Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34506585›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

On the quality of quantitative instruments to measure digital competence in higher education: A systematic mapping study.

Rafael Saltos-Rivas, Pavel Novoa-Hernández, Rocío Serrano Rodríguez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Rafael Saltos-RivasFacultad de Filosofía Letras y Ciencias de la Educación de la Universidad Técnica de Manabí, Portoviejo, Ecuador.
Pavel Novoa-HernándezEscuela de Ciencias Empresariales, Universidad Católica del Norte, Coquimbo, Chile.ORCID 0000-0003-3267-6753
Rocío Serrano RodríguezFacultad de Ciencias de la Educación, Universidad de Córdoba, Cordoba, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this study, we report on a Systematic Mapping Study (SMS) on how the quality of the quantitative instruments used to measure digital competencies in higher education is assured. 73 primary studies were selected from the published literature in the last 10 years in order to 1) characterize the literature, 2) evaluate the reporting practice of quality assessments, and 3) analyze which variables explain such reporting practices. The results indicate that most of the studies focused on medium to large samples of European university students, who attended social science programs. Ad hoc, self-reported questionnaires measuring various digital competence areas were the most commonly used method for data collection. The studies were mostly published in low tier journals. 36% of the studies did not report any quality assessment, while less than 50% covered both groups of reliability and validity assessments at the same time. In general, the studies had a moderate to high depth of evidence on the assessments performed. We found that studies in which several areas of digital competence were measured were more likely to report quality assessments. In addition, we estimate that the probability of finding studies with acceptable or good reporting practices increases over time.

Indexed as

Educational TechnologyEducation, DistanceCurriculumData CollectionData Interpretation, StatisticalEuropeHumansLearningModels, StatisticalProbabilityReproducibility of ResultsStudentsSurveys and QuestionnairesSystematic Reviews as TopicUniversities

Identifiers

PMID34506585
PMCPMC8432775

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.