See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/41909792

Development and preliminary testing of a self-rating instrument to measure

self-directed learning ability of nursing students

Article  in  International journal of nursing studies · March 2010

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.02.002 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

58 380

4 authors, including:

Chien-Lin Kuo Jane Lee-Hsieh

National Taipei University National Taipei University of Nursing Sciences
23 PUBLICATIONS   287 CITATIONS    28 PUBLICATIONS   280 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Self Directed Learning View project

creative process View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Chien-Lin Kuo on 09 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Nursing Studies 47 (2010) 1152–1158

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Nursing Studies

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/ijns

Development and preliminary testing of a self-rating instrument to

measure self-directed learning ability of nursing students
Su-Fen Cheng a, Chien-Lin Kuo b, Kuan-Chia Lin a, Jane Lee-Hsieh a,*
a
School of Nursing, National Taipei College of Nursing, 365, Ming-Te Rd, Peitou District, Taipei 11219, Taiwan, ROC
b
Department of Nursing, Fooyin University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, ROC

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Background: With the growing trend of preparing students for lifelong learning, the theory
Received 21 August 2009 of self-directed learning (SDL) has been increasingly applied in the context of higher
Received in revised form 12 January 2010 education. In order to foster lifelong learning, abilities among nursing students, faculties
Accepted 7 February 2010 need to have an appropriate instrument to measure the SDL abilities of nursing students.
Objectives: The objectives of this study were to develop an instrument to measure the SDL
Keywords: abilities of nursing students and to test the validity and reliability of this instrument.
Confirmatory factor analysis Methods: This study was conducted in 4 phases. In Phase 1, based on a review of the
Delphi study
literature, the researchers developed an instrument to measure SDL. In Phase 2, two
Instrument development
rounds of the Delphi study were conducted, to determine the content validity of the
Nursing students
Self-directed learning
instrument. In Phase 3, a convenience sample of 1072 nursing students from two
representative schools across three different types of nursing programs were recruited to
test the construct validity of the Self-Directed Learning Instrument (SDLI). Finally, in Phase
4, the internal consistency and reliability of the instrument were tested.
Results: The resulting SDLI consists of 20 items across the following four domains:
learning motivation, planning and implementing, self-monitoring, and interpersonal,
communication. The final model in confirmatory factor analysis revealed that this 20-item
SDLI indicated a good fit of the model. The value of Cronbach’s a for the total scale was .916
and for the four domains were .801, .861, .785, and .765, respectively.
Conclusions: The SDLI is a valid and reliable instrument for identifying student SDL
abilities. It is available to students in nursing and similar medical programs to evaluate
their own SDL. This scale may also enable nursing faculty to assess students’ SDL status,
design better lesson plans and curricula, and, implement appropriate teaching strategies
for nursing students in order to foster the growth of lifelong learning abilities.
ß 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

What is already known about the topic?
 A key factor affecting lifelong learning abilities is
whether students have the ability to engage in self-
directed learning (SDL).
 There currently exist five instruments measuring SDL.
However, evaluations of their psychometric properties
have produced mixed findings. This is probably because
most of these instruments were developed using
exploratory analysis. Thus far, these instruments have
only been analyzed for their content and factor domains,
and have not been tested for their fit with the theory.
What this paper adds

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 2 28227101x3199;

 A Self-Directed Learning Instrument (SDLI) specifically
fax: +886 2 28213233. developed and tested for nursing education, across
E-mail address: hsiehjane@ntcn.edu.tw (J. Lee-Hsieh). different programs and grades.

0020-7489/$ – see front matter ß 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.02.002
 S.-F. Cheng et al. / International Journal of Nursing Studies 47 (2010) 1152–1158
 The SDLI is a reliable and valid instrument that measures
four domains of SDL: learning motivation, planning and
implementing, self-monitoring, and interpersonal com-
munication.
 This study provides new empirical evidence and verifies
the structure of the core concept of SDL. It matches
empirical evidence to the theory.
1. Introduction
There is a growing trend of preparing students for
lifelong learning. In the field of nursing, students enter the
field with extensive professional training, but must also be
able to constantly update their knowledge through self-
directed learning (SDL). Thus, teaching SDL skills to nursing
students helps to prepare them for success in their future
careers, and enables them to engage in lifelong learning. To
facilitate the development of SDL skills in nursing students,
a valid and reliable tool should be made available to
nursing schools to enable them to measure the SDL
abilities of nursing students. Thus, the purposes of this
study were (1) to develop an instrument to measure the
SDL ability of nursing students and (2) to test the validity
and reliability of this instrument.
1.1. Concepts of SDL
According to Knowles (1975), self-directed learning is
‘‘a process in which individuals take the initiative, with or
without the help of others, in diagnosing their learning
needs, formulating learning goals, identifying human and
material resources for learning, choosing and implement-
Table 1
Reliability and validity of existing SDL instruments.
Instrument Description
Guglielmino (1977) Defined 8 components of SDL (openness to learning
Self-directed learning opportunities, self-concept as an effective learner,
readiness scale initiative and independence in learning, informed
acceptance of responsibility for one’s own learning,
love of learning, creativity, positive orientation to
the future, ability to use basic study skills, and
problem-solving skills); Total items: 58 items
Deng (1995) Adapted from Guglielmino’s instrument and
Chinese version of categorized 6 components (effective learning,
Guglielmino’s love of learning, learning motivation, active
self-directed learning learning, independent learning, and creative
readiness scale learning); Total items: 58 items
Ho (1998) 3 domains (planning: 6 items; self-assessment:
Self-directed ability 5 items; search for human resources: 3 items);
scale (in Chinese) Total items: 14
Fisher et al. (2001) 3 components (self-management, desire
Self-directed learning for learning, and self-control); Total items: 40
readiness scale
Williamson (2007) 5 components (awareness, learning strategies,
Self-rating scale of learning activities, evaluation, and interpersonal
self-directed learning skills); Total item: 65
1153
ing appropriate learning strategies, and evaluating learn-
ing outcomes’’ (p. 18). Brookfield (1986) provided a similar
definition of SDL. Greg (1993) argued that self-directed
learners should have the ability to collaborate with peers,
and see peers as learning resources. Cameron (1997) stated
that a comprehensive model for SDL should involve self-
management, self-monitoring, and motivation. The Amer-
ican Association of Colleges of Nursing (2008) emphasizes
the importance of communication skills in developing
Baccalaureate programs and suggests that nursing faculty
should design learning activities that focus on practicing
communication.
Based on the above discussion, the process of SDL covers
the following domains: learning needs or learning motiva-
tion, learning resources, learning goals, learning plans and
activities, learning evaluation, and communication skills.
1.2. Overview of existing SDL instruments
The researchers used the OVID databases, bibliogra-
phies, and article references to search for existing SDL
instruments. Only five instruments that directly measured
SDL were found. These included Guglielmino’s (1977) SDL
readiness scale, Deng’s (1995) Chinese version of Gugliel-
mino’s instrument, Ho’s (1998) SDL ability scale, Fisher,
King, and Tague’s (2001) SDL readiness scale, and William-
son’s (2007) self-rating scale of SDL. Descriptions and
psychometric indices are presented in Table 1. The
components of these SDL tools include: effective learning,
learning motivation, active learning, independent learning,
creative learning, self-management, desire for learning,
self-control, evaluation, and interpersonal skills. The
number of items ranged from 14 to 65.
Psychometric indices
Content validity: Delphi study
Construct validity: used Principle component
factor analysis (PCFA), explained variance: 48%
Translate validity
Construct validity: used PCFA varimax rotation,
explained variance: 89.75%
Cronbach’s a .64–.85
(N = 286)
Construct validity: used PCFA, explained variance: 35.79%
Internal consistency
Total: .78
Planning: .73
Self-assessment: .64
Search for human resources .57
(N = 30)
Content validity: 2 rounds of Delphi study;
Construct validity: used PCFA with varimax rotation,
explained variance 36.4%
Cronbach’s a .924 (total), .857 (SM), .847 (DL),
.830 (SC) (N = 201)
Content validity: 2 rounds of Delphi study;
Construct validity: used a known-groups technique.
Cronbach’s a coefficient .71–.79 (N = 30, 15 first
year and 15 final year students)
1154 S.-F. Cheng et al. / International Journal of Nursing Studies 47 (2010) 1152–1158

Table 2
Phases and steps of the Self-Directed Learning Instrument (SDLI) development process.

Process Purpose Methods/data Resulting Domains and Items

Phase I Develop a new instrument for measurement of SDL Literature review

Step 1 Assemble 5 published SDL tools Incorporate items from 20 domains, 238 items
5 existing SDL tools
Step 2 Develop preliminary items for the new instrument Assess and identify items 1st version: 6 domains,
55 items

Phase II Test content validity

Step 1 Conduct Delphi study Form an expert panel
Step 2 Assess the appropriateness, representativeness 1st round of Delphi study (N = 16) 2nd version: 4 domains,
and explicitness of the SDLI’s (1st version) 31 items (retained 18 items,
items and content deleted 30 items, modified
7 items, added 6 items)
Step 3 Assess the appropriateness, representativeness, The 2nd round of Delphi study (N = 16) 3rd version: 4 domains,
explicitness of the revised SDLI’s (2nd version) 32 items (retained 30 items,
items and content split one item into 2)

Phase III Test the construct validity of the SDLI (3rd version) Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) 4 domains, 32 items
Step 1 Model 1 Domains not correlated (N = 1072) Model poor fit
Step 2 Model 2 Domains correlated Model fair fit
Step 3 Model 3 Item deleted and domains correlated 4th version: 4 domains,
20 items (deleted 12 items)
Model better fit
Step 4 Test the construct validity of the 4th version, model 4 Added 2 error covariances (N = 1072) 4 domains, 20 items
Model good fit

Phase IV Test the internal consistency and reliability of the Cronbach’s a Total scale: .916
4th version of SDLI (the final version) N = 1072 Domain 1: .801
Domain 2: .861
Domain 3: .785
Domain 4: .765

All five tools used an exploratory analysis method,
principle component factor analysis and a known-group
technique, to support the construct validity of the tool;
therefore, different findings were expected. Only the
instruments of Fisher et al. (2001) and Williamson
(2007) have been tested in nursing students.
scale revision required; 3 = relevant but in need of small
adjustments; and 4 = relevant, but needs rewording;
5 = relevant, clear and precise). Items with a mean score
of 4.0 or above were retained. The decision to delete items
scoring below 4.0 was made by the researchers based on
the experts’ opinions.

2. Methodology 2.3. Phase III

This project of developing a Self-Directed Learning
Instrument (SDLI) was conducted in four phases (Table 2).
2.1. Phase I
The authors searched for SDL-related instruments in
the OVID databases, bibliographies, and article references,
and compiled a list of SDL items.
2.2. Phase II
A Delphi study was conducted in two rounds. Sixteen
experts were invited to participate in the Delphi study,
including 6 experts in adult/higher education and 10
experts in nursing education. Each expert was asked to
individually and independently evaluate and score each
SDL item from Phase I for its appropriateness (the item can
be used to measure student’s SDL), representativeness (the
item expresses a core concept of SDL, according to the
expert’s own understanding and interpretation of SDL) and
explicitness (the item is clearly stated and easy to
understand) using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = irrelevant
and should be deleted; 2 = seemingly relevant but large-
The factor structure of the instrument was tested with
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Two universities with
three nursing programs (5-year ADN program, 4-year BSN
program and 2-year RN-to-BSN program) in Taiwan were
asked to participate in this study. The use of human
subjects was approved by the Institutional Review Board
(IRB) of the universities. A convenience sample of 1072
nursing students was recruited. All subjects were full time
students. Students in the ADN program enter at the age of
15, after graduating from junior high school. Students in
the 4-year BSN program enter at age 18, after graduating
from senior high school. Students in the RN-to-BSN
program enter at age 20–22, after graduating from the
ADN program. The majority of the students were female
(92%). CFA was performed to assess the structure of the
instrument and identify the optimal model. Statistical
analyses were performed using STATISTICA software,
version 7.0.
2.4. Phase IV
Finally, the internal consistency and reliability of the
instrument were tested.
 S.-F. Cheng et al. / International Journal of Nursing Studies 47 (2010) 1152–1158
Table 3
Goodness of fit statistics for comparative models of the SDLI.
X2 df p RMSEA
Model 1 4262.06 464 .00 .098
Model 2 2624.39 458 .00 .075
Model 3 778.10 164 .00 .061
Model 4 695.88 161 .00 .057
Model 1: 4 factors.
Model 2: 4 factors, correlated factors.
Model 3: 4 factors, deleted items, correlated factors.
(Items deleted: 2, 3, 6, 7, 17, 18, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30).
Model 4: 4 factors, deleted items, correlated factors, 2 error covariances (I4 & I5, I31 and I32).
Note. RMSEA = Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation; RMS = standardized residual, GFI = the Goodness of Fit Index; AGFI = Adjusted Goodness of Fit
Index; NNFI = Non-Normed Fit Index; NFI = Normed Fit Index; AIC = the Akaike Information Criterion.
3. Results
3.1. Phase I
In the first phase of developing a Self-Directed Learning
Instrument, the researchers reviewed the content of the
five existing SDL instruments in the literature, counting a
total of 238 items across 20 domains. Items with similar
meanings and items deemed irrelevant to SDL were then
deleted, resulting in 55 retained items across the following
6 domains: learning needs, learning motivation, learning
skills, learning action, self-management, and self evalua-
tion.
3.2. Phase II
Phase II began with a 55-item preliminary instrument
and ended with a 32-item instrument after a two-round
Delphi study. In the first round, 30 items were deleted
because of redundant or similar meanings; agreement was
reached for 18 items; and 7 items were modified. One
expert strongly recommended adding items related to
interpersonal communication skills to the SDLI, arguing
that the ability to interact with others is an important part
of nursing students’ lifelong learning ability. Thus, six
items related to interpersonal communication were added.
After this initial critical review, the SDLI now contained 4
domains with 31 items. The researchers renamed these 4
domains as follows: learning motivation, planning and
implementing, self-monitoring, and interpersonal commu-
nication. The SDLI was then provided to the same panel of
experts for the 2nd round of Delphi study. The results
showed agreement among the experts for 4 domains and 30
items. One item was identified as containing two meanings,
so the researchers split it into two items. Thus, by now the
SDLI had 4 domains with 32 items, and this version was used
in the next phase for testing construct validity.
3.3. Phase III
A 32-item SDLI was assessed using CFA. Four models
were tested (Table 3). In model 2, the results showed
model misfit. Examination of the wording and meaning of
items was reviewed. Twelve items, including 5 negative
statements, were discarded due to redundancy or vague-
ness. The remaining 20 items with a four-factor framework
were tested in models 3 and 4.
1155
RMS GFI AGFI NNFI NFI AIC
.23 .77 .73 .68 .67 4.484
.06 .84 .81 .81 .80 2.824
.04 .93 .91 .91 .91 .852
.04 .94 .92 .92 .93 .763
The findings of model 4 represented a good fit to the
model as indicated by the Root Mean Squared Error of
Approximation (RMSEA), the RMS (standardized residual),
the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), Adjusted Goodness of Fit
Index (AGFI), Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI), Normed Fit
Index (NFI) and the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). The
X2 values for these models remained significant, probably
due to the large sample size and small discrepancies. The
values of RMSEA, RMS, GFI, AGFI, NNFI, and NFI in model 4
supported the acceptable fit of the model. Thus, model 4
was the final model tested for the SDLI.
Using maximum likelihood estimation, the factor load-
ings for each item were demonstrated to be greater than .40,
with the exception of one item (.39). This also indicated that
the latent variable can be measured by the items. The
correlation coefficients among the four latent variables (four
domains) ranged from .50 to .80 (Fig. 1). The error variances
of the items were between .24 and .41, and no negative error
variance or large error variances appeared.
3.4. Phase IV
The last phase involved testing the internal consistency
of each domain. The value of Cronbach’s a for the total item
pool (N = 1072) was .916, and for the four domains were
.801, .861, .785, and .765, respectively.
The final SDLI contains 20 items across the 4 domains
of learning motivation, planning and implementing,
self-monitoring, and interpersonal communication
(Appendix A). Learning motivation is defined as the inner
drive of the learner as well as external stimuli that drive the
desire to learn and to take responsibility for one’s learning.
Planning and implementing is defined as the ability to
independently set learning objectives, and to use appro-
priate learning strategies and resources in order to
effectively achieve learning goals. Self-monitoring is defined
as the ability to evaluate one’s learning process and
outcomes, and to make progress. Interpersonal commu-
nication is defined as the ability of learners to interact with
others to promote their own learning. This pencil–paper
instrument takes around 10 min to complete. All items of
SDLI are positively stated. The respondent is asked to rate
each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 for
‘‘strongly disagree’’ to 5 for ‘‘strongly agree’’. Thus, the total
possible score on the SDLI ranges from 20 to 100.
In this study, the students’ overall mean score as
measured by the SDLI was 3.60, which implied that their
1156 S.-F. Cheng et al. / International Journal of Nursing Studies 47 (2010) 1152–1158
Fig. 1. Measurement model of the SDLI.
SDL abilities were moderate. The mean scores of the
students in the 5-year AND program, 4-year BSN program,
and 2-year RN to BSN program were 3.52, 3.59 and 3.7,
respectively. The highest mean score (X = 3.74) of the four
domains was ‘‘interpersonal communication’’ and the
lowest score (X = 3.45) was ‘‘planning and implementing’’.
The students’ SDL ability in the 2-year RN to BSN program
was significantly higher than the other two programs
(F = 10.47, p = .000).
4. Discussion and conclusion
As shown in the literature, evaluating the psychometric
properties of existing SDL tools has produced mixed
findings. This is probably because those instruments were
developed using exploratory analysis method. By contrast,
the SDLI in this study was developed using confirmatory
factor analysis, which verified the framework of SDL. In
addition, this study is unique because the sample is taken
from three different types of nursing programs from two
schools, a public college in the north and a private
university in southern Taiwan. Hence, this study’s SDLI
appears to have greater generalizability and validity than
currently available measurement tools.
It is hoped that the instrument developed in this study
can eventually help nursing educators better understand
students’ SDL abilities and implement appropriate teaching
strategies, such as problem-based learning. In the literature,
the application of problem-based learning in pedagogy has
been shown to enhance the SDL ability of nursing students,
and thereby develop their capacity to engage in lifelong
learning (Kocaman et al., 2009). Both teachers and students
can use the SDLI in every year of nursing training to identify
learning obstacles and seek relevant counseling and support.
This instrument reflects the situation of two univer-
sities in Taiwan. Future studies may use the SDLI to explore
the SDL abilities of students across different programs,
schools, regions and cultures. The data collected from this
study may also be used to develop a pedagogy and
curriculum aimed at enhancing students’ SDL abilities.
 S.-F. Cheng et al. / International Journal of Nursing Studies 47 (2010) 1152–1158 1157

Acknowledgements Conflict of interest: None declared.

The researchers would like to thank Taiwan National
Science Council for the grant NSC97-2511-S-227-006 that
enabled this study, and our students for their unfailing
patience and openness.
Funding: The research funding (NT$ 730,000) was
sponsored by Taiwan National Science Council.
Ethical Approval: National Taipei College of Nursing. The
reference number is 98A208.

Appendix A. Self-Directed Learning Instrument (SDLI) for Nursing Students

Directions: Please read each statement and circle the number that best describes your thoughts and feelings about your own
learning. There is no right or wrong answer.
5 = Strongly agree, 4 = Agree, 3 = Neutral, 2 = Disagree, 1 = Strongly disagree
1 I know what I need to learn. 5 4 3 2 1
2 Regardless of the results or effectiveness of my learning, I still like learning. 5 4 3 2 1
3 I strongly hope to constantly improve and excel in my learning. 5 4 3 2 1
4 My successes and failures inspire me to continue learning. 5 4 3 2 1
5 I enjoy finding answers to questions. 5 4 3 2 1
6 I will not give up learning because I face some difficulties. 5 4 3 2 1
7 I can pro-actively establish my learning goals. 5 4 3 2 1
8 I know what learning strategies are appropriate for me in reaching my learning goals. 5 4 3 2 1
9 I set the priorities of my learning. 5 4 3 2 1
10 Whether in the clinical practicum, classroom or on my own, I am able to follow my own plan of learning. 5 4 3 2 1
11 I am good at arranging and controlling my learning time. 5 4 3 2 1
12 I know how to find resources for my learning. 5 4 3 2 1
13 I can connect new knowledge with my own personal experiences. 5 4 3 2 1
14 I understand the strengths and weakness of my learning. 5 4 3 2 1
15 I can monitor my learning progress. 5 4 3 2 1
16 I can evaluate on my own my learning outcomes. 5 4 3 2 1
17 My interaction with others helps me plan for further learning. 5 4 3 2 1
18 I would like to learn the language and culture of those whom I frequently interact with. 5 4 3 2 1
19 I am able to express messages effectively in oral presentations. 5 4 3 2 1
20 I am able to communicate messages effectively in writing. 5 4 3 2 1

Original SDLI in Chinese version.

1 5 4 3 2 1
2 5 4 3 2 1
3 5 4 3 2 1
4 5 4 3 2 1
5 5 4 3 2 1
6 5 4 3 2 1
7 5 4 3 2 1
8 5 4 3 2 1
9 5 4 3 2 1
10 5 4 3 2 1
11 5 4 3 2 1
12 5 4 3 2 1
1158 S.-F. Cheng et al. / International Journal of Nursing Studies 47 (2010) 1152–1158

13 5 4 3 2 1
14 5 4 3 2 1
15 5 4 3 2 1
16 5 4 3 2 1
17 5 4 3 2 1
18 5 4 3 2 1
19 5 4 3 2 1
20 5 4 3 2 1

References Guglielmino, L.M., 1977. Development of the self-directed learning readi-

American Association of Colleges of Nursing, 2008. The Essentials of
Baccalaureate Education for Professional Nursing Practice. American
Association of Colleges of Nursing.
Brookfield, S., 1986. Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning. Jos-
sey-Bass, San Francisco.
Cameron, D.R., 1997. Self-directed learning: toward a comprehensive
model. Adult Education Quarterly 48 (1), 18–33.
Deng, Y.L., 1995. Adult Teaching and Self-directed Learning. Wu-Nan,
Taipei (in Chinese).
Fisher, M., King, J., Tague, G., 2001. Development of a self-directed
learning readiness scale for nursing education. Nurse Education
Today 21 (7), 516–525.
Greg, R., 1993. Student perceptions about self-directed learning in a
professional course implementing problem-based learning. Studies
in Higher Education 18 (1), 53–63.
ness scale. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Georgia.
Dissertation Abstracts International 38, 6467A.
Ho, C.R., 1998. Facilitation to self-directed learning: a refection
of teaching experiment on contract learning. National Science
Council Journal: Humanity and Social Sciences 8 (3), 417–426 (in
Chinese).
Knowles, M., 1975. Self-Directed Learning: a Guide for Learners and
Teachers. Association Press, New York.
Kocaman, G., Dicle, A., Ugur, A., 2009. A longitudinal analysis of the self-
directed learning readiness level of nursing students enrolled in a
problem-based curriculum. Journal of Nursing Education 48 (5), 286–
290.
Williamson, S.N., 2007. Development of a self-rating scale of self-directed
learning. Nurse Researcher 14 (2), 66–83.

View publication stats