DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A LIFELONG LEARNING CHARACTERISTICS SCALE FOR PERSONNEL IN PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS
Main Article Content
Abstract
This research aims to develop and assess the quality of a lifelong learning characteristics assessment tool for public sector personnel in public organizations. The study is a quantitative cross - sectional study comprising two main steps: 1) The development of the assessment tool and 2) The quality verification of the tool. The sample group consists of public sector personnel in organizations established under the Public Organization Act of 1999 and its amendments, totaling 36 organizations, as well as those established under specific acts totaling 24 organizations, with a total of 13,416 individuals. In - depth interviews were conducted with 8 experts, and content analysis was used to create preliminary questions before the tool was used to collect actual data from a sample of 414 individuals. The data was then analyzed using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The research findings indicate that the assessment tool for lifelong learning characteristics for public sector personnel is a 6 - level Likert scale tool consisting of 6 components: 1) Learning Ability, 2) Inquisitiveness, 3) Self-directed learning ability, 4) Collaborative learning ability, 5) Readiness to embrace change, and 6) Creativity, comprising a total of 23 items. The tool demonstrated excellent reliability and structural validity, as well as convergent and discriminant validity. These findings reflect that the developed assessment tool for lifelong learning characteristics can be effectively used as an instrument to evaluate lifelong learning traits in the context of public sector organizations. Additionally, it can support policy development and the systematic creation of learning communities within government agencies.
Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
จิตต์ภิญญา ชุมสาย ณ อยุธยา. (2551). ลักษณะผู้เรียนรู้ตลอดชีวิตของนิสิตนักศึกษาระดับปริญญาตรีชั้นปีสุดท้าย. ใน ดุษฎีนิพนธ์การศึกษาดุษฎีบัณฑิต สาขาวิชาการอุดมศึกษา. มหาวิทยาลัยศรีนครินทรวิโรฒ.
สถาบันวิจัยเพื่อการพัฒนาประเทศไทย (ทีดีอาร์ไอ). (2568). รายงานสรุปการพัฒนาทุนมนุษย์ในประเทศไทย การศึกษาช่องว่าง อุปสรรค และทางเลือกเชิงนโยบาย. เรียกใช้เมื่อ 12 สิงหาคม 2568 จาก https://shorturl.asia/gEs8I
สำนักงานสภานโยบายการอุดมศึกษา วิทยาศาสตร์วิจัยและนวัตกรรมแห่งชาติ. (2567). การส่งเสริมการเรียนรู้ตลอดชีวิต (Lifelong learning) เพื่อรองรับการพลิกโฉมฉับพลันและวิกฤตการณ์โลก. (พิมพ์ครั้งที่ 1). กรุงเทพมหานคร: สำนักงานคณะกรรมการส่งเสริมวิทยาศาสตร์ วิจัยและนวัตกรรม (สกสว.).
Boateng, G. O. (2018). Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales for Health, Social, and Behavioral Research: A Primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
Brinia, V. et al. (2017). Active educational techniques in lifelong learning centers. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 6(1), 28-42.
Comrey, A. L. & Lee, H. B. (1992). A First Course in Factor Analysis. (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Crick, R. D. et al. (2004). Developing an Effective Lifelong Learning Inventory: the ELLI Project. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 11(3), 247-272.
DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale Development: Theory and Applications (Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 26). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
Gardiner, H. (1998). Lifelong learning in organizations: Differentiating factors between adult employee groups. In dissertation educational psychology. University of Calgary.
Hair, J. F. et al. (2009). Multivariate data analysis. (7th ed.). New York: Prentice - Hall.
Harvey, B. J. et al. (2006). A confirmatory factor analysis of the Oddi continuing learning inventory (OCLI). Adult Education Quarterly, 56(3), 188-200.
Hojat, M. et al. (2006). Assessing physicians' orientation toward lifelong learning. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21(9), 931-936.
Jordan, P. J. & Troth, A. C. (2020). Common method bias in applied settings: The dilemma of researching in organizations. Australian Journal of Management, 45(1), 3-14.
Livneh, C. (1988). Characteristics of lifelong learners in the human services professions. Adult Education Quarterly, 38(3), 149-159.
Marra et al. (1999). Lifelong learning: A preliminary look at the literature in view of EC2000 FIE'99 Frontiers in Education. 29th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. in Designing the Future of Science and Engineering Education. Conference Proceedings.
Mokhtar, I. A. (2010). Formal and informal learning opportunities in government organisations: Experiences of public sector employees from six Asian nations. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 502(2), 387-410.
National Strategy Board. (2018). National Strategy B.E. 2561 - 2580. Bangkok: Office of the National Economics and Social Development Council.
Oddi, L. F. (1986). Development and validation of an instrument to identify self - directed continuing learners. Adult Education Quarterly, 36(2), 97-107.
OECD. (2025). OECD Employment Outlook 2025: Can We Get Through the Demographic Crunch? Paris: OECD Publishing.
Rovinelli, R. J. & Hambleton, R. K. (1977). On the use of content specialists in the assessment of criterion-referenced test item validity. Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsresearch, 2(2), 49-60.
UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning. (2022). ANNUALREPORT. Retrieved August 12, 2025, from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000384704