Cited by 92Technostress in Professional SettingsStudent Stress and CopingStress and Burnout Research

Measuring university students’ technostress in technology-enhanced learning: Scale development and validation

Open access
Wang, Xinghua, Tan, Seng Chee, Li, Lu·2020·Australasian Journal of Educational Technology

Abstract

With technology-enhanced learning playing an increasingly important role in higher education, university students are enjoying unprecedented benefits while likely experiencing technostress due to increased requirements and different academic expectations of technology-enhanced learning. This study aimed to develop a psychometric scale to measure university students’ levels of technostress in technology-enhanced learning. An initial technostress scale was developed drawing on the person-environment fit theory and prior research on technostress. In total 620 students were recruited from two public universities in China. Three rounds of study were performed to validate the initial technostress scale using factor analysis, the Rasch model, and multilevel linear regression. The finalised technostress scale with 8 items demonstrated robust psychometric properties, including high internal consistency, validity, uni-dimensionality, and measurement invariance across students of different demographics. The development of the technostress scale is an important step in identifying maladapted students and preserving their wellbeing so as to increase their constructive and active participation in technology-enhanced learning.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.14742/ajet.5329

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The 107 items were screened with a one-parameter Rasch model, which converts ordinal responses into linear ability estimates and flags misfitting items.

    “The 107 items were screened with a one-parameter Rasch model, which converts ordinal responses into linear ability estimates and flags misfitting items, a feature valued in educational technology measurement (Sumintono, 2017; Wang et al., 2020).”

    From A tridimensional model of AI literacy: An empirical analysis of student performance and demographic patterns in higher education (2025) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2020

    The Findings of the Rasch analysis (first and second rounds; page unavailable) describe screening a 10-item technostress scale, identifying two misfitting items, and repeating the analysis with eight items—not screening 107 items. The first-round findings say the authors used a rating scale model for polytomous responses, but our copy does not state that it converts ordinal responses into linear ability estimates. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Edwards, J. R., & Shipp, A. J. (2007). The relationship between person-environment fit and outcomes: An integrative. In C. L. Ostroff & T. Judge (Eds.), Perspectives on organizational fit (pp. 209-258). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  2. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multirative data analysis: A global perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  3. Paul, N., & Glassman, M. (2017). Relationship between internet self-efficacy and internet anxiety: A nuanced approach to understanding the connection. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(4), 147-165. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2971 · DOI
  4. Corresponding author: Wang Xinghua, wangxinghua379@gmail.com Copyright: Articles published in the Australasian Journal of Educational Technology (AJET) are available under Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives Licence (CC BY-NC- ND 4.
  5. Please cite as: Wang, X., Tan, S. C., & Li, L. (2020). Measuring university students' technostress in technology-enhanced learning: Scale development and validation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 96-112. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5329

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, X., Tan, S. C., & Li, L.
Affiliations
  • Qingdao University (CN)
  • Nanyang Technological University (SG)
Venue
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology
Published
2020-04-27
Pages
96-112
ISSN
  • 1449-3098 (ISSN-L)
  • 1449-5554
OpenAlex
W3020686411
Cited by
79
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5
FWCI
11.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Technostress in Professional Settings
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Student Stress and Coping
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Stress and Burnout Research
Keywords
technostress, technology-enhanced learning, university students, scale development, psychometric validation, person-environment fit, student well-being, measurement invariance, 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