Cited by 73Digital literacy in educationGender and Technology in EducationLibrary Science and Information Literacy

Supporting digitally enhanced learning through measurement in higher education: Development and validation of a university students' digital competence scale

Wang, Xinghua, Wang, Zhuo, Wang, Qiyun, Chen, Wenli, Pi, Zhongling·2021·Journal of Computer Assisted Learning

Abstract

Digital competence is critical for university students to adapt to and benefit from digitally enhanced learning. Prior studies on its measurement mostly focus on educators and relied on factor analyses. However, there is a lack of valid and convenient tools to measure university students' digital competence. This study aimed to develop a digital competence scale for university students (DC‐US) in digitally enhanced learning with robust psychometric properties. An initial DC‐US with 23 items was proposed to measure the single latent trait of digital competence. It was validated and refined continuously through a pilot study, a main study and a predictive validity study in three datasets involving 825 participants altogether, using factor analyses, Rasch analyses and the partial least squares modelling. The final DC‐US turned out to comprise two subscales: technical literacy and digital skills, with 10 items retained, and manifested high internal consistency, unidimensionality and measurement invariance. The scale also demonstrated strong predictive validity, with technical literacy greatly predicting digital skills, which negatively predicted technostress. The DC‐US enables instructors and school administrators to conveniently obtain preliminary information of university students' digital competence, informing their digital class preparation and development of timely interventions for addressing digital deficiencies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jcal.12546

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. European Union, 2018, Council recommendation of 22 may 2018 on key competences for lifelong learning, Official Journal of the European Union, 4, 1
  2. Hair J. F., 2010, Multirative data analysis: A global perspective
  3. Nunnally J. C., 1994, Psychometric theory
  4. Rasch G., 1960, Probabilistic models for some intelligence and achievement tests
  5. Tenenhaus M. Amato S. &Esposito Vinzi V.(2004).A global goodness‐of‐fit index for PLS structural equation modelling. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the XLII SIS Scientific Meeting Padova: CLEUP.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, X., Wang, Z., Wang, Q., Chen, W., & Pi, Z.
Affiliations
  • Qingdao University (CN)
  • Nanyang Technological University (SG)
  • Shaanxi Normal University (CN)
Corresponding author
Wang, Zhuo
Venue
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-04-21
Volume
37
Issue
4
Pages
1063-1076
ISSN
  • 0266-4909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2729
OpenAlex
W3158344333
Cited by
62
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 8
FWCI
7.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (publishedVersion)
  • NIE Digital Repository (National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Digital literacy in education
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
Keywords
digital skills, university students, scale development, psychometric validation, technological literacy, technostress, measurement invariance, predictive validity, higher education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review