The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Survey Measures of Web-Oriented Digital Literacy
Abstract
This article presents survey measures of web-oriented digital literacy to serve as proxies for observed skill measures, which are much more expensive and difficult to collect for large samples. Findings are based on a study that examined users’ digital literacy through both observations and survey questions, making it possible to check the validity of survey proxy measures. These analyses yield a set of recommendations for what measures work well as survey proxies of people’s observed web-use skills. Some of these survey measures were administered on the General Social Survey 2000 and 2002 Internet modules, making the findings relevant for the use of existing large-scale national data sets. Results suggest that some composite variables of survey knowledge items are better predictors of people’s actual digital literacy based on performance tests than are measures of users’ self-perceived abilities, a proxy traditionally used in the literature on the topic.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change
Bandura, A. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191 · Cited by 43,925
Second-Level Digital Divide: Differences in People's Online Skills
Hargittai, E. (2002) · First Monday · doi:10.5210/fm.v7i4.942 · Cited by 1,951 · cited 3×
“Anderson, 1989; Shashaani, 1994), with some emphasis on Internet skills in recent years ( Hargittai, 2002b, 2003; Mossberger et al., 2003).”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citation
Cited by
Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook
Guess, A., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J. (2019) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aau4586 · Cited by 1,652
Digital Na(t)ives? Variation in Internet Skills and Uses among Members of the “Net Generation”
Hargittai, E. (2010) · Sociological Inquiry · doi:10.1111/j.1475-682x.2009.00317.x · Cited by 1,564
Self-citationDigital Inequality: Differences in Young Adults' Use of the Internet
Hargittai, E., & Hinnant, A. (2008) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650208321782 · Cited by 1,251
Self-citationWang, B., Rau, P.-L. P., & Yuan, T. (2023) · Behaviour & Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2022.2072768 · Cited by 1,036
van Laar, E., van Deursen, A. J. A. M., van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & de Haan, J. (2020) · Sage Open · doi:10.1177/2158244019900176 · Cited by 927
“Although self-report questionnaires have advantages such as the ability to present a large number of questions on a wide range of skills in a short period of time, the method has problems of validity (Hargittai, 2005).”
Method
Metadata
- Authors
- Hargittai, E.
- Venue
- Social Science Computer Review
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2005-08
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 371-379
- ISSN
- 0894-4393 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8286
- OpenAlex
- W2054826977
- Cited by
- 489
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 17.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
