Digital skills are increasingly essential in performing daily activities. Occupational therapy practitioners require valid and accessible assessments to evaluate and address these competencies. However, the availability and quality of these assessments have not been established.
Objective:
To identify and map existing, accessible, low-cost measures to assess digital skills in adult populations, supporting occupational therapy practitioners.
Data Sources:
Literature searches were conducted using the CINAHL, PsycINFO, and PubMed/MEDLINE databases and the American Journal of Occupational Therapy archives, supplemented with Google Scholar and online resources covering 2000 to May 2024.
Study Selection and Data Collection:
This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. It included tools for adults ages 18 yr and older that were published in English, available online or through author contact, and free or low cost. Tools requiring substantial training or high cost were excluded. Two reviewers independently screened records for inclusion; a third reviewer verified final selections against the criteria.
Findings:
Twenty-seven assessments were included, covering the Computer Skills, Mobile and Tablet Skills, Technology and Internet Skills, Technology Proficiency for Students, and IADLs domains. Most demonstrated high reliability (Cronbach’s α > .80) and validity; however, normative data and test–retest reliability were limited. Notably missing were assessments of touchscreen skills, online safety, and artificial intelligence competency.
Conclusions and Relevance:
This review identified multiple validated and accessible assessments for clinical practice; however, significant gaps remain. Future studies should address these gaps to enable comprehensive evaluation of and intervention for emerging digital competencies in occupational therapy.
Plain-Language Summary
This review examined assessments that can be used by occupational therapy practitioners to measure the digital skills adults need for various daily tasks. Twenty-seven practical tools were identified, with most being reliable and easy to use. However, there is a lack of tools addressing touchscreen skills, internet safety, and artificial intelligence use. Filling these gaps will help occupational therapy practitioners better support clients in their daily digital activities.
This review examined assessments that can be used by occupational therapy practitioners to measure the digital skills adults need for various daily tasks.
AndradeA. C.BidoD.deS.de BarrosA. C. B.BootW. R., & BertolucciP. H. F. (2023). A mobile digital device proficiency performance test for cognitive clinical research. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.01774
4.
ArkseyH., & O’MalleyL. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8, 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
5.
BeidasR. S.StewartR. E.WalshL.LucasS.DowneyM. M.JacksonK., … MandellD. S. (2015). Free, brief, and validated: Standardized instruments for low-resource mental health settings. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 22, 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2014.02.002
6.
BlazicA. J., & BlazicB. J. (2018). Digital skills for elderly people: A learning experiment in four European countries. Review of European Studies, 10, 74–86. https://doi.org/10.5539/res.v10n4p74
7.
BooneA. E.HendersonW. L., & DunnW. (2022). Screening tools: They’re so quick! What’s the issue?American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 76, 7602347010. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2022.049331
8.
BootW. R.CharnessN.CzajaS. J.SharitJ.RogersW. A.FiskA. D., … NairS. (2015). Computer Proficiency Questionnaire: Assessing low and high computer proficient seniors. Gerontologist, 55, 404–411. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnt117
9.
CardellB.SwainL. J., & BurnettA. (2013). Construct validity of the functionally simulated technology task: An exploratory study. Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 27, 345–354. https://doi.org/10.3109/07380577.2013.845928
10.
ChristensenR., & KnezekG. (2017). Validating the Technology Proficiency Self-Assessment Questionnaire for 21st Century Learning (TPSA C-21). Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 33, 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2016.1242391
11.
DavittJ. K., & BrownJ. (2022). Using voice and touchscreen controlled smart speakers to protect vulnerable clients in long-term care facilities. Innovation in Aging, 6(4), igac024. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igac024
12.
DumontC.VincentC., & MazerB. (2002). Development of a standardized instrument to assess computer task performance. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56, 60–68. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.56.1.60
13.
DutilÉ.BottariC., & AugerC. (2017). Test‐retest reliability of a measure of independence in everyday activities: The ADL profile. Occupational Therapy International, 2017, 3014579. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/3014579
14.
EachusP., & CassidyS. F. (2006). Development of the Web Users Self-Efficacy scale (WUSE). Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology Journal, 3, 199–209. https://salford-repository.worktribe.com/output/1470749
15.
EignorD. R. (2013). The standards for educational and psychological testing. In GeisingerK. F.BrackenB. A.CarlsonJ. F.HansenJ.-I. C.KuncelN. R.ReiseS. P., & RodriguezM. C. (Eds.), APA handbook of testing and assessment in psychology: Vol. 1. Test theory and testing and assessment in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 245–250). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14047-013
16.
Elboim-GabyzonM.WeissP. L., & Danial-SaadA. (2021). Effect of age on the touchscreen manipulation ability of community-dwelling adults. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4), 2094. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18042094
GoveroverY.ChiaravallotiN., & DeLucaJ. (2013). The influence of executive functions and memory on self-generation benefit in persons with multiple sclerosis. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 35, 775–783. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2013.824553
19.
GoveroverY., & DeLucaJ. (2015). Actual reality: Using the internet to assess everyday functioning after traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 29, 715–721. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699052.2015.1004744
20.
GoveroverY.O’BrienA. R.MooreN. B., & DeLucaJ. (2010). Actual reality: A new approach to functional assessment in persons with multiple sclerosis. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 91, 252–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2009.09.022
21.
HargittaiE.PiperA. M., & MorrisM. R. (2019). From internet access to internet skills: Digital inequality among older adults. Universal Access in the Information Society, 18, 881–890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-018-0617-5
22.
IlardiC. R.GarofaloE.ChieffiS.GambozN.La MarraM.IavaroneA. (2020). Daily exposure to digital displays may affect the clock-drawing test: From psychometrics to serendipity. Neurological Sciences, 41, 3683–3690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-020-04498-z
23.
JonesC.RamanauR.CrossS., & HealingG. (2010). Net generation or digital natives: Is there a distinct new generation entering university? Computers and Education, 54, 722–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.022
24.
KarnoeA.FurstrandD.ChristensenK. B.NorgaardO., & KayserL. (2018). Assessing competencies needed to engage with digital health services: Development of the eHealth literacy assessment toolkit. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 20, e178. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8347
25.
LiuL., & MihailidisA. (2019). The changing landscape of occupational therapy intervention and research in an age of ubiquitous technologies. OTJR: Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 39, 79–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1539449219835370
26.
MiltiadouM., & YuC. H. (2000). Validation of the Online Technologies Self-Efficacy Scale (OTSES)(ED445672). ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED445672
27.
Nadler TzadokY.EliavR.PortnoyS., & RandD. (2022). Establishing the validity of the internet-based bill-paying task to assess executive function deficits among adults with traumatic brain injury. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 76, 7604205110. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2022.047266
PageK., & UnclesM. (2004). Consumer knowledge of the World Wide Web: Conceptualization and measurement. Psychology and Marketing, 21, 573–591. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20023
PrinsenC. A C.MokkinkL. B.BouterL. M.AlonsoJ.PatrickD. L.de VetH. C. W., & TerweeC. B. (2018). COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 27, 1147–1157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3
33.
QuamarA. H.SchmelerM. R.McCueM.CooperR. A.GoldbergM. R.DiGiovineC., … ScheinR. M. (2023). Test–retest reliability of the Electronic Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Satisfaction Assessment (EISA): A cohort study. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 77, 7706205140. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2023.050285
RanderathJ.StollS.HopferK., & BauerI. (Eds.). (2023). Digital Tools Test (DIGI): A brief manual.Konstanzer Online-Publikations-System Universität Konstanz. https://doi.org/10.48787/KOPS/352-2-5B947AWXRL9D2
36.
RimmerJ. H. (2006). Use of the ICF in identifying factors that impact participation in physical activity/rehabilitation among people with disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 28, 1087–1095. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280500493860
37.
RoqueN. A., & BootW. R. (2018). A new tool for assessing mobile device proficiency in older adults: The Mobile Device Proficiency Questionnaire. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 37, 131–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464816642582
38.
RoqueN. A., & BootW. R. (2021). A new tool for assessing older adults’ wireless network proficiency: The Wireless Network Proficiency Questionnaire. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 40, 541–546. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464820935000
39.
RosenL. D.WhalingK.CarrierL. M.CheeverN. A., & RokkumJ. (2013). The Media and Technology Usage and Attitudes Scale: An empirical investigation. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2501–2511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.006
40.
SegalA., & DoyleN. W. (2024). Technology trends in practice: A survey of occupational therapy practitioners. Work, 79, 1069–1078.
41.
SpitzbergB. H. (2006). Preliminary development of a model and measure of computer-mediated communication (Cmc) competence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 629–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00030.x
42.
SpitzerS., & WeberD. (2019). Reporting biases in self-assessed physical and cognitive health status of older Europeans. PLoS ONE, 14, e0223526. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223526
43.
StigenL.BjørkE., & LundA. (2023). The power of observation. Occupational therapists’ descriptions of doing observations of people with cognitive impairments in the context of community practice. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 30, 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/11038128.2020.1839966
44.
StollS. E.BauerI.HopferK.LambertyJ.LunzV.Guzmán BauschF., ... RanderathJ. (2024). Diagnosing homo digitalis: Towards a standardized assessment for digital tool competencies. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1270437. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1270437
45.
StreinerD. L.NormanG. R., & CairneyJ. (2015). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199685219.001.0001
46.
TriccoA. C.LillieE.ZarinW.O’BrienK. K.ColquhounH.LevacD., … StrausS. E. (2018). PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169, 467–473.https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
van der VaartR., & DrossaertC. (2017). Development of the Digital Health Literacy Instrument: Measuring a broad spectrum of Health 1.0 and Health 2.0 skills. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19, e27. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6709
49.
van DeursenA. J. A. M.HelsperE. J., & EynonR. (2016). Development and validation of the Internet Skills Scale (ISS). Information, Communication and Society, 19, 804–823. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1078834
50.
van LaarE.van DeursenA. J. A. M.van DijkJ. A. G. M., & de HaanJ. (2020). Determinants of 21st-century skills and 21st-century digital skills for workers: A systematic literature review. Sage Open, 10, 2158244019900176. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019900176
WalesK.ClemsonL.LanninN., & CameronI. D. (2016). Functional assessments used by occupational therapists with older adults at risk of activity and participation limitations: A systematic review. PLoS ONE, 11, e0147980. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147980
53.
WangX.WangZ.WangQ.ChenW., & PiZ. (2021). Supporting digitally enhanced learning through measurement in higher education: Development and validation of a university students’ digital competence scale. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37, 1063–1076. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12546
54.
WestonL. E.KreinS. L., & HarrodM. (2021). Using observation to better understand the healthcare context. Qualitative Research in Medicine and Healthcare, 5, 9821. https://doi.org/10.4081/qrmh.2021.9821
