NEDT 01-0589 Murray.

qxd 9/6/01 11:18 AM Page 516

Article

Development of a
self-directed learning
readiness scale for nursing
education
Murray Fisher, Jennifer King and Grace Tague

Self-directed learning is a method of instruction used increasingly in adult education. A scale

was developed in response to a need for a valid and reliable instrument to measure self-directed
learning readiness. Such a scale will allow nurse educators to diagnose students’ attitudes,
abilities and personality characteristics, necessary for self-directed learning.
Murray Fisher
RN, ITU Cert, This study was undertaken in two stages. In the first, the Delphi technique utilizing a panel of
DipAppSc (Nursing) 11 nurse educator experts was used to assess the content and construct validity of a number of
(CCES), BHSc (UTS),
MHPEd (UNSW), items perceived to reflect self-directed learning readiness. Each panel member was asked to
MRCNA, Lecturer, independently rate the relevance of each item on a Likert scale. The second stage involved the
Faculty of Nursing
(M02), The
administration of the questionnaire to a convenience sample of 201 undergraduate nursing
University of students. The questionnaire was analysed using principal components factor analysis with
Sydney, New South
Wales 2006,
varimax rotation, Chronbach’s coefficient alpha, and item-to-total correlations to measure the
Australia. Tel: scale’s construct validity, internal consistency (reliability), and unidimensionality, respectively.
+61 2 9351 0587;
The resulting self-directed learning readiness scale appears homogeneous and valid. The scale
Fax: +61 2 9351
0654; E-mail: will assist nurse educators in the diagnosis of student learning needs, in order for the educator
mfisher@nursing. to implement teaching strategies that will best suit the students. Furthermore the development
usyd.edu.au
Jennifer King RN, of this scale will provide valuable data for curriculum development. © 2001 Harcourt Publishers
BA (Hons) (USyd), Ltd
Research Officer,
Faculty of Nursing,
The University of
Sydney, New South Introduction best opportunity for learning (Guglielmino 1977,
Wales 2006,
Wiley 1983, O’Kell 1988, Grow 1991). In both
Australia Self-directed learning (SDL) is a method of
Grace Tague RN, undergraduate and postgraduate nursing
COTN, BA instruction used increasingly in adult education programs, there is wide use of SDL in the form of
(W’gong),DipEd within tertiary institutions. Self-directed learning clinical logs, contracts, problem-based packages
(Nursing)(SCAE), can be defined in terms of the amount of
MEd(USyd), and distance learning packages. This study aimed
FCON(NSW), responsibility the learner accepts for his or her to develop an instrument designed to measure
Lecturer, Faculty of own learning. The self-directed learner takes SDL readiness in nursing students undertaking
Nursing, The control and accepts the freedom to learn what
University of studies in a tertiary educational setting.
Sydney, New South they view as important for themselves. The
Wales 2006, degree of control the learner is willing to take
Australia over their own learning will depend on their Literature review
(Requests for off
prints to MF) attitude, abilities and personality characteristics.
Defining self-directed learning
Manuscript Readiness for SDL exists along a continuum and
accepted: is present in all individuals to some extent. The In the original work of Knowles (1975, p.18) SDL
14 March 2001
Published online: literature supports the contention that matching is defined as ‘a process in which individuals take
15 June 2001 teaching delivery with SDL readiness offers the the initiative, with or without the help of others,

516 Nurse Education Today (2001) 21, 516–525 © 2001 Harcourt Publishers Ltd
doi:10.1054/nedt.2001.0589, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on
NEDT 01-0589 Murray.qxd 9/6/01 11:18 AM Page 517

Self-directed learning readiness scale for nursing education

in diagnosing their learning needs, formulating possess the same amount of readiness in a new,
learning goals, identifying human and material unfamiliar context. This is not to say that several
resources for learning, choosing and skills and personality characteristics would not
implementing appropriate learning strategies and be transferable to a different situation. However,
evaluating learning outcomes’. In defining SDL, for a person to be self-directed in a specific
two aspects need to be explored: firstly SDL as a content area, that person must possess a certain
process or method of learning (Knowles 1975, level of knowledge in that area. For example, a
Long 1990) and secondly, in terms of personality person highly self-directed in mathematics may
characteristics that are required and developed as not possess the same amount of readiness for
an outcome of SDL (Oddi 1986, 1987). English. It is therefore concluded that measuring
Knowles (1975, 1990) described two opposite SDL readiness needs to be done within a specific
poles of a continuum of learning, with teacher- or context.
other-directed (pedagogical) learning at one end Readiness for SDL is individualized, which
and self-directed (andragogical) at the other. accounts for the varying degrees along the
According to Knowles (1990) the pedagogical continuum. The Staged Self-directed Learning
learner is dependent on the teacher to identify Model was developed to allow for the individual
learning needs, formulate objectives, plan and differences inherent in such a continuum (Grow
implement learning activities and evaluate 1991, Tennant 1992). Evidence has found that
learning. The pedagogical learner prefers to learn those students who have low readiness for SDL
in highly structured situations such as lectures and are exposed to a SDL project, exhibit high
and tutorials. Conversely, the andragogical levels of anxiety, and similarly those learners
learner prefers to take responsibility for meeting with a high readiness for SDL who are exposed to
his or her own learning needs. The continuum of increasing levels of teacher direction also exhibit
teacher-versus self-direction can be described in high anxiety levels (Grow 1991, Wiley 1983).
terms of the amount of control the learner has There has been considerable research
over their learning and the amount of freedom conducted to determine the relationship between
given to them to evaluate their learning needs SDL readiness, preference for structure and
and to implement strategies to achieve their teaching preference of nurses. Wiley (1983)
learning goals. concluded that students who indicated
preference for high levels of structure and are
subjected to a SDL project, score low in SDL
Self-directed learning readiness
readiness. In contrast, those students who prefer
Self-directed learning readiness is defined as ‘the low structure and are subjected to a SDL project
degree the individual possesses the attitudes, score high in SDL readiness. O’Kell’s (1988) study
abilities and personality characteristics necessary matched lesson type with SDL readiness and
for self-directed learning’ (Wiley 1983, p.182). concluded that students who scored low in SDL
Inherent in this definition are several readiness preferred more teacher-led discussion,
assumptions about SDL readiness. Firstly, adults demonstration and lectures rather than
are inherently self-directing, i.e. readiness for independent projects, case studies and private
SDL exists along a continuum and is present in tutorials. These results indicated that there is a
individuals to an extent. Secondly, competencies definite correlation between SDL readiness and
required for self-direction can be developed to student preference for structured teaching
some extent and the best way to learn sessions.
autonomous behavior is to behave Self-directed learning projects are not for
autonomously. Finally, the ability to learn everyone and may cause extreme anxiety and
independently in one situation or context can be frustration in some students (Dyck 1986).
generalized to other settings (Candy 1991, Richardson (1988), in evaluating self-directed
Guglielmino 1989). independent study contracts with undergraduate
This final assumption must be met with nursing students, identified that a negative
caution. It would be inadvisable to assume that a experience resulted from either over-direction or
person who possesses high levels of readiness for under-direction from the teacher. Since readiness
self-direction in a given situation would still for SDL is individualized, so should be the

© 2001 Harcourt Publishers Ltd Nurse Education Today (2001) 21, 516–525 517
NEDT 01-0589 Murray.qxd 9/6/01 11:18 AM Page 518

Self-directed learning readiness scale for nursing education

amount and type of teacher direction. If students develop and pilot an instrument measuring SDL
resent independent learning projects, a more readiness.
pedagogical approach to instruction needs to be
utilized.
Method
This study was conducted in 2 stages. Stage 1
Self-directed learning readiness scales
used a modified Reactive Delphi technique to
The instrument most widely used in educational develop and determine content validity of the
and nursing research to measure SDL readiness is SDLR scale. Stage 2 incorporated the distribution
Guglielmino’s (1977) Self-directed Learning of the scale to a convenience sample of
Readiness Scale (SDLRS) (Wiley 1983, O’Kell undergraduate nursing students to determine
1988, Linares 1989, 1999). Issues have been raised scale construct validity and internal consistency.
concerning the cost, validity and use of this Ethics approval for the study was obtained from
instrument. Based on problems with validity the University of Sydney Human Ethics
testing of this instrument, Field (1989) and Candy Committee.
(1991) suggest discontinuing this tool.
Furthermore, there has been significant
Stage 1: Instrument development
questioning of the construct validity of the
SDLRS (Field 1989, 1991; Straka 1995, Straka & The literature was extensively surveyed to
Hinz 1996). Field (1989) identified that the compile a list of attitudes, abilities and
strongest item-to-score correlations for the SDLRS personality characteristics of a self-directed
were produced by those items dealing with love learner. A bank of items was developed drawing
and/or enthusiasm for learning (17.6% of total from the work of Chickering (1964), Gugliemino
variance) and those items that appear to be (1977), Knowles (1975, 1990) and Candy (1991).
intimately connected with readiness for SDL have Considerable attention was given to developing
low correlations with total SDLRS scores (less clear and unambiguous items. When items were
than 5% for each factor). developed, care was taken to use simple language
Replication of the eight-factor structure and short sentences that were neither double-
model of the SDLRS has proved difficult barrelled nor leading. The completed bank
(Field 1989, 1991; Straka 1996). Some studies comprised 93 items which were deemed to reflect
have raised questions about the reliability the perceived attributes, skills and motivational
of Guglielmino’s SDLRS when used in factors required of self-directed learners.
different racial and class populations (Long &
Agyckum 1983, 1984; Straka 1995). Long and
The Delphi technique
Agyckum (1984) failed to validate the SDLRS
when comparing SDL readiness scores and The Delphi technique utilizes an expert panel to
teacher ratings and concluded that it was reach consensus for a specific purpose. This
possible that the SDLRS does not measure approach is widely applied to the development of
self-direction in learning. Bonham (1991) also research scales. In this study, a modified Reactive
reports concerns about the construct validity of Delphi technique was used to gain consensus
the SDLRS by questioning the meaning of low among an expert panel about the characteristics
scores. It was concluded that low scores do not required for SDL. Each member of the panel
measure low readiness for SDL, but rather individually and independently of other
dislike for any kind of learning, therefore, members responded to the item bank. The expert
construct validity was questionable for low panel comprised 11 nurse academics and nurse
SDLRS scores. educators with previous research and teaching
Even though scales such as Guglielmino’s experience in the area of SDL.
SDLRS have been developed, they are not readily
available and incur a cost for their use. The
Panel inclusion criteria
development of a new scale allows for the
problems associated with the use of the other Each panel member was required to have a
scales to be addressed. This study aimed to qualification in education and a minimum of

518 Nurse Education Today (2001) 21, 516–525 © 2001 Harcourt Publishers Ltd
NEDT 01-0589 Murray.qxd 9/6/01 11:18 AM Page 519

Self-directed learning readiness scale for nursing education

5 years’ teaching experience in nursing and/or Data analysis

tertiary education. The members of the expert
Principal components analysis with Varimax
panel were drawn from universities and
rotation was used to search for a general factor
hospitals, with representation from the
(SDL readiness) underlying all items in the
Australian Nurse Teachers’ Society. Each panel
instrument. To determine internal consistency,
member was invited to participate in the study by
Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was used.
telephone or mail. The item bank, an outline of
Correlations between individual scale items and
the research proposal and a consent form were
total score on the scale were also computed.
mailed to each panel member.
Each panel member independently evaluated
each item to determine the degree to which the Results
item measures a characteristic of a self-directed
Table 1 summarizes the results of the Delphi
learner. Each item was assessed using a 5-point
rounds. Following the first round of the Delphi
Likert scale where a score of 1 denoted ‘strongly
technique, 18 items were deleted from the item-
disagree’ and a score of 5 denoted ‘strongly
bank as there was less than 80% agreement
agree’. Panel members were given space to
amongst the expert panel for those items.
modify the item if they chose. The responses were
Seventeen items did not reach consensus, but less
returned to the researchers by mail using reply-
than 20% disagreed (i.e. 80% either ‘agreed’,
paid envelopes.
‘strongly agreed’ or were ‘unsure’) and were
The data were collated, coded and analysed
retained for the subsequent round. Agreement
using the Statistical Package for the Social
consensus was achieved for 58 items. A total of 75
Sciences (SPSS-X). For an item to be retained, a
items were included in the second Delphi round.
panel consensus for the item of at least 80%
After the second Delphi round, 23 items were
agreement had to be achieved. Items where
deleted as agreement consensus was not
agreement was not achieved, but where less than
achieved. Forty-five items did achieve agreement
20% disagreed (i.e. 80% either ‘agreed’, ‘strongly
consensus. Seven items did not reach consensus,
agreed’ or were ‘unsure’) were retained for the
but less than 20% of the panel disagreed (i.e. 80%
subsequent round.
either ‘agreed’, ‘strongly agreed’ or were
‘unsure’). Despite consensus not being achieved
Stage 2: Pilot study for these items, the researchers believed that
these items were important to the structure of the
A convenience sample of 201 students enrolled in
scale and were kept for further analysis. A third
the Bachelor of Nursing at the University of
Delphi round was not attempted because it was
Sydney was used. The questionnaire was
believed that the refinement was better achieved
administered to the student sample during the
by piloting the 52 items and using item–total
semester. The researchers distributed the
correlations for item selection.
instrument and an information sheet. Students
were invited to seek clarification, if needed.
Students anonymously returned the completed
Item unidimensionality
questionnaires to a labelled box. The students
were asked to describe themselves by indicating A unidimensional scale is one in which each item
on a 5-point Likert scale the extent to which the measures the same underlying concept, in this
item was descriptive of their own characteristics. case SDL. To test for unidimensionality, i.e.

Table 1 Summarized results of the Delphi rounds

Round Total items Items deleted ≥80% agreement Unsure but retained for
following stage

1 93 18 58 17
2 75 23 45 7

© 2001 Harcourt Publishers Ltd Nurse Education Today (2001) 21, 516–525 519
NEDT 01-0589 Murray.qxd 9/6/01 11:18 AM Page 520

Self-directed learning readiness scale for nursing education

whether the response on a particular item reflects As shown in the pattern matrix, Component I
the response on other items, item–total was defined by 13 of the pooled items. This
correlation coefficients were conducted with the component was labelled ‘self-management’ as the
results reported in Table 2. The higher the items reflected these characteristics. Component
coefficient for each item the more clearly the item II was defined by 13 items. As these items related
belongs to the scale. Generally, a coefficient of to the desire for learning, this component was
less than 0.30 suggests that the item should be labelled ‘desire for learning’. Component III was
dropped from the scale. Ten of the 52 items defined by 15 items, which related to
produced a coefficient less than 0.30 and hence characteristics of self-control.
were dropped from the scale.
Internal consistency reliability
Factor analysis
The internal consistency for each component was
A principal components analysis was performed estimated using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. The
on the remaining 42 items to determine whether computed values of Cronbach’s coefficient alpha
the combined item pool could be summarized by for the total item pool (n = 40), self-management
a smaller set of component scores. In this subscale (n = 13), the desire for learning subscale
procedure, scores for the 201 respondents were (n = 12) and the self control subscale (n = 15) were
intercorrelated and subjected to a principal 0.924, 0.857, 0.847 and 0.830 respectively.
components analysis. To assess whether the set of According to deVaus (1991), a scale with a
items in the correlation matrix was suitable for computed alpha greater than 0.70 is considered to
principal components analysis, the Kaiser-Meyer have an acceptable level of internal consistency
Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was (although the consistency for other types of
computed. If the KMO statistic yields high values scales, such as achievement tests, is generally
above 0.70, then correlations among items are expected to be at or above 0.80).
sufficiently high to make factor analysis suitable
(deVaus 1991). For this study, the KMO
computed was 0.844.
Discussion
The scree test from the initial principal The Guglielmino SDLRS has inherent problems
components analysis suggested that three relating to construct validity and reliability.
components be retained for interpretation, which Research has failed to confirm the factor structure
together accounted for 36.4% of the variance in of the Guglielmino SDLRS (Field 1989, 1991;
the item pool. As some of the components were Straka 1996). The purpose of this study was to
possibly correlated, these were initially rotated to develop a reliable and valid scale that measures
approximate a simple structure using both SDL readiness in nursing students. The resulting
oblique (direct oblimin) and orthogonal scale, comprised of 40 items, appeared to be both
(varimax) procedures. As the results of this homogeneous and valid. Exploratory factor
preliminary analysis indicated little degree of analysis revealed three subscales. Table 4
overlap between the resulting components, the presents the sample measures of central tendency
outcomes of the varimax rotation are presented in and dispersion for the total scale and subscales.
Table 3. Given that the total scores for this sample were
The traditional criterion of 0.30 was used to normally distributed, it can be concluded that a
determine loadings that should be retained for total score greater than 150 indicates readiness for
interpretation. On the basis of this criterion, most SDL.
of the items loaded uniquely on one of the three Evidence of content validity has been
components. In cases where items cross-loaded, established by the development of the scale items
the item was located with the higher component from the literature, assessment by a panel of
loading. Two items (I need to be in control of what I experts using the Delphi technique and testing
learn; and I often review the way nursing practices with exploratory factor analysis. However,
are conducted) did not load on any of the additional research is required to provide further
components using a cutoff loading of 0.30. These evidence of content validity. Further testing is
items were therefore dropped from the scale. necessary to determine whether this scale can

520 Nurse Education Today (2001) 21, 516–525 © 2001 Harcourt Publishers Ltd
NEDT 01-0589 Murray.qxd 9/6/01 11:18 AM Page 521

Self-directed learning readiness scale for nursing education

Table 2 Item-total correlation statistics

Item Mean SD Corrected Alpha

item–total if item deleted
correlation

I solve problems using a plan 4.3 1.059 .350 .920

I prioritize my work 4.9 .316 .386 .920
I like to solve (answer) puzzles/questions 4.2 .632 .251 .922
I manage my time well 4.9 .316 .559 .918
I have good management skills 4.5 .527 .504 .919
I set strict time frames 3.9 .876 .532 .919
I prefer to plan my own learning 4.6 .516 .345 .920
I prefer to direct my own learning 4.8 .422 .294 .921
I believe the role of the teacher is to act as a resource person 4.2 .632 .189 .922
I am systematic in my learning 3.8 .789 .477 .919
I am able to focus on a problem 4.2 .632 .375 .920
I often review the way nursing practices are conducted 4.4 .699 .317 .921
I need to know why 4.3 .675 .305 .921
I critically evaluate new ideas 4.4 .699 .477 .919
I prefer to set my own learning goals 4.6 .516 .484 .919
I am willing to change my ideas 4.3 .823 .197 .921
I will ask for help in my learning when necessary 4.5 .972 .281 .921
I am willing to accept advice from others 4.5 .707 .239 .921
I learn from my mistakes 4.4 .843 .381 .920
I will alter my practices when presented with the facts 4.2 .789 .289 .921
I am open to new learning opportunities 4.6 .699 .291 .921
I am open to new ideas 4.5 .707 .302 .921
When presented with a problem I cannot resolve, 4.1 .994 .363 .920
I will ask for assistance
I am responsible 4.4 .516 .467 .919
I like to evaluate what I do 4.3 .483 .574 .918
I have high personal expectations 4.1 .568 .497 .919
I have high personal standards 4.0 .667 .486 .919
I have high beliefs in my abilities 4.0 .943 .407 .920
I am aware of my own limitations 4.1 .568 .419 .920
I am assertive 3.9 .876 .261 .921
I am confident in my ability to search out information 4.8 .422 .409 .920
I enjoy studying 4.3 .675 .445 .920
I have a need to learn 4.3 .675 .522 .919
I enjoy a challenge 4.3 .823 .532 .919
I want to learn new information 4.2 .789 .520 .919
I enjoy learning new information 4.2 .789 .514 .919
I set specific times for my study 4.1 1.197 .551 .918
I am self disciplined 4.6 .516 .562 .918
I like to gather the facts before I make a decision 4.2 .632 .496 .919
I am organized 4.5 .707 .517 .919
I am logical 4.1 .738 .490 .919
I am methodical 3.9 .738 .568 .918
I evaluate my own performance 4.3 .675 .554 .918

© 2001 Harcourt Publishers Ltd Nurse Education Today (2001) 21, 516–525 521
NEDT 01-0589 Murray.qxd 9/6/01 11:18 AM Page 522

Self-directed learning readiness scale for nursing education

I prefer to set my own criteria on which to evaluate 4.1 .876 .467 .919
my performance
I am responsible for my own decisions/actions 4.3 .949 .396 .920
I can be trusted to pursue my own learning 4.7 .483 .507 .919
I can find out information for myself 4.6 .516 .341 .920
I need minimal help to find information 4.0 .816 .228 .921
I like to make decisions for myself 4.1 .994 .334 .920
I prefer to set my own goals 4.4 .699 .464 .919
I am in control of my life 4.0 .471 .332 .920
I need to be in control of what I learn 4.1 .876 .368 .920

identify contrasting groups, i.e. high versus low reach consensus and produce a forecast when the
readiness for SDL, across diverse cultural groups. Delphi sequence is initiated with a
A criticism of the Guglielmino SDLRS is poor predetermined list of items. Rather than
reliability and an inability to replicate its factor conducting a third round, the items were pilot
structure across different racial groups. Research tested and subsequently analysed, as it was
is required to confirm the factor structure of the believed that item to total correlations provided a
current scale when applied to different racial more accurate method of item selection.
groups. Furthermore, research is required to The development of this scale will allow
provide evidence of the ability of this scale to teachers to match their instructional design with
predict student performance. There is also a need student’s readiness for SDL. Grow (1991) outlines
to determine whether a positive correlation exists a staged self-directed learning model where
between SDL readiness scores and academic learners advance through stages of increasing
performance, when students are subjected to SDL self-direction. Through their method of teaching
as a teaching strategy. and level of control, teachers can help or hinder
Prior to the use of this scale, some of the items the learner’s development through the stages. It
need to be rephrased into negatively worded is anticipated that this scale will provide the
items and a reverse scoring system used. This diagnostic data which teachers can use to assess
will prevent responder bias and reduce the either individuals or groups of student’s
opportunity for respondents to just scan over the readiness for SDL. The scale was developed in
items and give a similar score to each item. order to measure readiness for SDL in nursing
Suggested items for this purpose include I am students. The initial item bank included items
poor at managing my time: I dislike studying; I am with specific nursing context. However, after
disorganized; and I am not in control of my life. As a distributing the item bank to a panel of nurse
result of these changes, a confirmatory factor experts and piloting the scale on nursing
analysis is required. students, the subsequent scale no longer contains
The Delphi technique used in this study was items that refer specifically to nursing.
modified. Firstly, the statistical summary of the Consequently, this scale could potentially be used
panel’s response for each item was not provided in other student populations.
to the panel members at the administration of the
second round of the questionnaire. It was
believed that this feedback may have influenced
Conclusion
the panel members’ responses, particularly for In conclusion, the Self-directed Learning
the items where respondents found it difficult to Readiness Scale developed and piloted in this
make a choice. Therefore each panel member was study appears homogeneous and valid. This scale
blind to the other members opinions. Secondly, will be readily available to nurse educators,
the scale was only subjected to two rounds of the making it a cost-efficient research and
Delphi technique. A third round was considered educational tool. This scale will assist nurse
unnecessary as consensus had been achieved for educators in the diagnosis of student learning
90.5% of items in round two. According to needs, in order for the educator to implement
Couper (1984), two rounds may be sufficient to teaching strategies that will best suit the students.

522 Nurse Education Today (2001) 21, 516–525 © 2001 Harcourt Publishers Ltd
NEDT 01-0589 Murray.qxd 9/6/01 11:18 AM Page 523

Self-directed learning readiness scale for nursing education

Table 3 Rotated Factor Matrix

Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

I manage my time well .758 .019 .182

I am self disciplined .701 .217 .113
I am organized .694 .093 .179
I set strict time frames .615 .175 .158
I have good management skills .606 .053 .230
I am methodical .597 .189 .304
I am systematic in my learning .573 .156 .118
I set specific times for my study .514 .177 .223
I solve problems using a plan .510 .278 –.135
I prioritize my work .487 .095 .022
I can be trusted to pursue my own learning .423 .209 .322
I prefer to plan my own learning .363 .051 .195
I am confident in my ability to search out information .315 .207 .223

I want to learn new information .172 .845 .007

I enjoy learning new information .194 .830 –.002
I have a need to learn .338 .745 – .046
I enjoy a challenge .157 .690 .180
I enjoy studying .339 .611 –.083
I critically evaluate new ideas .204 .465 .224
I like to gather the facts before I make a decision .282 .438 .225
I like to evaluate what I do .334 .419 .367
I am open to new ideas –.023 .404 .176
I learn from my mistakes .067 .403 .299
I need to know why –.055 .384 .304
When presented with a problem I cannot resolve, I will ask for assistance .152 .308 .220
I often review the way nursing practices are conducted – .012 .295 .285
I need to be in control of what I learn .183 .267 .260

I prefer to set my own goals .103 .067 .681

I like to make decisions for myself – .037 .027 .600
I am responsible for my own decisions/actions –.042 .335 .527
I am in control of my life .232 –.107 .474
I have high personal standards .231 .209 .473
I prefer to set my own learning goals .263 .128 .452
I evaluate my own performance .433 .219 .447
I am logical .417 .102 .443
I am responsible .360 .052 .439
I have high personal expectations .218 .339 .434
I am able to focus on a problem .228 .102 .412
I am aware of my own limitations .149 .245 .408
I can find out information for myself .216 .044 .381
I have high beliefs in my abilities .215 .239 .380
I prefer to set my own criteria on which to evaluate my performance .295 .236 .362

© 2001 Harcourt Publishers Ltd Nurse Education Today (2001) 21, 516–525 523
NEDT 01-0589 Murray.qxd 9/6/01 11:18 AM Page 524

Self-directed learning readiness scale for nursing education

Table 4 Subscale and total scores and measures of central tendency

Subscale 1: Subscale 2: Desire Subscale 3: Total score

Self-management for learning Self-control

Mean 44.26 47.31 58.98 150.55

SD 8.04 6.62 6.98 18.34
Median 44 47 58 149
Mode 46 47 58 150
Minimum 24 27 41 101
Maximum 65 60 74 194

This will promote an educational climate that will Grow G 1991 Teaching learners to be self-directed. Adult
foster adult learning principles, gradually Education Quarterly 41(3): 125–149
Guglielmino L M 1977 Development of the Self-Directed
promoting student autonomy and mutual
Learning Readiness Scale. Unpublished doctoral
responsibility for learning in a non-threatening dissertation, University of Georgia. Dissertation
environment and, hence, a reduction in student Abstracts International. 38(11a): 6467
anxiety. Furthermore the development of this Guglielmino L M 1989 Guglielmino responds to Field’s
scale will provide valuable data for curriculum investigation. Adult Education Quarterly 39(4): 235–240
Knowles M S 1975 Self-Directed Learning: A Guide for
development.
Learners and Teachers. Association Press, New York,
NY
Acknowledgement Knowles M S 1990 The Adult Learner: A Neglected
Species, 4th edn. Gulf Publishing, Houston, TX
This project was undertaken with assistance of a
Linares A Z 1989 A comparative study of learning
Category 5 Research Scholarship from the NSW characteristics of RN and generic students. Journal of
Nurses Registration Board. The authors would Nursing Education 28(8): 354–360
like to thank Jennifer Blundell, Margot Byrnes, Linares A Z 1999 Learning styles of students and faculty in
Rhonda Hawley and Dr Sandra West from the selected health care professions. Journal of Nursing
Education 38(9): 407–414
Faculty of Nursing, University of Sydney for their
Long H B, Agyckum S 1983 Guglielmino’s Self-Directed
valuable assistance in reviewing the manuscript. Learning Readiness Scale: A validation study. Higher
Education 12(47): 77–87
References
Long H B, Agyckum S 1984 Teacher ratings in the
Bonham L A 1991 Guglielmino’s Self-directed Learning validation of Guglielmino’s Self-Directed Learning
Readiness Scale: What does it measure? Adult Readiness Scale: A validation study. Higher Education
Education Quarterly 41(2): 92–99 13: 709–715
Candy P C 1991 Self-Direction for Lifelong Learning: A Long H B 1990 Learner Managed Learning. Kegan Page,
Comprehensive Guide to Theory and Practice. London
Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA Oddi L F 1986 Development and validation of an
Chickering A W 1964 Dimensions of independence: The instrument to identify self-directed continuing learners.
findings of an experiment at Goddard College. Journal Adult Education Quarterly 36(2): 47–107
of Higher Education 35(1): 38–41 Oddi L F 1987 Respectives on self-directed learning. Adult
Couper M R 1984 The Delphi technique: characteristics and Education Quarterly 38(1): 21–31
sequence model. Advances in Nursing Science 7(1): O’Kell S P 1988 A study of the relationships between
72–77 learning style, readiness for self-directed learning and
deVaus D A 1991 Surveys in Social Research 3rd edn. Allen teaching preference of learner nurses in one health
and Unwin, Sydney, NSW district. Nurse Education Today 8: 197–204
Dyck S 1986 Self-directed learning for the RN in a Richardson M 1988 Innovating androgogy in a basic
baccalaureate program. Journal of Continuing nursing course: An evaluation of the self-directed
Education in Nursing 17(6): 194–197 independent study contract with basic nursing
Field L 1989 An investigation into the structure, validity students. Nurse Education Today 8: 315–324
and reliability of Guglielmino’s Self-Directed Learning Straka G A 1995 Problems of measuring self-directed
Readiness Scale. Adult Education Quarterly 39(3): learning readiness. Conference proceedings Asia-Pacific
125–139 Seminar on Self-directed Learning, Korean Association
Field L 1991 Guglielmino’s Self-directed Learning of Adult Education Convention (July 6–8), p.13
readiness Scale: Should it continue to be used? Adult Straka G A, Hinz I M 1996 The original Self-directed
Education Quarterly 41(2): 100–103 Learning Readiness Scale reconsidered. Conference

524 Nurse Education Today (2001) 21, 516–525 © 2001 Harcourt Publishers Ltd
NEDT 01-0589 Murray.qxd 9/6/01 11:18 AM Page 525

Self-directed learning readiness scale for nursing education

proceedings 10th International Self-directed Learning Wiley K 1983 Effects of a self-directed learning project and
Symposium. West Palm Beach, FL (March 6–10), p.18 preference for structure on self-directed learning
Tennant M 1992 The Staged Self-directed Learning readiness. Nursing Research 32 (3): 181–185
Model. Adult Education Quarterly 42 (3): 164–166

© 2001 Harcourt Publishers Ltd Nurse Education Today (2001) 21, 516–525 525