Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 411418

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning and Individual Differences

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l i n d i f

An investigation of the construct validity of the personality trait of

self-directed learning
John W. Lounsbury a,b,, Jacob J. Levy a, Soo-Hee Park c, Lucy W. Gibson b, Ryan Smith a
a
b
c

The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996-0900, United States

Resource Associates Incorporated, Knoxville, TN 37920, United States
State of Tennessee, Evaluation and Assessment, Andrew Johnson Tower-6th Floor, Nashville, TN 37243-0375, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 19 May 2006
Received in revised form 24 February 2009
Accepted 2 March 2009
Keywords:
Self-directed learning
Construct validity
Big Five personality traits
Narrow personality traits
Vocational interests

a b s t r a c t
Based on samples of 398 middle school students, 568 high school students, and 1159 college students, selfdirected learning was found to be related to cumulative grade-point-average at all levels as well as to Big Five
personality traits (Openness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Extraversion), narrow personality
traits (Optimism, Career-Decidedness, Work Drive, and Self-Actualization), vocational interests (Realistic,
Investigative, Artistic, and Conventional, as well as Science, Medicine, and Mathematics), cognitive aptitudes,
and life as well as college satisfaction. Based on an additional sample of 4125 college students, a conrmatory
factor analysis was used to verify a single factor structure for our 10-item measure of self-directed learning.
Results were discussed in terms of personality characteristics of self-directed learners, the trans-situational
validity of self-directed learning in academic settings, multiple forms of evidence of the construct validity of
self-directed learning, and implications for future research and practice.
2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the construct validity of

self-directed learning measured as a personality trait. At the outset we
must dene what we mean by construct validity. Although there is no
one simple denition, we follow Messick (1989), in acknowledging
that construct validity embraces almost all forms of validity evidence
(ibid, p. 17). Construct validity represents a pattern of results consistent
with the specication of the construct (Fiske, 2002), is based on the
integration of evidence bearing on a construct (Messick, 1989), and is
equivalent to the process of theory development (Whitely, 1983).
Although many types of evidence can inform construct validity, our
particular interest was in the empirical relationships between selfdirected learning and other logically related constructs and criteria. Our
approach is correlational, which is fully consistent with Messick's
contention that [a] wide variety of correlational analyses are relevant to
construct validation (p. 20). We must also specify the type of selfdirected learning we are concerned with and its educational context.
Following a distinction made by Brockett and Hiemstra (1991, Chapter
Two) regarding self-directed learning as instructional method versus
personality characteristic, our emphasis is on the latter; our approach
focuses on self-directed learning as a personality trait that is relatively
enduring over time and across situations for individuals. Also, we
conceptualize self-direction as an attribute that can be represented on a
continuum ranging from low to high and, in line with Hiemstra (1991),
as something that exists to some degree in every person and learning
situation.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 865 974 3423.

E-mail address: jlounsbury@aol.com (J.W. Lounsbury).
1041-6080/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2009.03.001

Drawing on Brockett (1983, p.16), we dene self-directed learning as

a disposition to engage in learning activities where the individual takes
personal responsibility for developing and carrying out learning
endeavors in an autonomous manner without being prompted or
guided by other people (such as a teacher, parent, or peer). Thus, the
measure used in the present study differs from other conceptualizations
of self-directed learning in that it has been dened, developed, and
validated as a personality trait, rather than an instructional method or
readiness for learning scale. Also, our scale is applicable for youth and
adult learners in academic as well as other settings, such as organizational training, professional development, and lifelong learning. It is also
a relatively brief scale (10 items) that can be used by other researchers
who want to measure self-directed learning in a relatively efcient
manner.1
Self-directed learning is a topic that has received extensive
attention by theorists, researchers, and practitioners (e.g., Costa &
Kalick, 2003; Long, 1999; Rothwell & Sensenig, 1999). As summarized
by Hiemstra (1991), research, scholarship, and interest in selfdirected learning have literally exploded around the world in recent
years. Few topics, if any, have received more attention by adult
educators than self-directed learning. (p. 1). While there has been a
fair amount of empirical investigation of self-directed learning, the
research that bears on self-directed learning as a personality trait has

1
Researchers who wish to use this scale may do so without charge as long as it is
not used for prot-making purposes and they cite this article. Please contact the senior
author for further information.

412

J.W. Lounsbury et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 411418

been somewhat piecemeal and fragmented. To illustrate, self-directed

learning readiness (which includes initiative in learning, acceptance
of responsibility for one's own learning, and seeing one's self as an
effective independent learner) has been found to be positively related
to creative achievements (Torrance & Mourad, 1978); self-concept and
years of education (Sabbaghian, 1980); student participation in
learning projects (Hassan, 1982); internal locus of control (Skaggs,
1981; Gardner & Helmes, 1999); life satisfaction of elderly individuals
(Gardner & Helmes, 1999) and older adults (Curry, 1983); lower levels
of dogmatism (Long & Agyekum, 1983); end of year grades of nursing
students (Crook, 1985) occupational categories (Durr, Guglielmino, &
Guglielmino, 1996); affective organizational commitment (Cho &
Kwon, 2005); and intrinsic learning motivation (Reynolds, 1986).
Also, a few studies have examined the validity of Oddi's (1984, 1985,
1986) Continuing Learning Inventory (CLI)which includes proactive
drive to learn without obvious external reinforcement and commitment to learning for its own sakewith non-denitive results. For
example, Oddi (1985) found that the CLI was not related to adult
intelligence or locus of control but did correlate with Adjective
Checklist measures of Flexibility and Open-Mindedness.
In a more systematic manner, two studies examined self-directed
learning readiness in relation to all four MyersBriggs Type Indicator
dimensions, with higher levels of self-directed learning found to be
related to Extraversion and Intuition in one study (Leitsch & Van Hove,
1998) and Intuition and Judging in the other study (Johnson, Sample, &
Jones,1988). However, the MyersBriggs is a four-dimension personality
inventory that does not explicitly measure some important personality
constructs such as conscientiousness, openness, and emotional stability.
To better understand the nomological network for self-directed learning
as a personality trait, it can be assessed in terms of its relations with
more comprehensive and recognized personality inventories, such as
the Big Five (De Raad, 2000) and 16 PF (Cattell, Cattell, & Cattell, 1993)
Therefore, one purpose of the present study was to investigate the
relationship between self-directed learning and personality constructs
measured by comprehensive personality inventories while also
attempting to replicate the results of previous studies nding a linkage
between self-directed learning and the MyersBriggs constructs.
Another important aspect of construct validation is criterionrelated validity (Messick, 1989). One of the key criteria for student
behavior in educational settings is the academic performance of
students, which is most often operationalized as cumulative gradepoint average (GPA). There is a dearth of published research on the
relationship between self-directed learning and academic performance. Hsu and Shiue (2005) found that self-directed learning was
related to success in a distance learning course. Also, Okabayashi and
Torrance (1984) reported that gifted students who had more fully met
teacher expectations of their academic achievement based on their
giftedness had higher levels of self-directed learning. However, the
relationship between self-directed learning and GPA was not
examined in either of these studies. To address this lacuna, the
present study investigated the relationship between self-directed
learning and cumulative GPA for secondary and higher education
students.
While there has been discussion of self-directed learning as a
personality trait and there are studies of self-directed learning in adult
and student learners (for a review of theoretical and empirical selfdirected learning literature, see Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991), there do
not appear to be any published studies which have examined whether
construct relations for self-directed learning hold up at different levels
of the life span. If self-directed learning is a viable personality
construct for students, then, a criterion-related validity relationship,
such as the self-directed learning-GPA relationship, should be observable from middle school (i.e., age 12, or the sixth grade is the usual
lower bound for using self-report personality measures (e.g., McCrae
et al., 1988) through high school and college. Accordingly, we examined whether there is a signicant relationship between self-

directed learning and GPA for students in middle school, high school,
and college.
We also investigated the relationship between self-directed
learning and two other types of constructs reviewed by Brockett
and Hiemstra (1991): 1) general intelligence, which has not been
found to be signicantly related to self-directed learning, and 2) life
satisfaction, for which Brockett and Hiemstra (ibid) summarized
several studies indicating a positive relationship with self-directed
learning.
Additionally, as part of our strategy of looking at a broad array of
constructs in an attempt to enlarge the nomothetic span (Messick,
1989) of self-directing learning, we also examined its relationship to
Holland's (1997) vocational interest measures, the ACT, cognitive
ability tests, self-actualization, and three narrow personality traits
that have been found to be related to academic performance of
students in college, high school, and middle school (Lounsbury,
Sundstrom, Gibson, & Loveland, 2003; Lounsbury, Sundstrom, Loveland, & Gibson, 2003)Optimism, Tough-Mindedness, and Work
Drive. Finally, we examined the relationship between our measure of
Self-Directed Learning and Guglielmino's (1977) cognate Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS).
To recapitulate, the purpose of the present study was to assess the
construct validity of self-directed learning as a personality trait and to
extend its nomological network in relation to: GPA, normal personal
traits (including the Big Five and narrow traits), life satisfaction,
intelligence, and vocational interests. More specically, we investigated the following seven sets of research questions.
1) Our self-directed learning scale had a single-factor structure.
2) We hypothesized that there would be a positive relationship
between self-directed learning and cumulative GPA. Based on the
construct specication of self-directed learningespecially the
conceptual emphases on assuming responsibility for learning and
engaging in self-initiated, self-directed activities to achieve
learningwe expected students with higher levels of self-directed
learning to learn more in courses and, therefore, to attain higher
GPAs.
3) Moreover, as we are conceptualizing and measuring self-directed
learning as a personality trait, and given that similar relationships
have been found between personality constructs and academic
performance over different grades for adolescents (Lounsbury,
Gibson, Sundstrom, Wilburn, & Loveland, 2003), we expected to
nd signicant correlations between Self-Directed Learning and
GPA for different grade levels of middle school, high school, and
college.
4) How is self-directed learning related to established normal
personality constructs? To answer this question, we included
three different inventories which have been used in research on
students: Cattell's 16 PF (5th edition) inventory (Cattell et al,
1993), Costa and McCrae's (1992) NEO-PIR Big Five inventory, and
Lounsbury and Gibson's Adolescent Personal Style Inventory
(APSI) (Lounsbury & Gibson, 2006; Lounsbury, Tatum et al.,
2003). Utilizing three different inventories permitted us to look
for convergence of indicators (Messick, 1989) for common traits,
especially the Big Five traits, as well as investigate a broader range
of constructs than would be available using just one inventory. We
also examined how self-directed learning is related to the
personality constructs of Optimism, Tough-Mindedness, Work
Drive, and Self-Directed Learning Readiness. Directional hypotheses were not advanced, except in the case of the MyersBriggs
Intuitive scale, where, based on the similar results of Leitsch and
Van Hove (1998) and Johnson, Sample, and Jones (1988), we
predicted that Self-Directed Learning would be positively related
to Intuitive scores and in the case of Openness, which we expected
to be positively related to self-directed learning in view of Oddi's
(1985) nding of a positive correlation between the CLI and open-

J.W. Lounsbury et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 411418

mindedness. Since Guglielmino's (1977) Self-Directed Learning

Readiness scale measures learning readiness2 rather than actual
learning style (see, Guglielmino et al., 2009), we did not expect our
self-directed measure to be perfectly correlated with the SDLRS.
However, since both our measure and the SDLRS refer to a common
core construct and, since, one would assume that individuals who
are engaged in self-directed learning (i.e., got a high score on our
scale) will have already passed through the readiness stage for
self-directed learning (i.e., got a high score on the SDLRS), we
expected a fairly high positive correlation between our measure of
Self-Directed Learning and Guglielmino's (1977) SDLRS.
5) How is self-directed learning related to the six Holland interest
themesRealistic, Investigative, Social, Enterprising, Artistic, and
Conventional? Because the Investigative theme involves inquiry and
analysis and is the primary marker for researcher and scientists who
are inclined to engage in self-directed learning (Pearce, 2001), we
hypothesized that self-directed learning would be positively related
to Investigative theme scores.
6) Is there a positive relationship between self-directed learning and
life satisfaction? Based on the research of Curry (1983) for adult
samples and on the ndings of Lounsbury, Saudargas, Gibson, and
Leong (2005) for university students, we hypothesized self-directed
learning would be positively related to life satisfaction for students in
the present study.
7) How is self-directed learning related to general intelligence and
cognitive ability? The importance of this question was described by
Brockett and Hiemstra (1991) in the context of the potential value of
self-directed learning for individuals with modest intelligence and
low levels of formal education. No directional hypotheses were
advanced for the relationship between self-directed learning and
intelligence or cognitive aptitudes.
1. Method
1.1. Overview of research setting
There were two different types of samples involved in this study. Data
involving relationships between Self-Directed Learning and GPA for
middle and high school students were collected as part of an investigation of the employability of students for a semi-rural county school
system in East Tennessee (Lounsbury & Gibson, 2001). Two college samples were also obtained. First, data were collected from students enrolled
in a large, southeastern university in the U.S. who were participating in a
First Year Studies Program or taking undergraduate psychology courses
and, second, data were collected from 4125 students participating in
Monster.Com's Making College Count program (Monster.Com, 2009).
1.2. Participants
1.2.1. Middle and high school
Of the 966 middle and high school students from whom data were
collected, 49% were males (51% females) and the mean age of students
was 14. Relative frequencies by year in school are provided in Table 1.
1.2.2. College
Demographic data were not available for the Monster.Com data.
Of the 1218 college students from whom data were collected at a
southeastern university, 61% were females (39% males); 79% identied
themselves as Caucasian, 14%African-American, 1%Hispanic, 2%
Asian, and 4%other. In terms of age, 84% were in the 1819 year-old
range; 6% in the 2021 range, 4% in the 2225 range, 2% in the 2630
range, and 4% reported that they were over 30.
2
Guglielmino and associates (2009) give the following denition: The Self-Directed
Learning Readiness Scale is designed to measure the complex of attitudes, abilities and
characteristics which comprise readiness to engage in self-directed learning. (italics added).

413

Table 1
Correlations between Self-Directed Learning and GPA by Year in School/College.
Year in school

Sample size

Correlation with GPA

Middle School
6th grade
7th grade

174
224

.33**
.39**

High school
9th grade
10th grade
12th grade

195
119
254

.26**
.26**
.37**

College
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior

968
121
70

.20**a
.28**
.42**

**p b .01.
a
GPA based on only one semester of courses.

Relative frequencies by year in school are provided in Table 1. Race/

ethnic data were not available.
1.3. Measures
1.3.1. Self-directed learning scale
The Resource Associates Self-Directed Learning scale is a 10-item
scale with responses made on a ve-point Likert scale: 1 = Strongly
Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral/Undecided; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly
Agree. It was developed by the rst and fourth author as part of a
system for measuring personality traits for adolescents and adults
(Lounsbury & Gibson, 2006). The theoretical framework for our SelfDirected Learning construct was based directly on Brockett's (1983)
conceptualization of it as a disposition to engage in learning wherein
the individual takes responsibility for conducting learning activities
in an autonomous, self-reliant manner without direction or guidance
from teachers, parents, or others. Our Self-Directed Learning Scale
has been found to be an internally consistent measure which is positively related to college student life satisfaction (Lounsbury, Saudargas, & Gibson, 2004) and negatively related to intention to withdraw
from college (Lounsbury, Saudargas, Gibson, & Leong, 2005). In the
middle and high school samples, the coefcient alpha for our SelfDirected Learning measure = .87; in the college samples, alpha = .84
and .87. Below are the 10-items comprising our Self-Directed Learning
scale:
1. I regularly learn things on my own outside of class.
2. I am very good at nding out answers on my own for things that
the teacher does not explain in class.
3. If there is something I don't understand in a class, I always nd a
way to learn it on my own.
4. I am good at nding the right resources to help me do well in school.
5. I view self-directed learning based on my own initiative as very
important for success in school and in my future career.
6. I set my own goals for what I will learn.
7. I like to be in charge of what I learn and when I learn it.
8. If there is something I need to learn, I nd a way to do so right away.
9. I am better at learning things on my own than most students.
10. I am very motivated to learn on my own without having to rely on
other people.
1.3.2. Self-directed learning readiness scale
Guglielmino's 58-item scale Self-Directed Learning Readiness scale
(Guglielmino & Associates, 2009) was used in one sample of the present
study. Owing to recent questions about its factor structure (Hoban,
Lawson, Mazmanian, Best, & Seibel, 2005), we used only the total score
for the SLDRS. In the present study, coefcient alpha for the 58-item
SDLRS was found to be .91.

414

J.W. Lounsbury et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 411418

1.3.3. Personality and interest inventories

Also included in the present study were the following normal
personality inventories: the MyersBriggs Type Indicator (Myers &
McCaulley, 1985), the NEO-PI-R Big Five inventory, the 16 PF fth edition
(Costa & McCrae, 1992), the Resource Associates Adolescent Personal
Style Inventory (for information on reliability and validity, see Lounsbury & Gibson, 2006; Lounsbury, Sundstrom, Gibson, & Loveland, 2003;
Lounsbury, Tatum et al., 2003), and the Strong Interest Inventory
(Harmon, Hansen, Borgen, & Hammer, 1994).
1.3.4. Cognitive ability and intelligence measures
We included the following measures in the present study: the Otis
Lennon Test of Mental Maturitya group-administered test of general
intelligence (Otis & Lennon,1969), the ACTcollege entrance examination
test (ACT, 2005), the Resource Associates tests of verbal, numerical, and
abstract reasoning aptitude (Lounsbury & Gibson, 2006; Lounsbury,
Welsh, Gibson, & Sundstrom, 2005).
1.3.5. Life satisfaction and self-actualization
We also included in the present study measures of general life
satisfaction and college satisfaction (Lounsbury, Saudargas, & Gibson,
2004) and the Self Actualization value scale of the Personal Orientation
Inventory (Shostrum, 2005). In the present study, coefcient alpha= .86
for the seven-item college satisfaction measure and .84 for the 15-item
life satisfaction measure.
1.3.6. Grade-point-average (GPA)
Cumulative GPA for all students was obtained from school records.
1.4. Procedures
All data were obtained from an archival data source maintained by
Resource Associates, Inc. Original data collection at the high school
and middle school levels were obtained via paper-and-pencil
measures administered in class by guidance counselors and teachers.
Data from college students were collected online or via paper-andpencil measures as part of extra credit or in-class demonstration
projects.
2. Results
2.1. Conrmatory factor analysis
To assess the unidimensional factor structure of our self-directed
learning scale, we employed a categorical conrmatory factor analysis
(CCFA) on a large sample of 4125 rst-year university students obtained
as part of Monster.Com's Making College Count program for helping
student negotiate the transition to college (Monster.Com, 2009). The
total sample was randomly divided into a main sample (n = 2063) and a
holdout, validation sample (n = 2062). We used CCFA because it is a
factor analytic approach that accounts for the non-normality of discrete
data that renders traditional conrmatory factor analysis methods
inappropriate (cf. Hill et al., 2007). We used LISREL 8.80 (Joreskog &
Sorbom, 2006) to conduct the CCFA with weighted least-squares used
for parameter estimation. Polychoric correlations among the items were
obtained using listwise deletion to eliminate missing data.
The one-factor, self-directed learning model appeared to be a good t
for both the main and holdout samples. Three different t indices were
all above .90 in both the main and holdout samplesincluding the
goodness of t index = .987 in both samples; the non-normed t
index = .905 in both samples; and the comparative t index = .924 in
both samples. In addition, all 10 of the self-directed learning items had
signicant loadings (t-value 2.0) on the self-directed learning latent
variable, with standardized parameter estimates ranging from .596 to
.847. Accordingly, we considered the one-factor model of our selfdirected learning scale to be conrmed.

Table 2
Correlations between Self-Directed Learning and: personality, satisfaction, interest, and
aptitude measures.
MyersBriggs temperament inventory scalesa
Extraversion (Introversion)
Intuitive (Sensing)
Feeling (Thinking)
Perceiving (Judging)

.10
.30
.17
.07

NEO-PIR scalesa
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness

.27
.09
.30
.16
.33

16 PF 5th ed. scalesa

Asocial warmth
Breasoning
Cemotional resilience
Edominance
Fliveliness
Grule-consciousness
Hsocial boldness
Isensitivity
Lvigilance
Mimaginative
Oself-condence
Q1openness change
Q2self-reliance
Q3perfectionism
Q4tension
Impression management

.13
.08
.11
.01
.22
.05
.05
.22
.13
.19
.18
.44
.03
.02
.28
.13

Adolescent personal style inventory scalesb

Emotional stability
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Career-decidedness
Optimism
Sense of identity
Tough-mindedness
Work drive

.28
.16
.54
.28
.29
.24
.38
.39
.01
.49

Strong interest scalesa

Realistic
Investigative
Science
Medicine
Mathematics
Artistic
Social
Enterprising
Conventional

.36
.45
.46
.39
.31
.29
.10
.04
.30

Cognitive ability measures

General intelligencea
ACTb
Verbal reasoningc
Numerical reasoningc
Abstract reasoningc
Overall reasoningc

.19
.21
.18
.23
.20
.25

Other measures
Life satisfactionb
College satisfactionb
Self-actualizationa
Self-directed learning readinessd

.28
.35
.40
.82

p b 0.5.
p b .01.
a
n = 62.
b
n = 1156.
c
n = 405.
d
n = 36.

J.W. Lounsbury et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 411418

2.2. Criterion-related validity

The correlations between Self-Directed Learning and cumulative
GPA are displayed in Table 1. For middle and high school samples, the
correlations for the 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th, and 12th grades were r = .33, .39,
.26, .26, and .37, respectively (all p b .01). For the college sample, the
correlations for freshmen (for which the cumulative GPA was based on
only one semester's worth of grades), sophomore, and juniors were
r = .20, .28, .42, respectively (all p b .01).
2.3. Construct validity results
The correlations between Self-Directed Learning and the other study
variables are displayed in Table 2. Regarding the MyersBriggs scales, as
predicted, Self-Directed Learning was positively correlated with
Intuitive scores (r = .30, p b .05), but was not signicantly related to
the other three MBTI measures. There were several instances of
convergence of indicators, where the same construct from different
inventories was signicantly related to Self-Directed Learning in the
same conceptual direction: 1) as predicted, Self-Directed Learning was
positively correlated with Openness from the 16 PF and APSI inventories
(r = .40, p b .01 and r = .54, p b .01, respectively); 2) it was positively
related to Conscientiousness from the NEO-PIR and APSI inventories
(r = .33, p b .01 and r = .29, p b .01, respectively); and 3) it was negatively
related to Neuroticism from the NEO-PIR (r = .27, p b .05) and 16 PF
measure of Anxiety (r = .40, p b .01), while it was positively related to
Emotional Stability (the inverse of Neuroticism) on the APSI (r = .28,
p b .05).
Self-Directed Learning was also positively related to the APSI scales of
Career-Decidedness (r = .24, p b .01), Optimism (r = .38, p b .01), Extraversion (r = .16, p b .01), and Work Drive (r = .49, p b .01); and SelfActualization (r = .40, p b .01). In terms of vocational interests, SelfDirected Learning was positively and signicantly related to the basic
Strong Interest theme scores for Realistic (r = .36, p b .01), Investigative
(r = .45, p b .01), Artistic (r = .29, p b .01), and Conventional (r = .30,
p b .01). In view of the fairly high magnitude of correlation with
Investigative scores, we also reported the highest subscale correlations
within the Investigative factor, revealing that Self-Directed Learning was
positively, signicantly related to the Science (r = .46, p b .01), Medicine
(r = .39, p b .01), and Mathematics (r = .31, p b .01) interest scores.
As predicted, Self-Directed Learning was also positively and
signicantly related to Life Satisfaction (r = .28, p b .01) and College
Satisfaction (r = .35, p b .01). In terms of cognitive ability measures,
Self=Directed Learning was not signicantly related to general
intelligence (r = .19, p N .05), but was signicantly, positively related to
ACT scores (r = .21, p b .01), as well as Verbal Reasoning (r = .18, p b .01),
Numerical Reasoning (r = .23, p b .01), Abstract Reasoning (r = .20,
p b .01), and Overall Reasoning (r = .25, p b .01). Finally, as expected,
our Self-Directed Learning Scale was highly positively related to
Guglielmino's Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale (r = .82, p b .01),
which indicates substantial convergence between these two measures.
3. Discussion
The present ndings are quite encouraging for the construct validity
of Self-Directed Learning, both in terms of its criterion-related validity
vis--vis GPA and in terms of its nomothetic span as demonstrated by
the broad range of validities across personality, interest, and ability
domains. The consistently signicant positive correlations between SelfDirected Learning and GPA for all grade levels examined, ranging from
6th grade in middle school to junior year in college, are interesting in
several respects. These results support the proposition that self-directed
learning is a personality trait, since personality traits should demonstrate stability over time and generalizability of construct relations over
different segments of the lifespan (Caspi, 1998; McCrae & Costa, 1997,
2003; Rothbart, Ahadi, & Evans, 2000). In addition, higher levels of GPA

415

reect that more learning in courses has occurred, which is what we

would expect from individuals who are more engaged in self-directed
learning. This pattern of correlations also provides evidence for the
trans-situational validity of self-directed learning given the diverse
learning contexts represented by different teachers, instructional
methods, courses, grading norms, organizational climate, and other
environmental factors represented by our middle school, high school,
and college samples.
In a sense, these correlations are relatively context-independent.
One wonders how high the correlation between self-directed learning
and grades would be in situations that were more conducive to selfinitiated and self-managed learning such as independent study courses
or graduate school. In this vein, it is interesting to note that there is a
trend for the Self-Directed LearningGPA correlations to increase within
each of the three settings, with an upward shift from 6th grade to 7th
grade in middle school, from 9th grade to 12th grade in high school, and
from freshman to junior year in college. There are several possible
explanations for such a pattern of results: It may reect increased
opportunities for self-directed learning in higher grade (or class) levels
within a school system (college) as a result of increased environmental
resources for self-directed learning (such as computers with Internet
connections), or increased salience of self-directed learning as a function
of, say, instructional design or teacher expectancies; or increased
salience of self-directed learning as a function of age-related personality
changes. It was beyond the scope of the present study to shed further
light on such possible explanations; however, regarding possible agerelated changes, we note here that there was a modest correlation (in
the .16.20 range) between age and self-directed learning in the two
samples, however, as can be seen in the correlations presented in Table 1,
the correlations do not simply increase across all nine academic levels.
The richness and psychological complexity of the self-directed
learning construct can be seen in the multiple linkages with personality
traits. By way of example, the Big Five is generally regarded as a parsimonious and unifying framework for normal personality traits
(Digman, 1990; 1997; Wiggins & Trapnell, 1997) and Self-Directed
Learning was signicantly related to all ve of the APSI Big Five traits and
three of the NEO-PIR Big Five traitsOpenness, Conscientiousness, and
(low) Neuroticism. While the relationship between Self-Directed
Learning and Agreeableness was signicant and positive in the APSI
sample, the same relationship was positive and non-signicant in the
NEO-PIR sample, which may be a function of the smaller sample size in
the latter case. Also, while the Self-Directed Learning-Extraversion
relationship was negative and non-signicant in the MyersBriggs and
NEO-PIR samples, it was positive and signicant in the APSI sample.
Nevertheless, taken as a whole, the present results indicate that SelfDirected Learning cannot be easily categorized into any one of the Big
Five trait categories and that it has fairly consistent relationships with
three of the Big Five traitsOpenness, Conscientiousness, and Neuroticism/Emotional Stability.
Self-Directed Learning was also positively related to the narrow
personality traits of Work Drive, Optimism, Sense of Identity, Career
Decidedness, Self-Actualization, and (low) Anxiety as well as the Myers
Briggs measure of Intuition. It is important to note that in most cases, the
relationship between self-directed learning and the other personality
trait is logically consistent with the meaning and construct denition of
each measure. Thus, for example, individuals higher in self-directed
learning would be expected to be higher in Openness, particularly since
one of the main expressions of Openness is learning of new material
(Lounsbury & Gibson, 2006). Indeed, it appears that the personality trait
most characteristic of self-directed learners is Openness. Self-Directed
Learning is also fairly highly related to Work Drive, which is understandable given that individuals with higher levels of Work Drive are
prone to set more challenging goals for themselves and to go above and
beyond typical performance expectations (Lounsbury, Gibson, &
Hamrick, 2004). Also, to the extent that Self-Directed Learning requires
self-discipline and goal-directed behavior, one can understand the

416

J.W. Lounsbury et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 411418

positive correlation with Conscientiousness, which measures a person's

inclination to be reliable, trustworthy, dependable, orderly, and rulefollowing (Lounsbury, Huffstetler, Leong, & Gibson, 2005; Lounsbury,
Saudargas, et al., 2005). Then, too, one would expect more self-directed
learners to be higher on Self-Actualization since they are implementing
and presumably realizing their own self-dened learning goals. Moreover, to the extent that higher levels of self-directed learning lead to
valued outcomes such as GPA, it is understandable that there are positive
correlations with Life Satisfaction, College Satisfaction, and even
Optimism (though in this case the causal order may found in future
research to be reversed or reciprocal) as well as lower levels of Tension.
In a similar vein, it might be expected that higher levels of self-directed
learning facilitate career-decidedness and the achievement of a sense of
identitywhich involves having specic personal goals for the future
and requires active, self-initiated exploration to determine one's
purpose in life and sense of self (Lounsbury, Huffstetler et al., 2005).
Less immediately obvious are explanations for the positive correlations between Self-Directed Learning and the other Big Five
measures of Agreeableness, Extraversion, and Emotional Stability. It
may be that self-directed learning is enhanced by agreeable, helpful
interactions and relationships with other people, as in situations where
one relies on peers and friends for advice and explanation instrumental
for learning, which could favor students who are higher on Extraversion
and Agreeableness. Or, it may reect recent trends in instructional
activities that emphasize team or group projects. In the case of
Emotional Stability, individuals who are lower on this trait may be less
able to focus on self-directed learning activities because they are prone
to worry and fret about personal problems and insecurities. Conversely,
it may be that the more self-directed learners are less worried and
anxious because they have attained higher GPA's and other benecial
outcomes resulting from their higher levels of self-directed learning.
More generally, it is clear that self-directed learning does not occur in
isolation from other personality traits; rather, self-directed learning
appears to be connected to a wide range of different traits. The present
data were all measured concurrently and the direction of causality
between self-directed learning and the other traits is an open question. It
may be that some of these traitssuch as conscientiousness, openness,
and emotional stabilityare antecedent to or prerequisite for selfdirected learning. Or, it may be that some of these traits, particularly
those which are more state-like and likely to change over shorter
periods of time, such as anxiety and career-decidedness, may, at least
partially, reect outcomes of self-directed learning behavior. The causal
structure of self-directed learning in relation to these personality constructs is an important topic for future research.
The correlations between self-directed learning and vocational
interests are noteworthy in that our measure of self-directed learning
was, as predicted, positively related to Investigative scores as well as to
four of the other six Holland (1997) basic interest measures-Realistic,
Investigative, Artistic, and Conventional. Such results are consistent
with Holland's theory for Investigative and Artistic interests as career
development in both areas involves considerable self-initiated and selfmanaged behavior, though they are not immediately obvious in the case
of Realistic and Conventional interests. One possible explanation may be
that students who are more inclined toward self-directed learning are
interested in a greater number of different occupations than students
who are less inclined toward self-directed learning. The higher magnitude correlations between self-directed learning and the basic interest
scales for Science, Medicine, and Mathematics are also consistent with
Holland's theory and are indicative of potential applications of selfdirected learning assessment for career planning and professional
education. Self-directed learning is a key component of medical education (cf. Greveson & Spencer, 2005; Mast & Davis, 1994) and is
regarded as crucial for career success in the medical profession (Shokar,
Shokar, Romero, & Bulik, 2002). For purposes of career planning and
development, it would be very useful to see how different majors in
college and different occupations vary on self-directed learning. Future

research could examine these questions as well as investigate the role

of self-directed learning in vocational development and career choice.
From a practical perspective, as is done for other personality trait
measures like the MyersBriggs Type Indicator scale and the NEO-PIR,
one could use a measure of self-directed learning for purposes of career
planning, personal discovery and feedback, individual assessment,
counseling, and even personnel selection in organizations (which the
rst and fourth authors are currently doing). Also, teachers could use
a measure of self-directed learning to adjust their instructional activities and enhance student-environment t. Along these lines, it should
be noted that one of the most widely used instruments for career
exploration is the Self-Directed Search (Reardon, 2005), which
individuals take and interpret without supervision to learn which
careers match their interests and abilities. The present nding of a
positive relationship between self-directed learning and career decidedness provides one strand in what will likely be a larger web of
connections between self-directed learning and career development.
Although self-directed learning was not signicantly related to
general intelligence in the present study, it was positively and signicantly related to verbal, numerical, and abstract reasoning. It may be
that students with higher levels of cognitive ability may be more
inclined to engage in self-directed learning, or higher levels of cognitive
ability may facilitate self-directed learning. These results can also be
interpreted as indicating that self-directed learning is more associated
with Cattell's (1963) concept of crystallized intelligence (as reected by
the cognitive ability measures) than with uid intelligence (as reected
by the general intelligence measure). Thus, for example, the correlation
between self-directed learning and intelligence may not be signicant
because intelligence represents more of an inherited characteristic,
whereas the cognitive ability factors measured here are more susceptible to environmental inuences, including the effects of learning,
which could lead to a signicant correlation between self-directed
learning and the four reasoning measures used in this study. However,
the differences in magnitudes of correlation involving cognitive ability
and intelligence are small and such explanations should be regarded as
speculative pending the results of future research.
That self-directed learning was related to college satisfaction and life
satisfaction for students in the present sample replicates similar results
for college students reported by Lounsbury, Saudargas, et al. (2005) and
is consistent with similar ndings for older adults summarized by
Brockett and Hiemstra (1991). From a broader perspective, the present
results are consistent with meta-analytic ndings of linkages between
personality traits and subjective well-being (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998).
An important question to be answered at this juncture is why there is a
relationship between self-directed learning and life satisfaction. One
possibility is that higher levels of self-directed learning lead to positive
outcomes such as higher grades which, in turn, increase life satisfaction.
Alternatively, both life satisfaction and engagement in self-directed
learning may be inuenced by some other factor such as positive
affectivity which could predispose individuals to evaluate their lives
positively and to be more favorably inclined toward all forms of learning,
including self-directed learning (for related explanations, see DeNeve &
Cooper, 1998).
Before turning to the overall conclusions of the present study, we
note several of its limitations. All samples were drawn from a single
region of the U.S.the Southeast. Future research on this topic should try
to replicate these ndings using a broader range of geographic locations
and schools, including different types of colleges and universities and
high schools and middle schools in different areas of the country, or in
other countries. Also, the majority of the study participants in all
samples were Caucasian, which also leaves open the question of
replicable ndings for settings where the majority of students represent
other racial/ethnic groups. It would be interesting to see if these ndings
hold up for Seniors in college and graduate students, including master's
and doctoral students, as well as students in professional schools, such as
medical, law, and veterinary school. The present study did not examine

J.W. Lounsbury et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 411418

relationships among the study variables for older students; thus, future
research could examine the generalizability of the current ndings to
adult learners. Another limitation of the present study is that we did not
employ a longitudinal design which could have permitted us to look at
self-directed learning changes over time and possible interactions with
the other personality, interest, and ability measures over time.
Nevertheless, taken as a whole, the ndings of the present study
afrm the importance and richness of the self-directed learning construct and provide strong support for its role as personality trait. Taken as
a whole, the ndings and interpretations regarding the seven research
questions addressed here strengthens the case for the construct validity
of Self-Directed Learning as a personality trait in that we have established: the convergence of indicators as can be seen in the high correlation with Guglielmino's SDLRS, criterion-related validity with respect
to GPA (Research Question 2) across middle school, high school, and
college samples (Research Question 3), and its nomothetic validity as
shown by logically consistent linkages with Big Five as well as narrow
traits (Research Question 4), vocational interests (Research Question 5),
life satisfaction (Research Question 6), and cognitive ability measures
(Research Question 7). Indeed, the richness of the self-directed learning
construct and its broad nomothetic span (Messick, 1989) can be seen in
its multiple, signicant correlations with so many different personality,
interest, and ability measures. Based on the present ndings, we can give
a verbal description of self-directed learners as follows: Individuals who
are more engaged in self-directed learning are more likely (than
students who are less engaged in self-directed learning) to have a rm
sense of identity (including vocational identity); experience higher
levels of life satisfaction; have higher levels of vocational interests for
investigative, artistic, enterprising, and conventional occupations; and
they are more likely to be conscientious, well-adjusted, optimistic, selfactualized, intuitive, hard-working, and open to new experiences.
Hopefully, future research can determine which of these relationships
are replicable, which need to be claried, and whether the nomothetic
span for self-directed learning can be extended even further than is
indicated by the present study.
References
ACT (2005). ACT home page. Retrieved December 30, 2005 from http://www.act.org/
Brockett, R. (1983). Self-directed learning and the hard-to-reach adult. Lifelong
Learning: The Adult Years, 6(8), 1618.
Brockett, R. G., & Hiemstra, R. (1991). Self-direction in adult learning: Perspectives on
theory research, and practice. New York: Routledge Retrieved January 1, 2005 from
http://home.twcny.rr.com/hiemstra/sdlindex.html
Caspi, A. (1998). Personality development across the life course. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg
(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 311388). New York: Wiley.
Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory of uid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 31, 161179.
Cattell, R. B., Cattell, A. K., & Cattell, H. K. (1993). Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire,
(5th ed.). Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Test.
Cho, D. Y., & Kwon, D. B. (2005). Self-directed learning readiness as an antecedent of
organizational commitment: A Korean study. International Journal of Training and
Development, 9, 140152.
Costa, A. L., & Kalick, B. (2003). Assessment strategies for self-directed learning (Experts in
Assessment Series). Corwin Press.
Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1992). The NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and the NEO Five
-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Crook, J. (1985). A validation study of a self-directed learning readiness scale. Journal of
Nursing Education, 24(7), 274279.
Curry, M. A. (1983). The analysis of self-directed learning readiness characteristics in
older adults engaged in formal learning activities in two settings (Doctoral
dissertation, Kansas State University, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44,
1293A.
DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137
personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 197229.
De Raad, B. (2000). The Big Five personality factors (The psycholexical approach to
personality). Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber.
Digman, J. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the ve-factor model. Annual
Review of Psychology, 41, 417440.
Digman, J. (1997). Higher order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 73, 12461256.
Durr, R., Guglielmino, L. M., & Guglielmino, P. J. (1996). Self-directed learning
readiness and occupational categories. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7
(4), 349358.

417

Fiske, Donald. W. (2002). The role of constructs in psychological and educational

measurement. In H. I. Braun & D.N. Jackson (Eds.), The role of constructs in
psychological and educational measurement (pp. 169178). Mahwah, NJ, US:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gardner, D. K., & Helmes, E. (1999). Locus of control and self-directed learning as
predictors of well-being in the elderly. Australian Psychologist, 34(2), 99103.
Greveson, G. C., & Spencer, J. A. (2005). Self-directed learningThe importance of
concepts and contexts. Medical Education, 39(4), 348349.
Guglielmino, L. M. (1977). Development of the self-directed learning readiness scale.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 6467A.
Guglielmino, L. M., & associates (2009). Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale. Retrieved
February 22, 2009 from http://www.guglielmino734.com/prod01.htm
Harmon, L. W., Hansen, J. C., Borgen, F. H., & Hammer, A. L. (1994). Strong Interest
Inventory: Applications and technical guide. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hassan, A. M. (1982). An investigation of the learning projects among adults of high and
low readiness for self-direction in learning. (Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State
University, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 3838A.
Hiemstra, R. (1991). Self-directed learning. Retrieved January 10, 2006 from http://
home.twcny.rr.com/hiemstra/sdlhdbk.html
Hill, C. D., Edwards, M. C., Thissen, D., Langer, M. M., Wirth, R. J., Burwinkle, T. M., et al.
(2007). Practical issues in the application of item response theory: A demonstration
using items from the pediatric quality of life inventory (PedsQL) 4.0 generic core
scales. Medical Care, 45, S22S31.
Hoban, J. D., Lawson, S. R., Mazmanian, P. E., Best, A. M., & Seibel, H. R. (2005). The SelfDirected Learning Readiness Scale: A factor analysis study. Medical Education, 39
(4), 370379.
Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and
work environments, (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
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, 143156.
Johnson, J. A., Sample, J. A., & Jones, W. J. (1988). Self-directed learning and personality
type in adult degree students. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 25(1), 3236.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8: User's reference guide. Lincolnwood,
IL: Scientic Software International, Inc.
Leitsch, P. K., & Van Hove, S. D. (1998). Extraverted intuitives: A prole of adult learners.
Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 35(34), 1998, 4449.
Long, H. (1999). Contemporary ideas and practices in self-directed learning. Pioneer.
Long, H. B., & Agyekum, S. K. (1983). Guglielmino's Self-Directed Learning Readiness
Scale: A validation study. Higher Education, 12, 7787.
Lounsbury, J. W., & Gibson, L. W. (2001). Employability assessment of Anderson County
middle and high school students using the Resource Associates Adolescent Personal
Style Inventory. Knoxville, Tennessee: Resource Associates.
Lounsbury, J. W., & Gibson, L. W. (2006). Personal Style Inventory: A personality measurement
system for work and school settings. Knoxville, TN: Resource Associates, Inc.
Lounsbury, J. W., Gibson, L. W., & Hamrick, F. L. (2004). The development of a personological measure of work drive. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(4), 347371.
Lounsbury, J. W., Gibson, L. W., Sundstrom, E., Wilburn, D., & Loveland, J. (2003). An
empirical investigation of the proposition that School Is Work. A comparison of
personality-performance correlations in school and work settings. Journal of
Education and Work, 17, 119131.
Lounsbury, J. W., Huffstetler, B. C., Leong, F. T., & Gibson, L. W. (2005). Sense of identity and
collegiate academic achievement. Journal of College Student Development, 46, 501514.
Lounsbury, J. W., Saudargas, R. A., & Gibson, L. W. (2004). An investigation of Big Five
and narrow personality traits in relation to intention to withdraw from college.
Journal of College Student Development, 45(5), 517534.
Lounsbury, J. W., Saudargas, R. A., Gibson, L. W., & Leong, F. T. (2005). An investigation of
broad and narrow personality traits in relation to general and domain-specic life
satisfaction of college students. Research in Higher Education, 46(6), 707729.
Lounsbury, J. W., Sundstrom, E., Gibson, L. W., & Loveland, J. L. (2003). Broad versus
narrow personality traits in predicting academic performance of adolescents.
Learning and Individual Differences, 14(1), 6575.
Lounsbury, J. W., Sundstrom, E., Loveland, J. M., & Gibson, L. W. (2003). Intelligence, Big
Five personality traits, and work drive as predictors of course grade. Personality
and Individual Differences, 35, 12311239.
Lounsbury, J. W., Tatum, H., Gibson, L. W., Park, S. H., Sundstrom, E. D., Hamrick, F. L. et al.
(2003). The development of a Big Five adolescent personality scale. Psychoeducational Assessment, 21, 111133.
Lounsbury, J. W., Welsh, D. P., Gibson, L. W., & Sundstrom, E. (2005). Broad and narrow
personality traits in relation to cognitive ability in adolescents. Personality and
Individual Differences, 38, 10091019.
Mast, T. J., & Davis, D. (1994). Concepts of competence. In T. J. Mast & D. Davis (Eds.), The
physician as learner (pp. 139156). Chicago: American Medical Association.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal.
American Psychologist, 52, 509516.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2003). Personality in adulthood: A ve-factor theory
perspective, (2nd ed.). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
McCrae, R. M., Costa, P. T., Terraciano, A., Parker, W. D., Mills, C. J., De Fruyt, F., et al. (1988).
The once and future issues of validity: Assessing the meaning and consequences of
measurement. In H. Wainer & H.I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 3345). Hillsdale,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 13103).
London: Collier.
Monster.Com (2009). Making It Count. Retrieved February 12, 2009 from http://www.
makingitcount.com/students/start/default.asp

418

J.W. Lounsbury et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 411418

Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Okabayashi, H., & Torrance, E. P. (1984). Role style of learning and thinking and self
directed learning readiness in the achievement of gifted students. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 17(2), 104107.
Oddi, L. F. (1984). Development of an instrument to measure self-directed continuing
learning. (Doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University, 1984). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 46, 49A.
Oddi, L. F. (1985). Development and validation of an instrument to identify self-directed
continuing learners. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Adult Education Research
Conference (pp. 229235). Tempe, Arizona: Arizona State University, Higher and
Adult Education.
Oddi, L. F. (1986). Development and validation of an instrument to identify self-directed
continuing learners. Adult Education Quarterly, 36, 97107.
Otis, A. S., & Lennon, R. T. (1969). OtisLennon Mental Ability Test technical handbook.
New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Pearce, J. M. (2001). The use of self-directed learning to promote active citizenship in
science, technology, and society classes. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society,
21(4), 312321.
Reardon, R. C. (2005). The Self-Directed Search. Retrieved December 30, 2005 from
http://www.self-directed-search.com/aboutsds.html
Reynolds, M. M. (1986). The self-directedness and motivational orientations of adult parttime students at a community college (Doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University,
1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 571A.

Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., & Evans, D. E. (2000). Temperament and personality:
Origins and outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 122135.
Rothwell, B., & Sensenig, K. J. (1999). The sourcebook for self-directed learning. Amherst,
Massachusetts: HRD Press.
Sabbaghian, Z. S. (1980). Adult self-directedness and self-concept: An exploration of
relationships (Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, 1979). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 40, 3701A.
Shokar, G. S., Shokar, N. K., Romero, C. M., & Bulik, R. J. (2002). Self-directed learning: Looking
at outcomes with medical students. Medical Student Education, 34(3), 197200.
Shostrum, E. L. (2005). Personal Orientation Inventory. Retrieved December 30, 2005
from http://www.edits.net/POI.html
Skaggs, B. J. (1981). The relationship between involvement of professional nurses in self
-directed learning activities, loci of control, and readiness for self-directed learning
measures (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas, Austin, 1981). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 42, 1906A.
Torrance, E. P., & Mourad, S. (1978). Some creativity and style of learning and thinking
correlates of Guglielmino's Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale. Psychological
Reports, 43, 11671171.
Whitely, S. E. (1983). Construct validity: Construct representation versus nomothetic
span. Psychological Bulletin, 93(1), 179197.
Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1997). Personality structure: The return of the Big
Five. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality
psychology (pp. 737765). San Diego, CA: Academic.