Van Beek W, Berghuis H, Kerkhof A, Beekman A. Time perspective, personality and psychopathology: Zimbardo’s time perspective inventory in psychiatry. Time & society. 2011;20(3):364–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Zebardast A, Besharat MA, Hghighatgoo M. The relationship between self-regulation and time perspective in students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2011;30:939–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Zebardast A, Besharat MA, Hghighatgoo M. The relationship between self-efficacy and time perspective in students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2011;30:935–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bolotova AK, Hachaturova MR. The role of time perspective in coping behavior. Psychol Russia. 2013;6(3):120.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Zhang JW, Howell RT, Stolarski M. Comparing three methods to measure a balanced time perspective: the relationship between a balanced time perspective and subjective well-being. J Happiness Stud. 2013;14(1):169–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Przepiorka A, Sobol-Kwapinska M. People with positive time perspective are more grateful and happier: Gratitude mediates the relationship between time perspective and life satisfaction. J Happiness Stud. 2021;22(1):113–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Simons M, Peeters S, Janssens M, Lataster J, Jacobs N. Does age make a difference? Age as moderator in the association between time perspective and happiness. J Happiness Stud. 2018;19(1):57–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Barber LK, Munz DC, Bagsby PG, Grawitch MJ. When does time perspective matter? Self-control as a moderator between time perspective and academic achievement. Pers Indiv Differ. 2009;46(2):250–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Droit-Volet S, Gil S, Martinelli N, Andant N, Clinchamps M, Parreira L, Rouffiac K, Dambrun M, Huguet P, Dubuis B. Time and Covid-19 stress in the lockdown situation: Time free,«Dying» of boredom and sadness. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(8):e0236465.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Lefèvre HK, Mirabel-Sarron C, Docteur A, Leclerc V, Laszcz A, Gorwood P, Bungener C. Time perspective differences between depressed patients and non-depressed participants, and their relationships with depressive and anxiety symptoms. J Affect Disord. 2019;246:320–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Klingemann H, Organization WH. Alcohol and its social consequences-the forgotten dimension by Harald Klingemann. In.: Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Konowalczyk S, Rade FCA, Mello ZR. Time perspective, sports club membership, and physical self-concept among adolescents: a person-centered approach. J Adolesc. 2019;72:141–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mello ZR, Worrell FC. The adolescent time inventory-english. Berkeley: The University of California; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mello ZR, Zhang JW, Barber SJ, Paoloni VC, Howell RT, Worrell FC. Psychometric properties of time attitude scores in young, middle, and older adult samples. Pers Indiv Differ. 2016;101:57–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Shipp AJ, Edwards JR, Lambert LS. Conceptualization and measurement of temporal focus: the subjective experience of the past, present, and future. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2009;110(1):1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Weissenberger S, Klicperova-Baker M, Zimbardo P, Schonova K, Akotia D, Kostal J, Goetz M, Raboch J, Ptacek R. ADHD and present hedonism: time perspective as a potential diagnostic and therapeutic tool. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2016;12:2963.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Apostolidis T, Fieulaine N. Mesurer le temps dans les applications psychosociales: validation française de l’échelle de temporalité ZTPI. Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée. 2004;54(3):207–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Díaz-Morales JF. Estructura factorial y fiabilidad del inventario de perspectiva temporal de Zimbardo. Psicothema. 2006;18(3):565–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Senyk O. Адаптація опитувальника часовоï перспекти ви особистості Ф. Зімбардо (ZTPI)[The ukrainian adaptation of Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI)]. Соціальна п сиÑ ологія. 2012;85:153–68.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Sircova A, Mitina O. Возрастная динамика временных ориентаций личности [Developmental dynamics of time orientations]. Voprosi Psikhologii. 2008;2:41–54.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ortuño V, Gamboa V. Factorial structure of Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory-ZTPI in a sample of portuguese university students. Av en Psicología Latinoam. 2009;27(1):21–32.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Milfont TL, Andrade PR, Belo RP, Pessoa VS. Testing zimbardo time perspective inventory in a brazilian sample. Revista Interamericana de Psicología/Interamerican Journal of Psychology. 2008;42(1):49–58.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Vowinckel JC, Westerhof GJ, Bohlmeijer ET, Webster JD. Flourishing in the now: initial validation of a present-eudaimonic time perspective scale. Time & Society. 2017;26(2):203–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kostic A, Nedeljkovic J. Studije vremenskih perspektiva u Srbiji [Studies of Time Perspectives in Serbia]. Niš: Punta 2013.

  32. Carelli MG, Wiberg B, Wiberg M. Development and construct validation of the swedish zimbardo time perspective inventory. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2011;27(4):220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Corral-Verdugo V, Fraijo-Sing B, Pinheiro JQ. Sustainable behavior and time perspective: Present, past, and future orientations and their relationship with water conservation behavior. Revista Interamericana de Psicología/Interamerican Journal of Psychology. 2006;40(2):139–47.

    Google Scholar 

  34. SHIMOJIMA Y, Koichi S, Keita O. Factor Structure of a Japanese Version of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI). Japanese J Personality 2012, 21(1).

  35. Djarallah S, Seghir Chorfi S. تكييف قائمة زمباردو لمنظور الزمن للبيئة العربية [Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI) Arabic version]. Arabic J Psychol Sci. 2009;23:53–65.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Sircova A, Van De Vijver FJ, Osin E, Milfont TL, Fieulaine N, Kislali-Erginbilgic A, Zimbardo PG,: ITPRP, Djarallah S, Chorfi MS. A global look at time: A 24-country study of the equivalence of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory. Sage Open 2014, 4(1):2158244013515686.

  37. Epel ES, Bandura A, Zimbardo PG. Escaping homelessness: the influences of self-efficacy and time perspective on coping with homelessness 1. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1999;29(3):575–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Harber KD, Zimbardo PG, Boyd JN. Participant self-selection biases as a function of individual differences in time perspective. Basic Appl Soc Psychol. 2003;25(3):255–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Luyckx K, Lens W, Smits I, Goossens L. Time perspective and identity formation: short-term longitudinal dynamics in college students. Int J Behav Dev. 2010;34(3):238–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Adelabu DH. Time perspective and school membership as correlates to academic achievement among african american adolescents. Adolescence. 2007;42(167):525.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Perry JL, Temple EC, Worrell FC, Zivkovic U, Mello ZR, Musil B, Cole JC, McKay MT. Different version, similar result? A critical analysis of the multiplicity of shortened versions of the zimbardo time perspective inventory. Sage Open. 2020;10(2):2158244020923351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Laghi F, Baiocco R, Liga F, Guarino A, Baumgartner E. Identity status differences among italian adolescents: Associations with time perspective. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2013;35(3):482–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Orkibi H. Psychometric properties of the hebrew short version of the Zimbardo time perspective inventory. Eval Health Prof. 2015;38(2):219–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Orosz G, Dombi E, Tóth-Király I, Roland-Lévy C. The less is more: the 17-item Zimbardo time perspective inventory. Curr Psychol. 2017;36(1):39–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Zhang JW, Howell RT, Bowerman T. Validating a brief measure of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory. Time & Society. 2013;22(3):391–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Košťál J, Klicperova-Baker M, Lukavská K, Lukavský J. Short version of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI–short) with and without the future-negative scale, verified on nationally representative samples. Time & Society. 2016;25(2):169–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Sircova A, Van De Vijver FJ, Osin E, Milfont TL, Fieulaine N, Kislali-Erginbilgic A, Zimbardo PG. Time perspective profiles of cultures. Time perspective theory; review, research and application.edn.: Springer; 2015: 169–87.

  48. Brislin RW, Kim ES. Cultural diversity in people’s understanding and uses of time. Appl Psychol. 2003;52(3):363–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Aldulaimi SH, Abdeldayem MM. The economic value of time in arab culture: new evidence using Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI). Am J Social Sci Humanit. 2018;3(1):63–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Fieulaine N, Apostolidis T, Olivetto F. Précarité et troubles psychologiques: l’effet médiateur de la perspective temporelle. Les cahiers internationaux de psychologie sociale 2006(4):51–64.

  51. Hambleton RK. The next generation of the ITC Test Translation and Adaptation Guidelines. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2001;17(3):164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Van de Vijver F, Tanzer NK. Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment: an overview. Eur Rev Appl Psychol. 2004;54(2):119–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Fekih-Romdhane F, Kanj G, Obeid S, Hallit S. Psychometric properties of an arabic translation of the brief version of the difficulty in emotion regulation scale (DERS-16). BMC Psychol. 2023;11(1):72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Ali AM, Alkhamees AA, Hori H, Kim Y, Kunugi H. The Depression Anxiety Stress Scale 21: Development and Validation of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale 8-Item in Psychiatric Patients and the General Public for Easier Mental Health Measurement in a Post COVID-19 World. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021, 18(19).

  55. Melki IS, Beydoun HA, Khogali M, Tamim H, Yunis KA. National Collaborative Perinatal neonatal N: Household crowding index: a correlate of socioeconomic status and inter-pregnancy spacing in an urban setting. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58(6):476–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Fekih-Romdhane F, Fawaz M, Hallit R, Sawma T, Obeid S, Hallit S. Psychometric Properties of an Arabic Translation of the Multidimensional Social Support Scale (MSPSS) in a community sample of Lebanese Adults. 2022.

  57. Mundfrom DJ, Shaw DG, Ke TL. Minimum sample size recommendations for conducting factor analyses. Int J Test. 2005;5(2):159–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Malhotra N, Dash S. Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation (; Pearson, Ed.). In.: Delhi; 2011.

  59. Chen FF. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct equation modeling: multidisciplinary J. 2007;14(3):464–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Vadenberg R, Lance C. A review and synthesis of the measurement in variance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organ Res Methods. 2000;3:4–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Model. 2002;9(2):233–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Dunn TJ, Baguley T, Brunsden V. From alpha to omega: a practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. Br J Psychol. 2014;105(3):399–412.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. McNeish D. Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychol Methods. 2018;23(3):412.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Cohen J. Quantitative methods in psychology: a power primer. In: psychological bulletin: 1992. Citeseer; 1992.

  65. Liniauskaitė A, Kairys A. The lithuanian version of the Zimbardo time perspective inventory (ZTPI). Psichologija. 2009;40:66–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Li X, Wang C, Lyu H, Worrell FC, Mello ZR. Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory. Curr Psychol 2022:1–13.

  67. Chan SM, Kwok WW, Fung TW. Psychometric properties of the Zimbardo time perspective inventory in Hong Kong adolescents. Time & Society. 2019;28(1):33–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Carelli MG, Wiberg B. Time out of mind: temporal perspective in adults with ADHD. J Atten Disord. 2012;16(6):460–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Tseferidi S-I, Griva F, Anagnostopoulos F. Time to get happy: associations of time perspective with indicators of well-being. Psychol health Med. 2017;22(5):618–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Boniwell I, Osin E, Alex Linley P, Ivanchenko GV. A question of balance: Time perspective and well-being in british and russian samples. J Posit Psychol. 2010;5(1):24–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Griffin E, Wildbur D. Effects of time-perspective on the well-being, success and mental health of undergraduate students. In.: Working Paper. De Montfort University Leicester; 2013.

  72. Papastamatelou J, Unger A, Giotakos O, Athanasiadou F. Is time perspective a predictor of anxiety and perceived stress? Some preliminary results from Greece. Psychol Stud. 2015;60(4):468–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Micillo L, Rioux P-A, Mendoza E, Kübel SL, Cellini N, Van Wassenhove V, Grondin S, Mioni G. Time Perspective predicts levels of anxiety and depression during the COVID-19 outbreak: a cross-cultural study. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(9):e0269396.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 


    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Wade JB, Hart RP, Wade JH, Bajaj JS, Price DD. The relationship between marital status and psychological resilience in chronic pain. Pain research and treatment 2013, 2013.

  76. Kim HK, McKenry PC. The relationship between marriage and psychological well-being: a longitudinal analysis. J Fam Issues. 2002;23(8):885–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Mello ZR, Worrell FC. The relationship of time perspective to age, gender, and academic achievement among academically talented adolescents. J Educ Gifted. 2006;29(3):271–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Taylor JS, DeMers SM, Vig EK, Borson S. The disappearing subject: exclusion of people with cognitive impairment and dementia from geriatrics research. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60(3):413–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


We would like to thank all participants for their precious help.



Author information

Authors and Affiliations



MM, AC, CJEZ, SO and SH designed the study; FFR wrote the paper; MM, AC, and CJEZ collected the data; SH carried out the analysis and interpreted the results; SO reviewed the paper for intellectual content; all authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Souheil Hallit.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

The Psychiatric Hospital of the Cross Ethics and Research Committee approved this study protocol (HPC-037-2022). A written informed consent was considered obtained from each participant when submitting the online form. All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fekih-Romdhane, F., Chahine, A., Mhanna, M. et al. Psychometric properties of an Arabic translation of the briefest version of the Zimbardo time perspective inventory (ZTPI-15). BMC Psychiatry 23, 338 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI:


  • Time perspective
  • ZTPI-15
  • Psychometric properties
  • Validation
  • Arabic