Materials and Method

Data collection procedure

The data were collected from two workshops on time management for university students. These workshops were organized and conducted by students from the Psychology undergraduate and Social Psychology graduate programs of a public institution. They were based on literature review research and theoretical references on the topic, resulting in the content covered in each session (Table 1). The dissemination was carried out through the laboratory’s social media channels and personal networks of the organizers, and the execution took place online via the Zoom platform in September 2020 and again in July 2021. Since the content was identical in both instances, the material was treated as a single group. All participants provided informed consent by signing the consent form and completed the Sociodemographic Data Questionnaire and the Time Management Inventory (TMI) (^{Krausz, 1994}, adapted by ^{Pellegrini et al., 2012}) in the first session (T1, pre-intervention). Only the materials of students who attended at least four workshop sessions were analyzed, as the workshop consisted of five sessions held once a week, with an average duration of two hours per session, without breaks.

The sessions were structured in six moments: 1) The first, in the initial session, was used for personal introductions, in the subsequent sessions for recovering and discussing the tasks proposed for the week; 2) Dialogical exposition: a theoretical presentation on the topic with visual support (slides and illustrative videos). During this moment, psychoeducational activities were conducted, encouraging participant interaction; 3) Group discussions: in which discussions were held among and with participants about time management issues and the sharing of experiences. In this moment, the participants were encouraged to freely discuss the proposed topic during the time established for this; 4) Experiences: practical activities were conducted, aiming to encourage participants to train in organizing their own time by planning short, medium, and long-term goals (as support materials, planning sheets in digital document format were provided before each session, and interactive activity links were shared during the sessions). These directed activities aimed to stimulate students to prioritize (for example, fictitious tasks and circumstances were presented to allow participants to weigh priorities in that context). Additionally, it was also possible to discuss how to put the learned content into practice, using the participants’ spontaneously shared experiences as examples; 5) Homework: participants were tasked with completing organization activities based on the day’s theme. These exercises aimed to encourage engagement with the topic outside of the session, as well as to help practice what was learned; and finally, 6) Feedback: at the end of each meeting, participants were asked for their opinions on what was covered, and any questions and suggestions were reviewed in the final meeting. After completing the five sessions, participants filled out the TMI questionnaire for the second time (post-intervention), with T2 occurring on the day following the intervention’s conclusion.

Table 1: Organization of the workshop by sesión 

Results and Discussion

The Mann-Whitney test indicated no substantial differences between the 2020 and 2021 samples (U = 15.5; z = -1.93; p > .05). Due to this result and the fact that the instruments used and the content of the workshops were the same, it was decided to include all participants in subsequent analyses as a single sample.

Through the Wilcoxon test, it was determined that there was a significant difference between the pre- and post-intervention groups (T = 18.5; z = -2.54; p < .05). This allowed for the identification of the overall differences between the groups. The effect size of the differences was substantial (r = .61; cf. Cohen, 1988), indicating a substantial difference between the groups and supporting the effectiveness of the workshop. Table 2 displays the mean scores of participants at different points in the analysis.

Table 2: Differences in Pre- and Post-Intervention Time Management Scores 

^Note: Mean of negative ranks: -3.3; mean of positive ranks: 3.3.

The JT method was used to assess individual changes among the participants. This method is based on the calculation of the Reliable Change Index (RCI) and the Clinical Significance (CS) score. The RCI is calculated as follows:F2

Where x ₂ and x ₁ represent the post- and pre-intervention scores, respectively; s ₁ represents the standard deviation of the pre-intervention group; and r _xx represents a measure of reliability of the questionnaire used (in this case, Cronbach’s α). This latter measure impacts the extent of the Reliable Change Interval, which represents the margin of error of the measure. The higher the instrument’s reliability measure in the sample, the smaller the margin of error, making the changes more reliable and requiring less fluctuation in values for the results to be considered statistically significant.

The Clinical Significance (CS) score can be obtained in three ways, depending on the availability of normative scores (^{Jacobson & Truax, 1991}). The method selected for obtaining the CS without using normative scores involves the equation 𝑀 1 + 2 𝑠 1 , where M ₁ is the mean of the pre-intervention sample, and s ₁ is the standard deviation of the pre-intervention sample. It serves to categorize participants in clinical samples as “recovered” or “not recovered,” meaning a participant may show improvement and still fit into a clinical sample or not. Participants with a score high (or low) enough to exceed the CS threshold would be categorized as “recovered” The CS threshold in this sample was 8.61.

The RCI values are standardized to the Z score. A |𝑧|=1 score indicates that the observation is 1 standard deviation above or below the mean (the absolute value of Z is used here because the value can be positive or negative). In a normal distribution, a 𝑧 =1.96 score represents observations in the 2.5 % and 97.5 % percentiles, which represents a probability of occurrence less than 5 %. An RCI greater than 1.96 or less than -1.96 would be unlikely to occur (with p < .05) without indicating a true change (^{Jacobson & Truax, 1991}).

Table 3 presents the changes in the individual scores of each participant before and after the workshop. Four participants had negative changes after the intervention, however, none of them were considered statistically significant. One participant had no change, 10 had positive changes, but within the margin of error, and two had reliable positive changes. Participant 7 had a post-intervention score below the CS threshold, however, within the margin of error.

Table 3: Comparison of the participants’ scores before and after the implementation of the workshops 

^Note: RCI: Reliable Change Index. Interpretation: conveys the meaning of these values: ARC: Absence of Reliable Change and PRC: Positive Reliable Change. Negative values represent positive changes because lower scores on the TMI imply better time management.

Figure 1 presents the relative positions of the scores for each participant (P1, P2, P3,..., P17) before and after the workshops. Participants located outside the lower boundary of the Reliable Change Interval, represented by the gray area surrounding the bisector (dashed diagonal line), are those who indeed demonstrated statistically significant positive changes (with p < .05).

Figure 1: Note:  Comparison of Pre- and Post-Intervention Scores Graph The bisector represents the point where pre- and post-intervention scores would be identical. Only participant 12 achieved identical scores at these two time points. Scores above the bisector imply higher scores and scores below it lower scores.  

The present study aimed to assess the effect of a workshop-format intervention that provided resources for improved time management. It is understood that various psychosocial difficulties stand out in the adaptation process, among which time management is a significant challenge. In the literature, the importance of time management has been associated with better academic performance, as students with better performance tend to distribute their available time more appropriately between study tasks and other activities in their routines (^{Marcilio et al., 2021}).

The significance of disseminating knowledge about time management has previously been highlighted in earlier studies as a valuable resource for reducing stress and the feeling of lack of control among individuals in general (^{Leahy et al., 2013}; ^{Freires et al., 2021}). During the implementation of the intervention, it was observed that this topic was of considerable relevance to the university population, which had already been suggested in other studies (^{Oliveira et al., 2016}; ^{Soares et al., 2023}). In another study stemming from time management workshops, ^{Soares et al. (2023)} presented participants’ perceptions of different time management strategies. It was possible to observe that significant themes emerged, including challenges related to meeting deadlines, motivation and expectations regarding the intervention, which included organizing study time and setting priorities, how students manage daily commitments, and distractions identified by students as hindrances to better time organization.

The workshop was developed based on the initial idea presented by ^{Estrada et al. (2011}) that a methodological guide for systematizing the steps of planning, managing, and controlling time could be an effective starting point, resulting in improvements in people’s daily lives. The authors also stated that a model presenting the key technical and behavioral elements found in the literature could facilitate the understanding and application of time management, which was corroborated by the experiences of the current study. This data was also corroborated by considering the themes that emerged during the intervention, which included daily issues and challenges in time management (^{Soares et al., 2023}).

One of the main gains from the intervention was providing the participants with various tools for constructing a time management model to help control their immediate environments. It is should be highlighted that although these practices are referred to as “time management”, they actually involve the administration of activities that can be modified by the individual in interaction with the environment (^{Yoshiy & Kienen, 2018}). The ability to manage one’s actions in relation to environmental variables is a significant benefit provided by these models.

Simultaneously, individual aspects were also addressed in the workshop, such as the ability to reflect on one’s own academic and personal requirements and goals, as these topics had already been reported as crucial by other researchers (^{Marcilio et al., 2021}). Therefore, encouraging the participants to think about and describe their short-term, medium-term, and long-term goals became a relevant discussion point during the intervention. Additionally, the workshop focused on achieving coherence between daily activities and long-term goals, translating ideas related to career planning into concrete plans, which is one of the aspects reported in the literature that motivates people to see workshops of this kind (^{Alves & Teixeira, 2021}; ^{Oliveira et al., 2016}.

It can be affirmed that the intervention led to a significant decrease in the overall group scores in time management. It should be noted that this decrease can be seen as a positive point, as higher scores in the TMI indicate poorer time management skills. It should be considered that the results of the instrument scores are vulnerable to fluctuations that may be attributed to external circumstances such as assessment periods or increased workload at the university, among other personal factors. However, at an individual level, although four participants showed negative changes in time management after the workshop, none of these results were considered statistically significant.

The overall results were positive: although according to the JT method, one participant did not show a difference, and ten participants experienced positive changes within the instrument’s margin of error, the general trend, as indicated by the Wilcoxon test, was a substantial improvement with a considerable effect size (r = .61) in participants’ scores as a result of the intervention. Moreover, two participants achieved reliable positive changes according to individual-level analyses.

It should also be emphasized that the results were collected immediately after the workshop’s conclusion, meaning the intervention’s effectiveness was confirmed in a short period, shortly after participants’ first contact with the discussions and strategies presented. It is possible that the positive effects may be extended depending on the application of the techniques learned by participants in their routines. Therefore, it would be reasonable to assume that the effects of the workshop might be better perceived in the long term. However, it should be noted that this result may also reflect an immediate adoption of the techniques learned by the participants, and it cannot be guaranteed that the gains would be incorporated into students’ routines. Therefore, the results should be interpreted with caution.

The structure of the intervention was developed based on what was presented as relevant themes and effective possibilities of models or strategic planning for time management. Considering how time management was addressed and the predominantly positive outcome of the workshop, it can be concluded that the techniques and strategies proposed to align these models with the participant’s own routine seems to be an efficient means of improving time management in the university context.

Furthermore, the workshop experience facilitated the exchange of experiences and suggestions among the participants. Therefore, alongside the opportunity to learn strategies and techniques, the sharing of experiences among the students was also valuable. This opportunity allowed the participants to perceive that their problems are common and not idiosyncratic.

Conclusions

This study aimed to present and evaluate the effect of an intervention conducted with university students. It was observed that the group obtained a lower mean score in relation to their pre-intervention scores, which is a positive outcome, indicating an improvement in the majority of students and aligning with the literature, which suggests that even a brief intervention has positive effects.

However, there are some limitations to this study. One limitation is the short time between the intervention and the final evaluation, with the absence of follow-up data collection. Although the assessment conducted using the JT method allows for a reliable investigation of changes in scores before and after an intervention, it is recommended that a follow-up assessment be conducted to confirm the long-term benefits of the intervention. Furthermore, the analysis was conducted with participants collected one year apart, and in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which may be an uncommon situation, despite the similarity in pre-intervention scores between the groups.

Considering the relevance of this repertoire for the academic and professional lives of all students, it is recommended that more workshops be conducted so that more university students can benefit from the practice of better time management and develop improved strategies for managing their time in the university context.