Perspectives on Technology Use in Social Work: Scale Development and Validation

Abstract

Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated technology use in social services, underscoring the need to assess social work students’ readiness for ethical tech integration. Existing tools overlook the ethical context of social work. The Perceptions of Technology Used for Social Work (PTUSW) scale was developed to address this gap, incorporating ethical compatibility, self-efficacy, and perceived usefulness. Method: Experts evaluated items for content validity. A purposive sample of 112 social work students (mean age = 34, 80% female) completed the scale. Factor analyses were conducted to assess model fit, and construct validity was examined. Results: Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis supported a three-factor structure. The 18-item PTUSW scale comprises three subscales and demonstrated strong content and factorial validity with good model fit and reliability (stratified α = .91). Discussion: The PTUSW scale supports reflective learning and ethical preparedness in the use of technology for future practitioners. Further validation with more diverse student and practitioner populations is needed.

Keywords

technology use social work education digital proficiency perceived usefulness technology self-efficacy‌ethical compatibility

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abell

Springer

D. W.

Kamata

(2009). Developing and validating rapid assessment instruments. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195333367.001.0001

Adetomiwa

F. T.

Gberevbie

D. E.

(2022). E-administration and the G2e interaction in Oto-Awori council development area of Lagos state, Nigeria: A technology acceptance model-based approach. African Renaissance, 2022(si1), 285–312. https://doi.org/10.31920/2516-5305/2022/SIn1a14

Alkhawaja

M. I.

Abd Halim

M. S.

Abumandil

M. S.

Al-Adwan

A. S.

(2022). System quality and student’s acceptance of the E-learning system: The serial mediation of perceived usefulness and intention to use. Contemporary Educational Technology, 14(2), Article ep350. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/11525

Anthoine

Moret

Regnault

Sville

Hardoin

J. B.

(2014). Sample size used to validate a scale: A review of publications on newly-developed patient reported outcomes measures. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12(1), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-014-0176-2

Arifin

W. N.

(2024). Sample size calculator [Online software]. https://wnarifin.ocpu.io/sscalc/www/ssrmsea.html

Ashcroft

Sur

Greenblatt

Donahue

(2021). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on social workers at the frontline: A survey of Canadian social workers. British Journal of Social Work, 52(3), Article bcab158. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcab158

Australian Association of Social Workers. (2020). Code of Ethics 2020. https://aasw-prod.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/AASW-Code-of-Ethics-2020.pdf

Barbeite

F. G.

Weiss

E. M.

(2004). Computer self-efficacy and anxiety scales for an Internet sample: Testing measurement equivalence of existing measures and development of new scales. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(03)00049-9

Barrett

B. P.

(2018). Computer anxiety, computer self-efficacy, and computer experience: Prediction of performance and engagement in online college students. [Doctoral dissertation, Capella University]. ProQuest Central (Publication No. 10936219).

10.

Brownlee

Graham

J. R.

Doucette

Hotson

Halverson

(2010). Have communication technologies influenced rural social work practice? British Journal of Social Work, 40(2), 622–637. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcp010

11.

Burgoyne

Cohn

A. S.

(2020). Lessons from the transition to relational teletherapy during COVID-19. Family Process, 59(3), 974–988. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12589

12.

Colvin

A. D.

Bullock

A. N.

(2014). Technology acceptance in social work education: Implications for the field practicum. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 34(5), 496–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2014.952869

13.

Davis

F. D.

(1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology]. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/15192

14.

Diamantopoulos

Sarstedt

Fuchs

Wilczynski

Kaiser

(2012). Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: A predictive validity perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 434–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0300-3

15.

Flores

S. A.

(2012). Online counseling and online counselor preparation: A mixed methods investigation. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi].

16.

Greeno

Hughes

Hayward

Parker

(2007). A confirmatory factor analysis of the professional opinion scale. Research on Social Work Practice, 18(4), 482–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731506299024

17.

Grey

Baber

Corbett

Ellis

Gillison

Barnett

(2024). The use of technology to address loneliness and social isolation among older adults: The role of social care providers. BMC Public Health, 24(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-17386-w

18.

Harris

(2022). Australian social workers’ understandings of technology in practice. Australian Social Work, 75(4), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2021.1949025

19.

Harris

Birnbaum

(2015). Ethical and legal implications on the use of technology in counselling. Clinical Social Work Journal, 43(2), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-014-0515-0

20.

Heinsch

Tickner

Betts

Cliff

Vincent

Canty

(2024). Enhancing simulation in social work education using artificial intelligence: “Social work virtual”. Advances in Social Work and Welfare Education, 25(2), 64–68. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.T2025020700007590750332405

21.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

22.

Hung

Chou

Chen

Own

(2010). Learner readiness for online learning: Scale development and student perceptions. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1080–1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.004

23.

Johanson

G. A.

Brooks

G. P.

(2010). Initial scale development: Sample size for pilot studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(3), 394–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409355692

24.

Kline

R. B.

(2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

25.

Kozica

Malmberg-Heimonen

(2025). Factors and consequences of information and communication technologies in social work practice: A literature review. European Social Work Research, 3(1), 86–103. https://doi.org/10.1332/27551768Y2025D000000030

26.

Mathiyazhagan

(2022). Field practice, emerging technologies, and human rights: The emergence of tech social workers. Journal of Human Rights and Social Work, 7(4), 441–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41134-021-00190-0

27.

McPherson

Siebert

C. F.

Siebert

D. C.

(2017). Measuring rights-based perspectives: A validation of the human rights lens in social work scale. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 8(2), 233–257. https://doi.org/10.1086/692017

28.

Meinhardt-Injac

Skowronek

(2022). Computer self-efficacy and computer anxiety in social work students: Implications for social work education. Nordic Social Work Research, 12(3), 392–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/2156857X.2022.2041073

29.

Mishna

Milne

Bogo

Pereira

L. F.

(2021). Responding to COVID-19: New trends in social workers’ use of information and communication technology. Clinical Social Work Journal, 49(4), 484–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-020-00780-x

30.

Moore

Frye

(2019). Review of HIPAA, part 1: History, protected health information, and privacy and security rules. Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology, 47(4), 269–272. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.119.227819

31.

National Association of Social Workers. (2021). Code of ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English

32.

National Association of Social Workers & Association of Social Work Boards. (2005). NASW & ASWB standards for technology and social work practice. Author.

33.

National Association of Social Workers, Association of Social Work Boards, Council on Social Work Education, & Clinical Social Work Association. (2017). Standards for technology in social work practice. https://www.socialworkers.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=bq9JrB-oVm4%3d&portalid=0

34.

Nunnally

J. C.

Bernstein

I. H.

(1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

35.

Nwagwu

Adebayo

(2016). Computer anxiety and computer self-efficacy in computer-based tests in selected universities in south-west Nigeria. African Journal of Library, Archives & Information Science, 26(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.564294

36.

Pan

(2020). Technology acceptance, technological self-efficacy, and attitude toward technology-based self-directed learning: Learning motivation as a mediator. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 564294. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.564294

37.

Perron

B. E.

Taylor

H. O.

Glass

J. E.

Margerum-Leys

(2010). Information and communication technologies in social work. Advances in Social Work, 11(2), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.18060/241

38.

Pink

Ferguson

Kelly

(2022). Digital social work: Conceptualising a hybrid anticipatory practice. Qualitative Social Work, 21(2), 413–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/14733250211003647

39.

Rahman

M. S.

Warren

Carpenter

(2016). Healthcare technology self-efficacy (HTSE) and its influence on individual attitude: An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.016

40.

Rahmawati

R. N.

(2019). Self-efficacy and use of E-learning: A theoretical review technology acceptance model (TAM). American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research, 3(5), 41–55.

41.

Reamer

F. G.

(2019). Social work education in a digital world: Technology standards for education and practice. Journal of Social Work Education, 55(3), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2019.1567412

42.

Rinkel

Maynard

Martin

(2022). Teaching Note—Telehealth on the fly: Why we need a more thoughtful approach in social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 59(4), 1287–1293. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2022.2051105

43.

Rios

Kazemi

Peterson

S. M.

(2018). Best practices and considerations for effective service provision via remote technology. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, 18(3), 277–287. https://doi.org/https://dx.https://doi.org/10.1037/bar0000072

44.

Schmitt

T. A.

(2011). Current methodological considerations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4), 304–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911406653

45.

Simpson

G. K.

Lord

(2015). Enhancing the reporting of quantitative research methods in Australian social work. Australian Social Work, 68(3), 375–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2015.1035662

46.

Smith

M. J.

Bornheimer

L. A.

Blajeski

Hiltz

Fischer

D. J.

Check

Ruffolo

(2021). Computerized clinical training simulations with virtual clients abusing alcohol: Initial feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness. Clinical Social Work Journal, 49(2), 184–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-020-00779-4

47.

Soper

D. S.

(2024). Structural equation model sample size calculator [Online software]. https://www.analyticscalculators.com

48.

Sørebø

Halvari

Gulli

V. F.

Kristiansen

(2009). The role of self-determination theory in explaining teachers’ motivation to continue using e-learning technology. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1177–1187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.001

49.

Teo

Lee

C. B.

Chai

C. S.

Wong

S. L.

(2009). Assessing the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers in Singapore and Malaysia: A multigroup invariance analysis of the technology acceptance model (TAM). Computers & Education, 53(3), 1000–1009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.017

50.

Tetloff

Hitchcock

Battista

Lowry

(2014). Multimodal composition and social justice: Videos as a tool of advocacy in social work pedagogy. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 32(1–2), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2013.857284

51.

Wang

R. H.

Kenyon

L. K.

McGilton

K. S.

Miller

W. C.

Hovanec

Boger

Viswanathan

Robillard

J. M.

Czarnuch

S. M.

(2021). The time is now: A FASTER approach to generate research evidence for technology-based interventions in the field of disability and rehabilitation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 102(9), 1848–1859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2021.04.009

52.

Wolf

E. J.

Harrington

K. M.

Clark

S. L.

Miller

M. W.

(2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76(6), 913–934. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413495237