PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15813759

The Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale: a factor analysis study.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The practice of medicine demands that its physician practitioners are self-directed, life-long learners. The Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS) intends to measure adults' readiness to engage in self-directed learning. PURPOSE: The present study assesses the underlying factor structure of the SDLRS for a sample of entering medical students. METHODS: Over a period of 6 years, 972 first year medical students at the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine completed the SDLRS. To summarise the inter-relationships among variables, a principal axis factor analysis with oblique rotation was used on the 58 SDLRS items. A series of confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL 8.54 was performed to further examine the measurement model underlying the SDLRS. RESULTS: A 4-factor confirmatory model representing 4 correlated substantive factors and a reverse coding method factor fits these data well. CONCLUSIONS: Medical educators should hold limited expectations of the SDLRS to measure medical students' readiness to engage in self-directed learning. The definitions and theoretical assumptions that inform readiness for self-directed learning should be reconsidered. Alternative approaches to studying self-directed learning should be explored.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J Dennis Hoban, Sonya R Lawson, Paul E Mazmanian, Al M Best, Hugo R Seibel. 2005. The Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale: a factor analysis study.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02140.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback continues to be widely used as a strategy to improve professional practice. It appears logical that healthcare professionals would be prompted to modify their practice if given feedback that their clinical practice was inconsistent with that of their peers or accepted guidelines. Yet, audit and feedback has not consistently been found to be effective. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of audit and feedback on the practice of healthcare professionals and patient outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group's register and pending file up to January 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of audit and feedback (defined as any summary of clinical performance over a specified period of time) that reported objectively measured professional practice in a healthcare setting or healthcare outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Quantitative (meta-regression), visual and qualitative analyses were undertaken. For each comparison we calculated the risk difference (RD) and risk ratio (RR), adjusted for baseline compliance when possible, for dichotomous outcomes and the percentage and the percent change relative to the control group average after the intervention, adjusted for baseline performance when possible, for continuous outcomes. We investigated the following factors as possible explanations for the variation in the effectiveness of interventions across comparisons: the type of intervention (audit and feedback alone, audit and feedback with educational meetings, or multifaceted interventions that included audit and feedback), the intensity of the audit and feedback, the complexity of the targeted behaviour, the seriousness of the outcome, baseline compliance and study quality. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty new studies were added to this update, and a total of 118 studies are included. In the primary analysis 88 comparisons from 72 studies were included that compared any intervention in which audit and feedback is a component compared to no intervention. For dichotomous outcomes the adjusted risk difference of compliance with desired practice varied from - 0.16 (a 16 % absolute decrease in compliance) to 0.70 (a 70% increase in compliance) (median = 0.05, inter-quartile range = 0.03 to 0.11) and the adjusted risk ratio varied from 0.71 to 18.3 (median = 1.08, inter-quartile range = 0.99 to 1.30). For continuous outcomes the adjusted percent change relative to control varied from -0.10 (a 10 % absolute decrease in compliance) to 0.68 (a 68% increase in compliance) (median = 0.16, inter-quartile range = 0.05 to 0.37). Low baseline compliance with recommended practice and higher intensity of audit and feedback were associated with larger adjusted risk ratios (greater effectiveness) across studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Audit and feedback can be effective in improving professional practice. When it is effective, the effects are generally small to moderate. The relative effectiveness of audit and feedback is likely to be greater when baseline adherence to recommended practice is low and when feedback is delivered more intensively.

Education, Medical, Continuing↗