Measuring technology self efficacy: Reliability and construct validity of a modified computer self efficacy scale in a clinical rehabilitation setting

Disability and Rehabilitation

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 220-227

  Laver, Kate ^a   George, Stacey ^a   Ratcliffe, Julie ^a   Crotty, Maria ^a  

^a FLINDERS UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

activities of daily living; rehabilitation; Self efficacy; technology

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; AUSTRALIA; COMPUTER; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; PSYCHOMETRY; QUESTIONNAIRE; REHABILITATION CENTER; REPRODUCIBILITY; SELF CONCEPT; TECHNOLOGY;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; AUSTRALIA; COMPUTERS; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUESTIONNAIRES; REHABILITATION CENTERS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SELF EFFICACY; TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 83655212312     PISSN: 09638288     EISSN: 14645165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/09638288.2011.593682     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. The Productivity Commission. Caring for older Australians. Productivity Commission Issues Paper. Canberra: May 2010.
2. van Hoof J, Kort HS, van Waarde H, Blom MM. Environmental interventions and the design of homes for older adults with dementia: An overview. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen 2010;25:202-232.
3. Demiris G. E-health: Current status and future trends in the EU and the US. The Netherlands: IOS Press; 2004.
4. Koopman-Boyden P, Reid S. Internet/email usage and well-being among 65-84 year olds in New Zealand: Policy implications. Educ Gerontol 2009;35:990-1007.
5. Melenhorst AS, Rogers WA, Bouwhuis DG. Older adults' motivated choice for technological innovation: Evidence for benefit-driven selectivity. Psychol Aging 2006;21:190-195. (Pubitemid 44212059)
6. Morris A, Goodman J, Brading H. Internet use and non-use: views of older people. Universal Access in the Information Society 2007;6:43-57.
7. World Internet Project 2010. Available from http://www. worldinternetproject. net/. Accessed 2010 December 15.
8. Ziefle M, Wilkowska W. Technology acceptability for medical assistance. 4th Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare; 2010; Munich, Germany.
9. Arning K, Ziefle M. Different perspectives on technology acceptance: The role of technology type and age. In: Holzinger A, Miesenberger K, editors. Human-computer interaction for eInclusion. Berlin: Springer; 2009. p 20-41.
10. Venkatesh V et al. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 2003;27:425-478.
11. Davis F., User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. Int J Man-Machine Studies 1993;38:475-487.
12. King W, He J. A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management 2006;43:740-755. (Pubitemid 44287241)
13. Ma Q, Liu L. The technology acceptance model: A meta-analysis of empirical findings. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing 2004;16:59-72.
14. Turner P, Turner S, Van de Walle G. How older people account for their experiences with interactive technology. Behav Inf Technol 2007;26:287-296. (Pubitemid 47171544)
15. Venkatesh V. Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research 2000;11:342-365. (Pubitemid 33224535)
16. Bandura A. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am Psychol 1982;37:122-147.
17. Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1986.
18. Gist M. Self-efficacy: Implications for organisational behaviour and human resource management. Acad Manage Rev 1987;2:472-486.
19. Bandura A. Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company; 1997.
20. Locke E, Frederick E, Lee C, Bobko P. Effect of self efficacy, goals and task strategies on task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 1984;69:241-251.
21. George S, Clark M, Crotty M. Development of the Adelaide driving self-efficacy scale. Clin Rehabil 2007;21:56-61. (Pubitemid 46165307)
22. Maibach E, Murphy D. Self-efficacy in health promotion research and practice: conceptualisation and measurement. Health Education Research Theory and Practice 1995;10:37-50.
23. Compeau D, Higgins C. Computer self efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly 1995;19:189-211.
24. Czaja SJ, Charness N, Fisk AD, Hertzog C, Nair SN, Rogers WA, Sharit J. Factors predicting the use of technology: findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE). Psychol Aging 2006;21:333-352. (Pubitemid 44212031)
25. Eastin M, LaRose R. Internet self-efficacy and the psychology of the digital divide. J Comput Mediat Commun 2000;6. DOI: 10.1111/ j.1083-6101.2000.tb00110.
26. Torkzadeh G, Van Dyke T. Development and validation of an internet self efficacy scale. Behav Inf Technol 2001;20:275-280. (Pubitemid 34917035)
27. Wilkowska W, Ziefle M. Which factors form older adults' acceptance of mobile information and communication technologies? In Holzinger A, Miesenberger K, editors. Human-computer interaction for eInclusion. Berlin: Springer; 2009. p. 81-101.
28. Rosenberg L, Nygard L, Kottorp A. Everyday technology use questionnaire: psychometric evaluation of a new assessment of competence in technology use. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health 2009;29:52-62.
29. Tesio L. Measuring behaviours and perceptions: Rasch analysis as a tool for rehabilitation research. J Rehabil Med 2003;35: 105-115. (Pubitemid 36681702)
30. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. 'Mini-mental state'. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975;12:189-198.
31. DeVellis R. Scale Development theory and applications. London: SAGE Publications; 2003.
32. Streiner DL. Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. J Pers Assess 2003;80: 99-103. (Pubitemid 36330963)
33. Henson R, Roberts J. Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research. Educ Psychol Meas 2006;66:393-416.
34. Garson GD. Factor analysis. In Statnotes: Topics in multivariate analysis [online] 2010. Available from http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/ PA765/statnote.htm. Accessed 2010 December 15.
35. Bartlett M. A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square approximations. J R Stat Soc 1954;16:296-298.
36. Kaiser H. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 1974;39: 31-36.
37. Kaiser H. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ Psychol Meas 1960;20:141-151.
38. van Swieten JC, Koudstaal PJ, Visser MC, Schouten HJ, van Gijn J. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke 1988;19:604-607.