Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29178924›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical education2017

Instruments evaluating the self-directed learning abilities among nursing students and nurses: a systematic review of psychometric properties.

Lucia Cadorin, Valentina Bressan, Alvisa Palese

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical education, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 113 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Relationship Between Inspirational Teaching and Self-Directed Learning in Health Professions Students-A Mixed-Method Study.European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Lucia CadorinCRO Aviano National Cancer Institute, Via F. Gallini, 2, 33081, Aviano, Pordenone, Italy. lcadorin@cro.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7784-9550
Valentina BressanUniversity Hospital of Udine, Via Pozzuolo, 330, 33100, Udine, Italy.
Alvisa PaleseDepartment of Medical and Biological Sciences, University of Udine, Viale Ungheria, 20, 33100, Udine, Italy.
University of Udine · ITNational Cancer Institute · UA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundModern healthcare institutions are continuously changing, and Self-Directed Learning (SDL) abilities are considered a prerequisite for both nursing students and nurses in order to be proactive about these demanding challenges. To date, no systematic reviews of existing instruments aimed at detecting and critically evaluating SDL abilities have been published. Therefore, the aims of this review are: 1) identify the instruments for assessment of SDL abilities among nursing students and nurses; 2) critically evaluate the methodological studies quality; and 3) compare the psychometric properties of the available instruments.

methodsA psychometric-systematic-review was performed. CDSR, CINAHL, ERIC, MEDLINE, PROSPERO, SCOPUS databases were searched without restrictions in time and setting. All primary studies involving nursing students or nurses, written in English and aimed at validating SDL assessment tools, were included. Studies retrieved were evaluated according to the COnsensus-based-Standards for the selection of health Measurement-INstruments (COSMIN) panel. Study inclusion, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by researchers independently.

resultsEleven studies were included and four tools based on Knowles's theory have emerged: 1) the Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale; 2) the Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale for Nursing Education; 3) the Self-Rating Scale of Self-Directed Learning, and 4) the Self-Directed Learning Instrument. A few psychometric properties have been considered in each study, from two to four out of the ten required. The quality of the methodologies used was in general, from fair to poor with the exception of one instrument (the Self-Directed-Learning-Instrument). The psychometric proprieties that emerged across the tools were good in general: the Cronbach α was from 0.73 to 0.91; structural validities have also reported good indexes both in the explorative and in the confirmative factor analyses.

conclusionsOn the basis of the findings, the Self-Directed-Learning-Instrument can be recommended for the assessment of SDL abilities among nursing students and nurses, given the excellent methodology quality adopted in estimating the psychometric properties. However, rigorous study designs aimed at estimating psychometric properties of tools in wide samples of nursing students and nurses across different stages of professional life, from undergraduate education to professional maturity, in different cultural, educational, and work settings, are strongly recommended.

Indexed as

Nursing Education ResearchPsychometricsStudents, NursingEducational MeasurementEducation, NursingFactor Analysis, StatisticalHumansLearningSelf-Directed Learning as TopicAssessmentNurseNursing educationNursing studentQuestionnaireSelf-directed learningSystematic psychometric reviewTool

Identifiers

PMID29178924
PMCPMC5702155
OpenAlexW2768678068

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.