Assessing individual differences in basic computer skills: Psychometric characteristics of an interactive performance measure

European Journal of Psychological Assessment

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 263-275

  Goldhammer, Frank ^a   Naumann, Johannes ^a   Keßel, Yvonne ^a  

^a GERMAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH   (Germany)

Author keywords

Ability; Basic computer skills; Convergent and discriminant validity; Interactive performance scale; Speed

Indexed keywords

EID: 84887527792     PISSN: 10155759     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000153     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369-406.
2. Anderson, J. R., Matessa, M., & Lebiere, C. (1997). ACT-R: A theory of higher level cognition and its relation to visual attention. Human-Computer Interaction, 12, 439-462.
3. Ballantine, J. A., Larres, P. M., & Oyelere, P. (2007). Computer usage and the validity of self-assessed computer competence among first-year business students. Computers and Education, 49, 976-990.
4. Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., Sergent-Marschall, S. D., Spieler, D. H., & Yap, M. (2004). Visual word recognition of singlesyllable words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 283-316.
5. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.
6. Brand-Gruwel, S., Wopereis, I., & Walraven, A. (2009). A descriptive model of information problem solving while using internet. Computers and Education, 53, 1207-1217.
7. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
8. Colley, A., & Comber, C. (2003). Age and gender differences in computer use and attitudes among secondary school students: What has changed? Educational Research, 45, 155-165.
9. Educational Testing Service. (2008). iSkills - Information and Communication Technology Literacy Test. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/ iskills/about
10. Forero, C. G., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2009). Estimation of IRT graded models for rating data: Limited vs. full information methods. Psychological Methods, 14, 275-299.
11. Goldhammer, F., & Klein Entink, R. H. (2011). Speed of reasoning and its relation to reasoning ability. Intelligence, 39, 108-119.
12. Hakkarainen, K., Ilomäki, L., Lipponen, L., Muukkonen, H., Rahikainen, M., Tuominen, T., . Lehtinen, E. (2000). Students skills and practices of using ICT: Results of a national assessment in Finland. Computers and Education, 34, 103-117.
13. Ilomäki, L., & Rantanen, P. (2007). Intensive use of ICT in school: Developing differences in students' ICT expertise. Computers and Education, 46, 119-136.
14. Imhof, M., Vollmeyer, R., & Beierlein, C. (2007). Computer use and the gender gap: The issue of access, use, motivation, and performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2823-2837.
15. International ICT Literacy Panel. (2002). Digital transformation: A framework for ICT literacy (A report of the International ICT Literacy Panel). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/ Media/Research/pdf/ictreport.pdf
16. Katz, I. R., & Macklin, A. S. (2007). Information and communication technology (ICT) literacy: Integration and assessment in higher education. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 5, 50-55.
17. Keith, N., & Frese, M. (2005). Self-regulation in error management training: Emotion control and metacognition as mediators of performance effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 677-691.
18. Keith, N., Richter, T., & Naumann, J. (2010). Active/exploratory training promotes transfer even in learners with low motivation and cognitive ability. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59, 97-123.
19. Kim, J. H., Jung, S.Y., & Lee, W. G. (2008). Design of contents for ICT literacy in-service training of teachers in Korea. Computers and Education, 51, 1683-1706.
20. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
21. Klieme, E., Hartig, J., & Rauch, D. (2008). The concept of competence in educational contexts. In J. Hartig, E. Klieme & D. Leutner (Eds.), Assessment of competencies in educational contexts (pp. 3-22). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
22. Kuhlemeier, H., & Hemker, B. (2007). The impact of computer use at home on students' internet skills. Computers and Education, 49, 460-480.
23. Lennon, M., Kirsch, I., Von Davier, M., Wagner, M., & Yamamoto, K. (2003). Feasibility study for the ICT Literacy Assessment: Report to network A. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/35/13/33699866.pdf
24. Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D.W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the internet and other information and communication technologies. In N. J. Unrau & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1570-1613). Newark, NJ: International Reading Association.
25. Mabe, P. A., & West, S.W. (1982). Validity of self-evaluation of ability: Review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 280-296.
26. Markauskaite, L. (2007). Exploring the structure of trainee teachers' ICT literacy: The main components of, and relationships between, general cognitive and technical capabilities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, 547-572.
27. Mayer, R.E. (2003). What causes individual differences in cognitive performance? In R. J. Sternberg & E.L. Grigorenko (Eds.), The psychology of abilities, competencies, and expertise (pp. 263-74). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
28. Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Zwarun, L. (2003). College student web use, perceptions of information credibility, and verification behavior. Computers and Education, 41, 271-290.
29. Muthén, B.O. (1998-2004). Mplus technical appendices. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
30. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. (1998-2010). Mplus user's guide. Version 6. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
31. Naumann, J., Richter, T., & Groeben, N. (2001). Validierung des Inventars zur Computerbildung (INCOBI) anhand eines Vergleichs von Anwendungsexperten und Anwendungsnovizen [Validation of the Computer Literacy Inventory (INCOBI) by a comparison of expert and novice computer users]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie/German Journal of Educational Psychology, 15, 219-232.
32. OECD. (2005). Bildungspolitische Analyse 2004 [Education policy analysis 2004]. Paris: Author.
33. OECD. (2009). PISA 2009 assessment framework. Paris: Author. .
34. OECD. (2011). PISA 2009 results Vol. VI. Students on line: Reading and using digital information. Paris: Author.
35. Parshall, C. G., Spray, J. A., Kalohn, J. C., & Davey, T. (2002). Practical considerations in computer-based testing. New York, NY: Springer.
36. Potosky, D. (2007). The Internet Knowledge (iKnow) measure. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2670-2777.
37. Poynton, T. A. (2005). Computer literacy across the lifespan: A review with implications for educators. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 861-872.
38. R Development Core Team. (2009). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at http://www.R-project. org
39. Richter, T., Naumann, J., & Groeben, N. (2001). Das Inventar zur Computerbildung (INCOBI): Ein Instrument zur Erfassung von Computer Literacy und computerbezogenen Einstellungen bei Studierenden der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften [The Computer Literacy Inventory: An instrument for the assessment of computer literacy and computer related attitudes in students of the humanities and social sciences]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 48, 1-13.
40. Richter, T., Naumann, J., & Horz, H. (2010). Eine revidierte Fassung des Inventars zur Computerbildung (INCOBI-R) [A revised version of the Computer Literacy Inventory]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie/German Journal of Educational Psychology, 24, 23-37.
41. Russell, M., Goldberg, A., & O'Connor, K. (2003). Computerbased testing and validity: A look back into the future. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 10, 279-293.
42. Sandene, B., Bennett, R. E., Braswell, J., & Oranje, A. (2005). Online assessment in mathematics. In B. Sandene, N. Horkay, R. E. Bennett, N. Allen, J. Braswell, B. Kaplan, & A. Oranje (Eds.), Online assessment in mathematics and writing: Reports from the NAEP Technology-based Assessment Project (NCES 2005-457) (pp. 1-68). Washington, DC: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
43. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Test of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research - Online, 8, 23-74. Available at http://www.mpr-online.de/
44. Schumacher, P., & Morahan-Martin, J. (2001). Gender, internet and computer attitudes and experiences. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 95-110.
45. Schweizer, K. (2010). Some guidelines concerning the modeling of traits and abilities in test construction. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26, 1-2.
46. Tsai, M.-J. (2002). Do male and female students often perform better than female students when learning computers? A study of Taiwanese eight graders' computer education through strategic and cooperative learning. Journal of Educational and Computing Research, 26(1), 67-85.
47. van der Linden, W.J. (2009). Conceptual issues in response-time modeling. Journal of Educational Measurement, 46, 247-272.
48. Vekiri, I., & Chronaki, A. (2008). Gender issues in technology use: Perceived social support, computer self-efficacy and value beliefs, and computer use beyond school. Computers and Education, 51, 1392-1404.
49. Wecker, C., Kohnle, C., & Fischer, F. (2007). Computer literacy and inquiry learning: When geeks learn less. Journal of Computer- Assisted learning, 23, 133-144.
50. Weinert, S., Artelt, C., Prenzel, M., Senkbeil, M., Ehmke, T., & Carstensen, C. H. (2011). Development of competencies across the life span. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 14, 67-86.
51. Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J., Wilson, M.R., & Haldane, S. (2007). ACER ConQuest 2.0: General item response modeling software. Camberwell, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.