Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38095999›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2023

Everyday Digital Literacy Questionnaire for Older Adults: Instrument Development and Validation Study.

JiYeon Choi, Seongmi Choi, Kijun Song, Jiwon Baek, Heejung Kim, Mona Choi, Yesol Kim, Sang Hui Chu, Jiyoung Shin

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
26.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

JiYeon ChoiMo-Im Kim Nursing Research Institute, College of Nursing, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-1947-7952
Seongmi ChoiMo-Im Kim Nursing Research Institute, College of Nursing, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-0988-9307
Kijun SongMo-Im Kim Nursing Research Institute, College of Nursing, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-2505-4112
Jiwon BaekMo-Im Kim Nursing Research Institute, College of Nursing, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-4937-456X
Heejung KimMo-Im Kim Nursing Research Institute, College of Nursing, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-3719-0111
Mona ChoiMo-Im Kim Nursing Research Institute, College of Nursing, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-4694-0359
Yesol KimCollege of Nursing and Brain Korea 21 FOUR Project, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-3540-1723
Sang Hui ChuMo-Im Kim Nursing Research Institute, College of Nursing, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-6877-5599
Jiyoung ShinMo-Im Kim Nursing Research Institute, College of Nursing, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0009-0003-6279-1047
Yonsei University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe need for digital literacy in aging populations is increasing in the digitalizing society. Digital literacy involves the identification, evaluation, and communication of information through various digital devices or relevant programs.

objectiveThe aims of this study were to develop an Everyday Digital Literacy Questionnaire (EDLQ), a digital literacy assessment scale, and subsequently evaluate its psychometric properties using a population of community-dwelling older adults in South Korea.

methodsThe EDLQ was developed using an instrument development design. A nationwide survey was conducted, and the study included 1016 community-dwelling older adults (age ≥60 years). To evaluate the psychometric properties, the participants were randomly divided into 2 groups (n=508 each), and the internal consistency (Cronbach α and McDonald ω), structural validity (exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis), hypothesis-testing construct validity using the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS), and measurement invariance were analyzed.

resultsAmong the initial 30 items of the EDLQ, 22 items with a 3-factor solution had a total explained variance of 77%. The domains included "information and communication" (9 items), "content creation and management" (4 items), and "safety and security" (9 items). Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted with this 3-factor solution (χ

conclusionsIn this study, we developed a digital literacy measure with strong psychometric properties that made it suitable for assessing the digital literacy of community-dwelling older adults in Korea. To broaden its applicability, however, further assessment of its feasibility for use with different languages and cultures is necessary. Moreover, more empirical research on digital literacy and related factors in older adults can facilitate the development of personalized digital health care services and educational interventions in the digital society.

Indexed as

Health LiteracyTelemedicineAgedHumansLanguageMiddle AgedPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignSurveys and Questionnairesagingdigital literacyEuropean Commission’s Digital Competence frameworkinstrumentolder adultspsychometricsvalidation

Identifiers

PMID38095999
PMCPMC10755654
OpenAlexW4388819930

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.