Contextualization of psychological tests in specific courses is necessary to obtain relevant information to sustain individual or group interventions, unlike general assessment instruments, concentrated in overall academic life. Academic procrastination is relevant, and its evaluation is necessary, due to its short- and medium-term consequences. The objective of the present methodological report was to compare the results of the structural analysis, relationship between dimensions, reliability and incorrect specifications of the Academic Procrastination Scale, evaluated in its general form (sample 1: 717 students, 74.3% women), and demarcated in specific signatures (sample 2: 142 students, 72.5% women). Results indicate that the specific form has greater psychometric backing, both in the overall fit, relationship between factors, and lower frequency of erroneous specifications. However, reliability coefficients do not differ between versions. Implications of the results are discussed.