ArticleEuropean journal of ageing2024
Toward harmonization of aging and technology research: German adaptation of the mobile device proficiency questionnaire (MDPQ) for older adults.
Article in European journal of ageing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Mobile Device Proficiency Questionnaire (MDPQ) is a well-established, reliable, and valid instrument to measure basic and advanced mobile device skills among older adults. We offer a German adaptation of the MDPQ and report reliability and validity findings. A controlled translation procedure was applied. The translated scale was tested in two analytical samples with an age range of 50-95 years in 2020 (n = 548) and 2022 (n = 276). To assess reliabilities, internal consistencies and test-retest reliabilities are reported. To assess validity, we analyze the scale in the context of gender, age, and educational differences and its associations with measures of technology use and attitudes towards technology (convergent and divergent validity). The German adaptation of the MDPQ was found to be reliable and valid as the original version. The scale demonstrated an excellent internal consistency in both studies with α = 0.95 (study 2: α = 0.92) and ω = 0.95 (study 2: ω = 0.93). Subscale internal consistencies were all ≥ 0.65. Test-retest reliabilities with measurement waves 2 years apart showed excellent values (MDPQ full scale: r
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.