↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Nursing, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Concurrent validity of self-rating scale of self-directed learning and self-directed learning instrument among Italian nursing students
Published in
BMC Nursing, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12912-016-0142-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lucia Cadorin, Su-Fen Cheng, Alvisa Palese

Abstract

Self-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. A 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. The 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). The 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 103 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 18%
Lecturer 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 20 19%
Unknown 26 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 21 20%
Social Sciences 17 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 14%
Computer Science 5 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 29 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 March 2016.
All research outputs
#15,364,458
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nursing
#454
of 748 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,367
of 299,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nursing
#14
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 748 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,504 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.