SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education / 2018 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2

Reliability, Validity and Turkish Adaptation of Self-Directed Learning Scale (SDLS)

Erol ÖZÇELİK
Zeynep Işıl DEMİRCİOĞLU
Merve Denizci NAZLIGÜL
Burak ÖGE
Tuğçe ÇEVİK
Emine Ezgi FUÇULAR
Pages
235–247
Publication Date
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings suggest that the Turkish adaptation of SDLS is a valid and reliable tool to measure self-directed learning in Turkish samples.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Self-Directed Learning Scale (SDLS) developed by Lounsbury, Levy, Park, Gibson, and Smith (2009) was used for determining individuals’ self-directed learning.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The purpose of this study was to translate the SDLS into Turkish and to investigate its reliability and validity with a sample of 272 university students.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings suggest that the Turkish adaptation of SDLS is a valid and reliable tool to measure self-directed learning in Turkish samples.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2009 Verileri
⚙️Variables:self-directed learning · validity · reliability

Abstract

Self-Directed Learning Scale (SDLS) developed by Lounsbury, Levy, Park, Gibson, and Smith (2009) was used for determining individuals’ self-directed learning. The purpose of this study was to translate the SDLS into Turkish and to investigate its reliability and validity with a sample of 272 university students. The SDLS, the Modified Schutte Emotional Intelligence Scale (MSEIS), Self-Directed Learning Inventory (SDLI), and the Causal Uncertainty Scale (CUS) for determining convergent validity was applied to the participants. Factor analyses results verified the uni-dimensionality of the scale. The test–retest correlation of SDLS was 0.82, whereas Cronbach alpha coefficient of the scale was founded as 0.85 in the reliability analyses. Correlation coefficients representing for convergent validities varied from -0.30 to 0.72 (p < .01) and criterion validity of the scale was determined as 0.236 when cumulative GPA was used as criterion in the assessment of concurrent validity. The findings suggest that the Turkish adaptation of SDLS is a valid and reliable tool to measure self-directed learning in Turkish samples.

Özet

Self-Directed Learning Scale (SDLS) developed by Lounsbury, Levy, Park, Gibson, and Smith (2009) was used for determining individuals’ self-directed learning. The purpose of this study was to translate the SDLS into Turkish and to investigate its reliability and validity with a sample of 272 university students. The SDLS, the Modified Schutte Emotional Intelligence Scale (MSEIS), Self-Directed Learning Inventory (SDLI), and the Causal Uncertainty Scale (CUS) for determining convergent validity was applied to the participants. Factor analyses results verified the uni-dimensionality of the scale. The test–retest correlation of SDLS was 0.82, whereas Cronbach alpha coefficient of the scale was founded as 0.85 in the reliability analyses. Correlation coefficients representing for convergent validities varied from -0.30 to 0.72 (p < .01) and criterion validity of the scale was determined as 0.236 when cumulative GPA was used as criterion in the assessment of concurrent validity. The findings suggest that the Turkish adaptation of SDLS is a valid and reliable tool to measure self-directed learning in Turkish samples.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZÇELİK, E., DEMİRCİOĞLU, Z. I., NAZLIGÜL, M. D., ÖGE, B., ÇEVİK, T., FUÇULAR, E. E. (2022). Reliability, Validity and Turkish Adaptation of Self-Directed Learning Scale (SDLS). International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2, 235–247. https://ajindex.com/articles/540216

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Agran, M., Blanchard, C., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2000). Promoting transition goals and self-determination through student self-directed learning: The self-determined learning model of instruction. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 351–364.
  2. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238. Brockett, R. (1983). Self-directed learning and the hard-to-reach adult. Lifelong Learning: The Adult Years, 6(8), 16–18.
  3. Brockett, R. G. & Hiemstra, R. (1991) Self-direction in adult learning: perspectives on theory, research, and practice. London: Routledge Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage Focus Editions, 154, 136. Brownell, K. D., Colletti, G., Ersner-Hershfield, R., Hershfield, S. M., & Wilson, G. T. (1977). Self-control in school children: Stringency and leniency in self-determined and externally imposed performance standards. Behavior Therapy, 8(3), 442–455.
  4. Corno, L. (1992). Encouraging students to take responsibility for learning and performance. The Elementary School Journal, 69-83.
  5. Çelik, K., & Arslan, S. (2016). Turkish adaptation and validation of Self-Directed Learning Inventory. International Journal of New Trends in Arts, Sports & Science Education (IJTASE), 5(1), 19-25.
  6. Garrison, D. R. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(1), 18 –33. Guglielmino, L. M. (1978). Development of the self-directed learning readiness scale (Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest Information & Learning). Guthrie, J. T., Meter, P., McCann, A. D., Wigfield, A., Bennett, L., Poundstone, C. C., & Mitchell, A. M. (1996). Growth of literacy engagement: Changes in motivations and strategies during concept‐oriented reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(3), 306–332.
  7. Hodgkinson, G. P., Langan‐Fox, J., & Sadler‐Smith, E. (2008). Intuition: A fundamental bridging construct in the behavioural sciences. British Journal of Psychology, 99(1), 1-27.
  8. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
  9. Hsu, Y. C., & Shiue, Y. M. (2005). The effect of self-directed learning readiness on achievement comparing face-to-face and two-way distance learning instruction. International Journal of Instructional Media, 32(2), 143. Knowles, M.