Concurrent validity of self-rating scale of self-directed learning and self-directed learning instrument among Italian nursing students

Abstract

BackgroundSelf-Directed Learning develops when students take the initiative for their learning, recognising needs, formulating goals, identifying resources, implementing appropriate strategies and evaluating learning outcomes. This should be seen as a collaborative process between the nurse educator and the learner. At the international level, various instruments have been used to measure Self-Directed Learning abilities (SDL), both in original and in culturally-adapted versions. However, few instruments have been subjected to full validation, and no gold standard reference has been established to date. In addition, few researchers have adopted the established tools to assess the concurrent validity of the emerging new tools. Therefore, the aim of this study was to measure the concurrent validity between the Self-Rating Scale of Self-Directed Learning (SRSSDL_Ita) – Italian version and the Self-Directed Learning Instruments (SDLI) in undergraduate nursing students.MethodsA concurrent validity study design was conducted in a Bachelor level nursing degree programme located in Italy. All nursing students attending the first, second or third year (n = 428) were the target sample. The SRSSDL_Ita, and the SDLI were used. The Pearson correlation was used to determine the concurrent validity between the instruments; the confidence of intervals (CI 95 %) bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap (BCa), were also calculated.ResultsThe majority of participants were students attending their first year (47.9 %), and were predominately female (78.5 %). Their average age was 22.5 ± 4.1. The SDL abilities scores, as measured with the SRSSDL_Ita (min 40, max 200), were, on average, 160.79 (95 % CI 159.10–162.57; median 160); while with the SDLI (min 20, max 100), they were on average 82.57 (95 % CI 81.79–83.38; median 83). The Pearson correlation between the SRSSDL_Ita and SDLI instruments was 0.815 (CI BCa 95 % 0.774–0.848), (p = 0.000).ConclusionsThe findings confirm the concurrent validity of the SRSSDL_Ita with the SDLI. The SRSSDL_Ita instrument can be useful in the process of identifying Self-Directed Learning abilities, which are essential for students to achieve the expected learning goals and become lifelong learners.

Evaluating self‐directed learning abilities as a prerequisite of health literacy among older people: Findings from a validation and a cross‐sectional study

“…With regards to the second aim of the study, participants reported an average SRSSDL O score of 54.27 ± 6.69 out of 65, indicating high SDL abilities. In all items, scores were on average >3 (from 3.61 to 4.65) similarly to those reported by healthcare students and professionals (from 3.53 to 4.01) in previous studies (Cadorin, Cheng, et al, ; Cadorin et al, ). According to Williamson (Williamson, ) scores <3 should be considered areas in which the learner needs to improve his/her SDL abilities.…”

“… In this phase the items were numbered according to their original order as reported in Self‐Rating Scale of Self‐Directed Learning (SRSSDL) (Cadorin et al, , ; Cadorin, Cheng, et al, ) …”

“…The Self‐Rating Scale of Self‐Directed Learning (SRSSDL), developed by Williamson (Williamson, ) and then validated in the Italian context among healthcare students and professionals (Cadorin, Bortoluzzi, & Palese, ; Cadorin, Cheng, & Palese, ; Cadorin, Ghezzi, Camillo, & Palese, ; Cadorin, Suter, Saiani, Williamson, & Palese, ) was considered to assess SDL abilities among participants. The tool was selected for the following reasons: (a) it had been validated in the Italian language and context by demonstrating good psychometric properties (Cadorin et al, , ) and (b) the validations available were conducted in different groups of students and healthcare professionals, developing evidence on its validity in different age groups (from 20 to 62 years) (Cadorin, Cheng, et al, ; Cadorin, Ghezzi, et al, ; Cadorin et al, ).…”

“…Thus, the SRSSDL Italian version was used (Cadorin et al, , ; Cadorin, Cheng, et al, ; Cadorin, Ghezzi, et al, ), including 40 items categorised into eight factors: “Awareness” (7 items); “Attitudes” (8); “Motivation” (6); “Learning strategies” (5); “Learning methods” (4), “Learning activities” (4); “Interpersonal skills” (4) and “Constructing knowledge” (2) (Cadorin et al, ). The tool was based on a 5‐point Likert‐type scale (from 1 = never to 5 = always) and final scores ranged from 40 to 200, where higher scores indicated higher SDL abilities.…”

“…Data analysis was performed according to the main aims of the study: Instrument validation: given that the tool used was validated in the context of healthcare university students and nursing staff (Cadorin et al, , , ; Cadorin, Cheng, et al, ; Cadorin, Ghezzi, et al, ), a process of cross‐validation was preliminarily undertaken. Then, the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were performed, aimed at evaluating the structural validity of the tool.…”