20541058, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nop2.1418 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [30/01/2023].

See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
| |
Received: 19 October 2021    Revised: 4 April 2022    Accepted: 7 October 2022

DOI: 10.1002/nop2.1418

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Validation of the psychometric properties of the Self-­Directed

Learning Readiness Scale

Shiah-­Lian Chen1  | Jun-­Yu Fan2

1
Department of Nursing, National
Taichung University of Science and Abstract
Technology, Taichung, Taiwan, ROC
Aim: The aim of the study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Chinese
2
Department of Nursing & Graduate
Institute of Nursing, Chang Gung
version of the Self-­Directed Learning Readiness Scale.
University of Science and Technology, Design: A cross-­sectional survey was designed.
Division of Nursing, Chang Gung Memorial
Hospital, Linkou Branch, Tao-­Yuan,
Methods: A convenience sample of 659 participants was recruited. Exploratory and
Taiwan, ROC confirmatory factor analyses were used to evaluate the factorial structure. In addition,

Correspondence
the concurrent validity was assessed using the Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory.
Shiah-­Lian Chen, Department of Nursing, Results: The exploratory factor analysis revealed that the scale was a 6-­factor struc-
National Taichung University of Science
and Technology, Room 415-­4, 193, Sec. 1,
ture, named love of learning, active learning, effective learning, independent learn-
Sanmin Road, Taichung 403, Taiwan, ROC. ing, learning motivation and creative learning, which explained 53.30% of the total
Email: shiah90@nutc.edu.tw
variance. The findings of the confirmatory factor analysis showed that a 37-­item six
Jun-­Yu Fan, Department of Nursing
first-­order model produced the best-­fit statistics. Internal consistency for the scale
& Graduate Institute of Nursing,
Chang Gung University of Science and was satisfactory, ranging from 0.71 to 0.88. Concurrent and predictive validities also
Technology, 261, Wen-­Hua 1st Road,
reached significant levels. The utility of the instrument was suggested.
Kwei-­Shan, Tao-­Yuan 333-­03, Taiwan,
ROC.
Email: jyfan@gw.cgust.edu.tw KEYWORDS
factor analysis, nursing students, psychometric testing, questionnaire, validity
Funding information
Ministry of Science and Technology,
Taiwan, Grant/Award Number: MOST
104-­2511-­S-­025 -­0 01 -­MY2; The
Administration Center of the Medical
Research Department, Chang Gung
Memorial Hospital, Taiwan, Grant/Award
Number: GrantNo.BMRPB80

1  |  I NTRO D U C TI O N the demand for lifelong learning (Kaulback, 2020), is a crucial goal

The healthcare delivery system is known to undergo rapid changes
because of the evolution of the complexity of patient conditions
and the fast growth of knowledge. To adapt to the career challenge,
students must learn to be responsible for their continued learning
throughout their personal and professional careers, thus becom-
ing lifelong learners. Self-­
directed learning (SDL), usually tied to
for nursing education worldwide (Cadorin et al., 2017; Mentz &
Oosthuizen, 2016; Wong et al., 2021). Teaching students to become
self-­directed learners is highly recommended by higher education in-
stitutions and continuing education agendas. Many studies have ex-
plored problems or factors related to SDL (Chukwuedo et al., 2021;
Wong et al., 2021). Self-­directed learning was also found to be sig-
nificantly associated with teaching competencies (Chen et al., 2012),

[Correction added on 15 November 2022, after first online publication: The affiliation of Jun-Yu Fan was revised.]

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2022 The Authors. Nursing Open published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Nursing Open. 2022;00:1–8.  |

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/nop2     1
 |
2      CHEN and FAN
critical thinking (Kang et al., 2020), self-­efficacy (Turan & Ko, 2018)
and even leadership development (Cleary et al., 2020). Nevertheless,
a tool cannot reliably measure data without good psychomet-
ric properties and provide strong scientific evidence for the self-­
directed learning literature.
2  |  BAC KG RO U N D
The definition of SDL varies in the literature. SDL has been de-
scribed as a process, an ability, a trait, a learning style, and a teach-
ing method for educators (Cadorin et al., 2017; Dehnad et al., 2014).
Some emphasize the learners' control over the planning and imple-
mentation of learning, such as Knowles (1975) and Tough (1979),
while some focus on the potential characteristics of self-­directed
learners (Guglielmino,  1977). According to Knowles  (1975), self-­
directed learning is a process in which individuals initiate the pro-
cess based on their learning needs, identify their learning goals and
required resources and select and apply appropriate strategies to
achieve desired learning results. Thus, self-­directed learning is a type
of learning that requires taking more action than just being a passive
receiver of knowledge. The “self” is the one who manages the learn-
ing process (Mentz & Oosthuizen, 2016). Individuals are expected to
initiate the activities, curious to learn new things and enjoy learning
(Alfaifi, 2016). Studies also have reported that self-­directed learners
tend to be more independent, disciplined, initiative, curious, self-­
motivated in learning and have a socio-­professional commitment
(Mentz & Oosthuizen, 2016; Shirazi et al., 2021).
Numerous tools have been developed to measure SDL, including
the SDL Readiness Scale for Nursing Education (SDLRSNE), the self-­
rating scale of SDL (SRSSDL), the SDL Inventory (SDLI) and the SDL
readiness scale (SDLRS). The SDLRSNE was developed by Fisher
et al. (2001) and contained 40 items divided into three components:
self-­management, desire for learning and self-­control. The construct
validity was evaluated by confirmatory factor analysis. Despite 11
items being identified as redundant, the authors suggested that
the 40-­item SDLRSNE be used until further research refinement
(Fisher & King, 2010). However, a Japanese nursing study could not
validate the reliability and validity of the SDLRSNE in their popu-
lation (Fujino-­Oyama et al., 2016). The SRSSDL was developed by
Williamson (2007). The tool consisted of 60 items with the following
five components: awareness (12 items), learning strategies (12 items),
learning activities (12 items), evaluation (12 items) and interpersonal
skills (12 items). A sample of Italian health professionals validated the
instrument, and an exploratory factor analysis produced an eight-­
factor solution. As a result, the number of SRSSDL-­ITA items was re-
duced from 60 to 40 (Cadorin et al., 2013). The concurrent validity
of SRSSDL and SDL ability was supported (Cadorin et al., 2016). The
SDLI was developed by Cheng et al. (2010) and contained 20 items
in four components: learning motivation (6 items), planning and
implementing (6 items), self-­monitoring (4 items) and interpersonal
communication (4 items). The construct validity was verified using
confirmatory factor analysis (Cheng et al., 2010).
20541058, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nop2.1418 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [30/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SDL readiness (SDLR) refers to the extent to which an individ-
ual has the abilities, attitudes and personality traits required for SDL
(Guglielmino, 1977) and the degree to which a self-­directed learner can
take personal control and accept their responsibility to learn (Fisher
et al., 2001). Guglielmino's (1977) SDLR scale (SDLRS) is one instrument
most commonly used to measure SDLR, which consists of 58 items
categorized into eight components, namely openness to learning op-
portunities, effective learner, initiative and independence in learning,
informed acceptance of responsibility for their learning, love of learn-
ing, creativity, positive orientation to the future, ability to use basic
study skills and problem-­solving skills. The construct validity was con-
firmed by factor analysis. However, other studies have failed to con-
firm its factor structure (Field, 1991; Fisher et al., 2001). Deng (1995)
developed the Traditional Chinese version of the SDLRS (TC-­SDLRS)
based on concepts of self-­directed learning readiness for the business
continuing education students in junior colleges. The TC-­SDLRS con-
sists of 55 items in six components: effective learning, love of learning,
learning motivation, active learning, independent learning and creative
learning. Satisfactory construct validity and internal consistency were
provided. Chen and Liang (2009) revised the TC-­SDLRS and used it in
their Taiwanese undergraduate sample; however, only four subscales
were included in the final version. Cronbach's alphas for the four scales
were 0.64 (creative learning), 0.66 (love of learning), 0.69 (independent
learning) and 0.70 (active learning), respectively. We needed to use the
scale in our study (Chen & Liu, 2021), but the preliminary psychometric
findings of the scale were not satisfactory. An instrument with sound
psychometric properties is essential to build up the research evidence
in the scientific community. Additionally, it takes more time to fill out a
55-­item scale. A short version of the scale can improve the efficiency
of the test. Thus, the purpose of the study was to revise the scale items
and identify the least number of items needed to explain the original
latent factors, using the technique of exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
3  |  TH E S T U DY
3.1  |  Method
This study had a descriptive and cross-­sectional design and com-
prised two steps: the EFA and the CFA. First, a group of three experts
assessed content validity. A group of 20 BSN students was invited to
complete a pilot questionnaire. Preliminary Cronbach's alpha find-
ings were also provided to the experts to evaluate and then revise
the poorly fitted items accordingly. Second, a convenience sample
of baccalaureate nursing students was invited from two universities
in Taiwan. Students attending the 2-­year Registered Nurse (RN) to
Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) programmes and the 4-­year
BSN programme were invited to participate in the study. Data were
collected from 1 March 2016 to 30 September 2016. There were two
types of 2-­year RN to BSN programmes in Taiwan. One was a regular
daytime class, whereas the other was an on-­the-­job class, which al-
lowed students to work simultaneously. Those who were willing to

CHEN and FAN
participate in the study were invited to fill out the questionnaire. A
total of 659 students agreed to participate and completed the ques-
tionnaire. The response rate was 90.8%. The sample size entering the
study for EFA and CFA were 263 and 396, respectively.
3.2  |  Instrument
The TC-­SDLRS consists of 55 items in six components: effective
learning, love of learning, learning motivation, active learning, inde-
pendent learning and creative learning (Deng, 1995). Each item is
rated on a 5-­point Likert scale ranging from 1 = “never feel that way”
to 5  = “always feel that way”; thus, the total possible score range
is 55–­275. Independent learning item scores were reversed before
data analysis because items were reverse worded. Factor analysis
with the principal component method validated the construct valid-
ity as a six-­factor solution, explaining 89.75% of the total variance.
Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.64 to 0.85 (Deng, 1995).
The Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CTDI), developed by
Yeh (1999), was used to validate concurrent validity. The CTDI con-
sists of 20 items with four components: systematic and analytical,
open-­minded, intellectually curious and holistic as well as reflective
thinking. The CTDI displayed satisfactory construct validity and in-
ternal consistency (Yeh, 1999). In addition, predictive validity was
assessed by associations between the TC-­SDLRS score and grades of
students' physical examination and health assessment course, which
was designed using the self-­directed learning framework.
3.3  |  Data analysis
Data were analysed using the IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows,
Version 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. Factorial validity was evalu-
ated using a principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rota-
tion. The Kaiser–­Meyer–­Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett's tests were used
to evaluate sampling adequacy. The LISREL 8.80 software was used
to implement the CFA procedure. Statistical indices used to evaluate
model fits were as follows: x 2/df, the goodness of fit index (GFI), the
normed fit index (NFI), the root mean square error of approxima-
tion (RMSEA), the comparative fit index (CFI) and Akaike informa-
tion criterion (AIC) (Brown, 2015). In addition, internal consistency
was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability
coefficients.
3.4  |  Ethical considerations and data collection
The research ethics committee of REDACTED approved the
study. The author has approved the use of the scale (Deng, 1995).
Participants were informed of the purpose of the study before the
distribution of questionnaires. Participants' right to refuse to partici-
pate in the study was ensured without any penalty, and participation
was anonymous to ensure confidentiality. Two research assistants
|
20541058, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nop2.1418 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [30/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
      3
collected data in universities after obtaining written informed con-
sent. All questionnaires were administered to participants in the
class and were brought back immediately after completion.
4  |  R E S U LT S
The mean age was 20.35 (SD = 1.91) years for the EFA group and
20.14 (SD = 0.65) years for the CAF group. Most of the participants
were women (EFA  =  89.7% vs. CFA  =  96.2%). The majority of the
sample in the EFA group was 4-­year BSN students (46.8%), followed
by RN-­BSN students in a regular daytime class (53.2%). Most of the
students in the CFA group were in the RN-­BSN programme during
the daytime (60.6%). Twenty-­three per cent were on-­the-­job RN-­
BSN students, and the remaining 16.4% were 4-­year BSN students.
The content validity was examined by three experts for clarity and
appropriateness. The wordings of the scale were also revised for
those items with Cronbach's alpha <0.65. The content validity index
was also calculated. All the values were ≥0.85, which implied a satis-
factory content validity.
The factor structures of the TC-­SDLRS from 263 participants
were first assessed using a PCA. All items have been entered into
the model. Next, we examined the items of each factor. Ten items
were deleted because of cross-­loading over three factors, and the
factor loadings of another three items were below 0.3, or the item-­
to-­total correlation was below 0.20. Eventually, 13 items were de-
leted. Another PCA was performed on the remaining items, which
produced a six-­factor solution that explained 52.10% of the total
variance. All items were loaded on the predetermined latent fac-
tor, which showed that the items could represent the underlying
constructs intended to be measured. The calculated KMO was
0.888, and Bartlett's test of sphericity was statistically significant
(χ2 = 4,869.20, p < .001). The eigenvalues of factors were >1, and all
factor loadings were >0.35. The original six factors remained. As a
result, 55 items were reduced to 42 items.
A CFA was used to validate the latent structure validity with
396 participants. Five models were tested. Fit statistics for model
1 were acceptable, but factor loadings of four items (item 48, item
29, item 52, item 54 and item 38) were low. Items were removed
one by one to ensure necessity. After eliminating the item, fit indices
were significantly improved (AIC = 1847.78, NFI = 0.95, GFI = 0.81
and RMSEA = 0.066). In the Lagrange analysis, the three large val-
ues of MI and EPC were between item 40 and item 41 (MI = 41.98,
EPC  =  0.20), item 25 and item 26 (MI  =  42.15, EPC  =  0.13) and
between item 1 and item 5 (MI  =  40.08, EPC  = 0.11). Three error
terms between these items were individually correlated one after
another. The revisions resulted significantly improved the model
fits (AIC = 1,629.94, NFI = 0.95, GFI = 0.84 and RMSEA = 0.059).
A 37-­item six first-­order model produced the best-­fit statistics.
The six first-­order factors were re-­specified into a second-­order
model (Figure  1). Despite an acceptable fit of the second-­
order
factor to data (AIC  =  1,645.618.11, NFI  =  0.95, GFI  =  0.83 and
RMSEA  =  0.059), the factor loading of independent learning was
 |

20541058, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nop2.1418 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [30/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
4      CHEN and FAN

0.23 (t = 3.75, p = .038). However, removing independent learning
from the second-­order model did not improve the fit indices of the
model (Table 1). The target coefficient was 0.98 (Brown, 2015). The
six first-­order factors and the five first-­order one second-­order fac-
tors demonstrated comparable and acceptable fits. Hoelter's Critical
N was 204.66, which indicated that the sample size for data analysis
was enough.
Most TC-­SDRLS items have factor loadings above 0.50, with
ranges of 0.59–­0.84 for love of learning, 0.56–­0.73 for active
learning, 0.57–­0.76 for effective learning, 0.64–­0.77 for indepen-
dent learning, 0.59–­0.73 for learning motivation and 0.48–­0.70 for
creative learning. The estimates of all items were statistically signif-
icant and were loaded on a pre-­destinated latent factor. Therefore,
convergent validity was supported (Brown, 2015). The internal con-
sistency for the revised TC-­SDLRS was examined. All Cronbach's
alpha (α = 0.71–­0.88) and composite reliability (CR = 0.76–­0.86) for
the total scale and the subscales exceeded the recommended values
satisfactory, indicating that the internal consistency between items
was sufficient (Table 1). The 37-­item six first-­order model was fur-
ther validated by EFA and explained 53.30% of the total variance.
The love of learning (6 items) explained 26.54% of the variance.
Other factors, namely active learning (8 items), effective learning (6
items), independent learning (7 items), learning motivation (5 items)
and creative learning (5 items), contributed 8.51%, 5.85%, 5.53%,
3.54%, and 3.33% of the variance, respectively. The calculated KMO
was 0.886, and Bartlett's test of sphericity was statistically signif-
icant (χ2  =  4,108.05, p < .001). The communality of all items was
above 0.34. The eigenvalues of factors were >1, with factor load-
ings ranging from 0.33 to 0.74 (Table 2). After the EFA, concurrent
validity and predictive validity were performed. Significant correla-
tions between the scores of the CTDI and TC-­SDRLS were found;
thus, concurrent validity of the TC-­SDLRS was supported (Table 3).
The TC-­SDLRS score was also significantly associated with midterm
(r = .333, p = .036) and final grades (r = .321, p = .043) of the stu-
dents' physical assessment course. Predictive validity was also sup-
ported. Correlation analyses between the short and original versions
also reached statistically significant (r =  .22–­.81).

5  |  D I S C U S S I O N

The TC-­SDLRS aims to measure an individual's readiness for attitudes

F I G U R E 1  Confirmatory factor analysis of the TC-­SDLRS.
Active, active learning; Creative, creative learning; Effective,
effective learning; Independent, independent learning; Love, love
of learning; Motivation, learning motivation; SDL, self-­directed
learning.
and skills related to SDLR such as individual ability to initiate learn-
ing autonomously, task control and a deep desire for learning (Dehnad
et al., 2014; Fisher et al., 2001). The items were revised following the
original concepts identified by Deng (1995) to maintain the scale's
comprehensive profile. The group of experts also agreed with the item
determination. The CFA findings showed that all items were loaded
on the predetermined factor, indicating that the items may represent
the underlying constructs. Correlations between the original factor
and the short version of the TC-­SDLRS were significant. The factorial
structure was also validated by the findings of EFA and CFA as a six-­
factor solution structure. The similarity of the underlying constructs

TA B L E 1  Fit statistics of comparative models for the TC-­SDLRS

Model χ 2 (df) χ 2/df AIC NFI CFI GFI RMSEA

6 first-­order factors (n = 42) 2,578.79 (804) 3.21 2,776.79 0.92 0.95 0.76 0.0748
6 first-­order factors (n = 37) 1,513.29 (614) 2.46 1847.78 0.95 0.97 0.81 0.0660
6 first-­order factors (error terms) 1,445.92 (611) 2.36 1,629.94 0.95 0.97 0.84 0.0588
6 first-­order 1 second-­order 1,479.93 (620) 2.38 1,645.93 0.95 0.97 0.83 0.0593
5 first-­order 1 second-­order 1,028.21 (397) 2.59 1,164.21 0.96 0.98 0.85 0.0634

Abbreviations: AIC, Akaike information criterion; CFI, comparative fit index; GFI, goodness of fit index; NFI, normed fit index; RMSEA, root mean
square error of approximation.
 |

20541058, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nop2.1418 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [30/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CHEN and FAN       5

TA B L E 2  Factor loadings of the EFA

Factor
Factors and items (Cronbach's α) loading

Factors 1. Learning motivation (α = 0.78)

1 I always want to learn 0.506
4 I like to learn 0.556
11 There is so much I want to learn that I wish I could have more hours each day for learning 0.543
20 I am willing to learn something new even if I am not sure of the outcome 0.436
36 I am a good learner, whether I am studying in the classroom or on my own 0.380
Factors 2. Independent learning (α = 0.72)
2 When I do not know something, I leave it aside 0.623
5 I cannot complete a good job independently 0.587
7 Sometimes I do not know how to start even though I have great ideas 0.579
14 It does not matter if I do not understand something completely as long as I can get good grades 0.554
18 I am not as interested in learning as others are 0.579
21 I do not like people pointing out my mistakes 0.642
29 I do not like to learn difficult things 0.535
Factors 3. Active learning (α = 0.80)
3 I try to learn everything I would like to know 0.692
6 I know where to get the materials necessary for my studies 0.579
8 I want to be involved in deciding what and how to study during my learning process 0.487
9 I am enthusiastic about learning things I am interested in 0.703
12 Once I have made my decision to learn, I will continue to learn no matter how busy I am 0.602
13 I know when I need to work hard to learn more 0.495
15 I can independently learn all the things that I need to know 0.340
19 When I decide to explore something, I will always take it up 0.437
Factors 4. Effective learning (α = 0.77)
10 I know how to learn effectively 0.351
22 I am good at proposing new methods of doing things 0.703
24 I am better at identifying things to learn than most people are 0.612
25 I am not held back by difficult questions 0.459
26 I am good at problem solving 0.713
27 I can serve as a leader in the learning community 0.637
Factors 5. Creative learning (α = 0.71)
16 I am excited about exploring possible answers to a problem 0.327
17 I like to learn challenging things 0.370
23 I like to think about the future 0.341
28 I like to exchange ideas about things with others 0.674
37 I wonder if I can solve difficult problems independently 0.670
Factors 6. Love of learning (α = 0.88)
30 I am excited about trying to learn something new 0.644
31 The more I learn, the better I find my world 0.730
32 Learning is an interesting activity 0.741
33 I want to learn more because it makes me a better person 0.725
34 I will continue to learn no matter how old I am 0.742
35 I will learn for life 0.686

was supported. The model showed the best fits of indices. The six factors are consistent with the characteristics of highly self-­directed
factors were the love of learning, active learning, effective learning, learners who are more motivated to learn and accept their learn-
independent learning, learning motivation and creative learning. These ing responsibilities (Mentz & Oosthuizen, 2016; Shirazi et al., 2021).
 |

20541058, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nop2.1418 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [30/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
6      CHEN and FAN

TA B L E 3  Reliability and concurrent validity for the TC-­SDLRS

Factors Items CR Sys. Cure Mind Refl. Dispos.

Learning motivation 5 0.84 0.38*** 0.46*** 0.32*** 0.34*** 0.43***

Independent learning 7 0.80 0.20*** 0.23*** 0.23*** 0.13* 0.25***
Active learning 8 0.86 0.42*** 0.34*** 0.35*** 0.32*** 0.46***
Effective learning 6 0.84 0.40*** 0.40*** 0.20*** 0.36*** 0.48***
Creative learning 5 0.76 0.44*** 0.56*** 0.36*** 0.39*** 0.51***
Love of learning 6 0.86 0.33*** 0.38*** 0.28*** 0.34*** 0.45***
SDL 37 0.94 0.51*** 0.56*** 0.43*** 0.44*** 0.57***

Abbreviations: Cure, intellectually curious; Dispos., critical thinking disposition; Mind, open-­minded; Refl., overall and reflection; SDL, self-­directed
learning; Sys, systematic and analytical.
***p < .001;; *p < .05.

Self-­directed learners are enthusiastic and curious about learning, set
their own learning goals and learn independently. Active learners are
more effective than passive ones. Learners may use different resources
to facilitate their learning, strive to meet the requirements and use
creative approaches to solve problems (Buthelezi & Phahamane, 2016;
Deng, 1995).
A higher-­order factor analysis was applied for theory testing
and to clarify the patterns of relationships among first-­order factors
(Brown,  2015). Statistical fits revealed that the six first-­order and
second-­order factors of the TC-­SDLRS were acceptable, indicating
that the observed variables could be aggregated in this model to rep-
resent the underlying concept of SDLR. The factor loading of inde-
pendent learning was 0.32 in the second-­order model, which maybe
because of the reverse worded items of observed variables. Adding
reverse worded items on a scale is a common strategy to reduce
or eliminate acquiescence bias, a respondent tendency, whereby
participants provide a specific answer regardless of its content (van
Sonderen et al., 2013; Vigil-­Colet et al., 2020). Our findings, similar
to the previous findings in the literature (Suárez-­Álvarez et al., 2018;
Vigil-­Colet et al., 2020) showed that a combination of positive and
reversed items might risk the scale's unidimensionality. The study
for scale development should consider the potential effect of inat-
tentive or acquiescent answering resulting from reversed items or
lengthy scale and balance the effect of acquiescence bias and lin-
guistic barriers. Although the factor loading of independent learning
was 0.32, the path was statistically significant. The latent factor did
not reduce test reliability or worsen the model fits. Conversely, even
with a minor degree of freedom, the statistic fitness worsens after
the deletion of the factor. Therefore, independent learning can be
used as a single sub-­score or counted into a total score, especially
in a repeated measurement design, because the method may lessen
confounding effects by reducing the sources of error and the vari-
ance of test scores (van Sonderen et al., 2013).
Concurrent validities were supported by significant associations
between the TC-­
SDLRS and critical thinking disposition scores.
Consistent with previous study results (Kang et al., 2020; Turan &
Ko, 2018), the findings demonstrated that higher levels of the SDLR
were associated with a more critically oriented thinking disposition.
Critical thinking disposition was also a significant predictive factor of
SDL (Turan & Ko, 2018). The process of SDL is closely related to indi-
vidual intellectual characteristics and thinking skills. Individuals may
learn more effectively if they are aware of their cognitive processes
and can successfully plan their learning or daily life. The TC-­SDLRS
score was also significantly associated with the midterm and final
grades of the students' physical assessment course. The course cur-
riculum was designed using SDL to teach students assessment skills
(Chen & Liu, 2021), and the TC-­SDLRS score was collected at the
beginning of the course. Thus, the predictive validity was supported.
SDL is significantly associated with lifelong learning (Chukwuedo
et al., 2021), an essential characteristic of professional development.
Readiness for SDL can be developed (Noh & Kim,  2019), and the
ability to learn self-­directly in one situation or environment cannot
be generalized to other contexts (Buthelezi & Phahamane,  2016;
Fisher et al., 2001; Turan & Ko, 2018). Teaching students to learn
self-­directly is difficult because the SDLR is highly personalized.
Some learners may be highly self-­
directed, whereas others may
strongly prefer specific and direct instruction when learning (Chen &
Liu, 2021). Implementing self-­directed teaching strategies may lead
to negative feelings, such as anxiety and frustration, if students are
not adequately prepared (Zhang, 2020). To improve students' com-
petence in SDL, teachers and learners must be familiar with the con-
cept and the possess basic skills to implement it. Evaluating learners'
readiness for SDL could enable faculty to understand the extent of
SDL learning capacity and design appropriate teaching activities for
more favourable outcomes.
6  |  LI M ITATI O N S
Despite the rigorous methodology used to validate the reliability and
validity of the scale, generalization of the study results may be lim-
ited. The study was a survey design, and a self-­report bias cannot be
excluded. Furthermore, a convenience sample was recruited from
two universities in Taiwan, and selection bias may arise. Finally, the
SDLR is an individualized feature. Future studies using a multigroup
comparison in different contexts or cultures could assess measure-
ment invariance of the scale to ensure equivalent interpretation. As
a result, the utility of the scale may be improved.

CHEN and FAN
7  |   CO N C LU S I O N
The psychometric properties of the short version of the TC-­SDLRS
were examined. Validity was examined using content validity, EFA
and CFA. Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability assessed reli-
ability. The concurrent and predictive validity of the TC-­SDLRS were
also acceptable, as the C-­SDLRS score was significantly associated
with the CTDI and can predict students' academic scores. The in-
ternal consistency of the scale was also satisfactory. The study find-
ings provided evidence supporting that the TC-­SDLRS has sound
psychometric properties. Furthermore, compared with the original
version, the short version of the TC-­SDLRS has fewer items and is
more manageable for a respondent to fill out. According to the CFA
findings, independent learning can be used as a single sub-­score
or counted into a composite score, especially when the study is a
repeated measurement design. The scale could help educators di-
agnose learners' readiness for SDL, incorporate teaching activities
regarding learning how to learn and foster students' capacity for
SDL to meet future challenges.
AU T H O R C O N T R I B U T I O N S
Shiah-­Lian Chen and Jun-­Yu Fan contributed to study conception
and design, data collection, drafting of the article and critical revi-
sion of the article. Shiah-­Lian Chen contributed to data analysis and
interpretation.
All authors have agreed on the final version and meet at least one
of the following criteria [recommended bythe ICMJE (http://www.
icmje.org/recom​menda​tions/)]:
• substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition
of data or analysis and interpretation of data;
• drafting the article or revising it critically for important intel-
lectual content.
F U N D I N G I N FO R M AT I O N
This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology
[grant numbers: MOST 104-­2511-­S-­025 -­0 01 -­MY2], Taiwan, ROC.
This work was also supported by a grant from the Administration
Center of the Mdical Research Department, Chang Gung Memorial
Hospital, Taiwan, ROC: Grant No. BMRPB80, which was awarded to
the corresponding author.
C O N FL I C T O F I N T E R E S T
No conflict of interest has been declared by the authors.
DATA AVA I L A B I L I T Y S TAT E M E N T
Author elects to not share data.
E T H I C S S TAT E M E N T
The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of
the China Medical University and Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan
(CRREC-­104-­103).
ORCID
Shiah-­Lian Chen  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7990-8270
|
20541058, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nop2.1418 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [30/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
      7
REFERENCES
Alfaifi, M. S. (2016). Self-­directed learning readiness among undergradu-
ate students at Saudi Electronic University in Saudi Arabia. https://
schol​arcom​mons.usf.edu/etd/6449
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (3rd
ed.). The Guilford Press.
Buthelezi, T., & Phahamane, P. (2016). Academic writing supported by
digital technologies and INcwadi-­Mkhaphi (book-­guide) in isi-
Zulu folk-­poetry education. In E. Mentz & I. Oosthuizen (Eds.),
directed learning research (pp. 239–­270). Aosis. https://doi.
Self-­
org/10.4102/aosis.2016.sdlr14.09
Cadorin, L., Bortoluzzi, G., & Palese, A. (2013). The Self-­Rating Scale of
Self-­Directed Learning (SRSSDL): A factor analysis of the Italian
version. Nurse Education Today, 33(12), 1511–­1516. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.04.010
Cadorin, L., Bressan, V., & Palese, A. (2017). Instruments evaluating the
self-­directed learning abilities among nursing students and nurses:
A systematic review of psychometric properties. BMC Medical
Education, 17(1), 229. https://doi.org/10.1186/s1290​9-­017-­1072-­3
Cadorin, L., Cheng, S. F., & Palese, A. (2016). Concurrent validity of self-­
rating scale of self-­ directed learning and self-­
directed learning
instrument among Italian nursing students. BMC Nursing, 15, 20.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s1291​2-­016-­0142-­x
Chen, C.-­M., & Liang, J.-­J. (2009). A study of recurrent education stu-
dents' perception and measurement instrument upon self-­directed
learning in higher education. Journal of the Taichung University of
Education, 23(2), 205–­230 [in Chinese].
Chen, S.-­L ., & Liu, C.-­C . (2021). Development and evaluation of a physical
examination and health assessment course. Nurse Education Today,
107, 105116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2021.105116
Chen, Y. L., Hsu, L.-­L ., & Hsieh, S.-­I. (2012). Clinical nurse preceptor
teaching competencies: Relationship to locus of control and self-­
directed learning. The Journal of Nursing Research, 20(2), 142–­151.
https://doi.org/10.1097/JNR.0b013​e3182​54ea72
Cheng, S. F., Kuo, C. L., Lin, K. C., & Lee-­Hsieh, J. (2010). Development
and preliminary testing of a self-­rating instrument to measure self-­
directed learning ability of nursing students. International Journal
of Nursing Studies, 47(9), 1152–­1158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnur​
stu.2010.02.002
Chukwuedo, S. O., Mbagwu, F. O., & Ogbuanya, T. C. (2021). Motivating
academic engagement and lifelong learning among vocational
and adult education students via self-­ direction in learning.
Learning and Motivation, 74, 101729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
lmot.2021.101729
Cleary, M., Kornhaber, R., Thapa, D. K., West, S., & Visentin, D. (2020). A
systematic review of behavioral outcomes for leadership interven-
tions among health professionals. Journal of Nursing Research, 28(5),
e118. https://doi.org/10.1097/jnr.00000​0 0000​0 00397
Dehnad, A., Afsharian, F., Hosseini, F., Arabshahi, S. K. S., & Bigdeli, S.
(2014). Pursuing a definition of self-­directed learning in literature
from 2000–­2012. Procedia -­Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116,
5184–­5187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1097
Deng, Y. L. (1995). Adult teaching and self-­directed learning. Wu-­Nan
Bookstore.
Field, L. (1991). Guglielmino's Self-­Directed Learning Readiness Scale:
Should it continue to be used? Adult Education Quarterly, 41(2),
100–­103. https://doi.org/10.1177/00018​48191​0 4100​2004
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. https://doi.org/10.1054/nedt.2001.0589
Fisher, M. J., & King, J. (2010). She Self-­Directed Learning Readiness
Scale for nursing education revisited: A confirmatory factor analy-
sis. Nurse Education Today, 30(1), 44–­48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
nedt.2009.05.020
Fujino-­Oyama, Y., Maeda, R., Maru, M., & Inoue, T. (2016). Validating
the Japanese Self-­Directed Learning Readiness Scale for nursing
 |
8      CHEN and FAN
education. The Journal of Nursing Education, 55(2), 65–­71. https://
doi.org/10.3928/01484​834-­20160​114-­02
Guglielmino, L. M. (1977). Development of the Self-­ Directed Learning
Readiness Scale (publication number 38[11a]) [unpublished doc-
toral dissertation, University of Georgia]. Dissertation Abstracts
International.
Kang, S. J., Hong, C. M., & Lee, H. (2020). The impact of virtual simula-
tion on critical thinking and self-­directed learning ability of nurs-
ing students. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 49, 66–­72. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecns.2020.05.008
Kaulback, M. K. (2020). Correlating self-­directed learning abilities to life-
long learning orientation in baccalaureate nursing students. Nurse
Educator, 45(6), 347–­351. https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidw​eb.cgi?T=-
JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fullt​ext&D=yrovf​t w&AN=00006​
223-­20201​1000-­0 0025
Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self directed learning. Follet.
Mentz, E., & Oosthuizen, I. (2016). Self-­directed learning research. AOSIS
(Pty) Ltd.
Noh, G. O., & Kim, D. H. (2019). Effectiveness of a self-­directed learning
program using blended coaching among nursing students in clin-
ical practice: A quasi-­experimental research design. BMC Medical
Education, 19(1), 225. https://doi.org/10.1186/s1290​9-­019-­1672-­1
Shirazi, F., Sharif, F., Molazem, Z., & Etemaad, J. (2021). The character-
istics that propel Iranian MS students of nursing into self-­directed
learning: A qualitative research. Journal of Professional Nursing,
37(4), 749–­756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profn​urs.2021.05.001
Suárez-­Álvarez, J., Pedrosa, I., Lozano, L. M., García-­Cueto, E., Cuesta,
M., & Muñiz, J. (2018). Using reversed items in Likert scales: A
questionable practice. Psicothema, 30(2), 149–­158. https://doi.
org/10.7334/psico​thema​2018.33
Tough, A. M. (1979). The adult's learning projects. The Ontario Institute for
studies in Education.
Turan, M. B., & Ko, K. (2018). The impact of self-­directed learning read-
iness on critical thinking and self-­efficacy among the students of
the school of physical education and sports. International Journal
of Higher Education, 7(6), 98–­105. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fullt​ext/
EJ119​9445.pdf
20541058, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nop2.1418 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [30/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
van Sonderen, E., Sanderman, R., & Coyne, J. C. (2013). Ineffectiveness
of reverse wording of questionnaire items: Let's learn from cows
in the rain. PLoS ONE, 8(7), e68967. https://doi.org/10.1371/journ​
al.pone.0068967
Vigil-­Colet, A., Navarro-­González, D., & Morales-­V ives, F. (2020). To
reverse or to not reverse Likert-­type items: That is the question.
Psicothema, 32(1), 108–­114. https://doi.org/10.7334/psico​thema​
2019.286
Williamson, S. N. (2007). Development of a Self-­Rating Scale of Self-­
Directed Learning. Nurse Researcher, 14(2), 66–­83. http://search.
ebsco ​ h ost.com/login.aspx?direc ​ t =true&db=rzh& AN=20095​
13428​&lang=zh-­t w&site=ehost​-­live
Wong, F. M. F., Tang, A. C. Y., & Cheng, W. L. S. (2021). Factors associated
with self-­directed learning among undergraduate nursing students:
A systematic review. Nurse Education Today, 104, 104998. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2021.104998
Yeh, Y. (1999). A study of substitute teachers' professional knowledge,
personal teaching efficacy, and teaching behavior in critical think-
ing instruction the national Chengchi. University Journal, 78, 54–­8 4
[in Chinese].
Zhang, X. (2020). Assessment for learning in constrained contexts: How
does the teacher's self-­directed development play out? Studies in
Educational Evaluation, 66, 100909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stued​
uc.2020.100909
How to cite this article: Chen, S.-L., & Fan, J.-Y. (2022).
Validation of the psychometric properties of the Self-­
Directed Learning Readiness Scale. Nursing Open, 00, 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.1418