View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Development of the Digital and Socio-Civic Skills (DIGISOC) Questionnaire

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Development of the Digital and Socio-Civic Skills (DIGISOC) Questionnaire
Language: English
Authors: Peart, Mark Thomas (ORCID 0000-0003-1480-7094), Gutiérrez-Esteban, Prudencia, Cubo-Delgado, Sixto
Source: Educational Technology Research and Development. Dec 2020 68(6):3327-3351.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 25
Publication Date: 2020
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Test Validity, Test Reliability, Questionnaires, Interpersonal Competence, Technological Literacy, Access to Computers, Skill Development, Self Evaluation (Individuals), Adolescents, Young Adults, Citizen Participation
DOI: 10.1007/s11423-020-09824-y
ISSN: 1042-1629
Abstract: Recognizing that digital citizenship includes the capacity to foster growth opportunities and also, can help to minimize risks and divides from the use of digital technology is essential for today's society and education. This on-going study intends to identify core aspects that help or hinder youth participation and contribute on how to educate youth and improve on digital citizenship through the development of digital and socio-civic skills. The aim of this study is to develop a valid and reliable instrument that invites young people, aged 16-35, to assess their digital and socio-civic skills. The development process of the instrument involves a literature review, designing and constructing the dimensions and items of the questionnaire and finally, assessing the content and construct validity as well as the reliability of the instrument. We have obtained an instrument in English and Spanish with acceptable scientific guarantees; including statistical data regarding a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and favorable reliability coefficients using cronbach's alpha.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2020
Accession Number: EJ1277896
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGZQcoDJ5LCNucfTRxoKP30AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDGne_w8h8wj1a74WqgIBEICBm2moZCUaXmhZhQ7cH3MQeep_LXLfJ6JObl5d0-LHLNAp9sVTgBP697KMaNCBe5YBIZKE4W4VVn58MPL5TosARBNc6q5zR_9cmokF0rKA0lAyBkSPEjVTj81-uk3MWncMFgVXgRQ0szFuPb6h5ODbaR1eI1XLLKlUpPVxuGV1oO8e94gU5o8NDNpR87Az1bLd989b9MK3erdqn6Qo
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0147320135;etr01dec.20;2020Dec03.05:33;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0147320135-1">Development of the digital and socio-civic skills (DIGISOC) questionnaire </title> <p>Recognizing that digital citizenship includes the capacity to foster growth opportunities and also, can help to minimize risks and divides from the use of digital technology is essential for today's society and education. This on-going study intends to identify core aspects that help or hinder youth participation and contribute on how to educate youth and improve on digital citizenship through the development of digital and socio-civic skills. The aim of this study is to develop a valid and reliable instrument that invites young people, aged 16–35, to assess their digital and socio-civic skills. The development process of the instrument involves a literature review, designing and constructing the dimensions and items of the questionnaire and finally, assessing the content and construct validity as well as the reliability of the instrument. We have obtained an instrument in English and Spanish with acceptable scientific guarantees; including statistical data regarding a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and favorable reliability coefficients using cronbach's alpha.</p> <p>Keywords: Questionnaire; Digital literacy; Digital skills; Socio-civic skills; Digital citizenship</p> <hd id="AN0147320135-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The world has fallen into a time of rising inequalities and enormous disparities of opportunity (United Nations General Assembly, 2015). The past decade has seen a wave of civic uprisings and social unrest, where the use digital technologies and social networks have been key aspects in fostering civic engagement (Castells, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref1">7</reflink>]). These uprisings were due to the growing social stratification and a popular desire for more democratic, social and equal societies. The Arab spring and other grassroot-social movements such as occupy wall street, 15M movement in Spain and social media campaigns such as #BlackLivesMatter, #FridaysForFuture, #FreePatrick and the #MeToo feminist movement, have represented new ways of engaging and participating via the use of digital technologies and social networks to influence policy. All of these social, political and civic phenomena share common traits, such as being mediated by young people with a high level of digital and socio-civic skills. Most undertake activities like obtaining, critically evaluating and using information and data, by creating and/or sharing digital content, collaborating with others towards a common goal. All of which are guided by strong democratic, civic and social values. Today's youth are becoming increasingly engaged as creators and contributors of online content (Lenhart, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref2">49</reflink>]; Nacu, Martin, Pinkard & Gray, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref3">58</reflink>]). With the rising influence of digital skills in participatory and civic actions, especially regarding young people, digital technologies are providing for many people, new possibilities to use technology not only for retrieving information but for creative production, sharing, communication and critical thinking. The latter becoming exponentially more necessary due to the damaging effects of misinformation and data mismanagement (El Soufi & See, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref4">18</reflink>]). Particularly, Kahne & Bowyer ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref5">46</reflink>]) and Hargittai & Shaw ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref6">32</reflink>]) also indicate that despite living in a digital society and using technology for a vast amount of daily activities, in general, many young people still lack access or have a skills deficit when using said devices or digital social networks (Hargittai & Shaw [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref7">32</reflink>]). Similar studies also point towards a double-sided conceptualization of youth. On the one hand, there is a small group of young people who are able to acquire these skills but will not autonomously use digital media to engage civically (Kahne & Bowyer, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref8">46</reflink>]) and on the other hand, a vast majority who do not engage online, nor possess the required skills. Some authors (Ritzhaupt, Liu, Dawson & Barron, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref9">66</reflink>]) entertain the possibility that this could be due to a lack of access and opportunities to use digital technologies and social media that prove to be key factors in creating and widening, the digital divide. Other research in digital inequalities suggests that both classic digital divides relating to access, along with second and third level divides relating to usage patterns, skills development and sociocultural background may influence online political and civic engagement and the capacity of an individual to translate their digital access and skills to offline outcomes (Elliott & Earl, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref10">19</reflink>]; Schreeder, van Deursen and van Dijk, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref11">67</reflink>]) such as engaging in activities related to digital citizenship.</p> <p>Digital citizenship is an ever-growing term which has been defined by UNESCO ([<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref12">75</reflink>]) as being able to locate, access, use and create information effectively; actively, critically, sensitively and ethically engage with users and content while navigating digital environments. As well as, being safety-conscious and acting responsibly. This shows that education in all its forms (formal, non-formal and informal) is necessary for a sustainable society of knowledge and information (Castells, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref13">7</reflink>]), as well as offering equal access to information, technology and training for young people to become functional, educated, responsible, critical and engaged citizens of a digital era. Recognizing that digital citizenship includes the capacity to foster growth opportunities and also, can help to minimize risks from digital environments is essential for educators today. Efforts are being made in education to provide universal access to technology and to develop new literacies, mainly digital skills, in order to promote a more inclusive and engaged world (Hargittai & Shaw, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref14">32</reflink>]; Kahne & Bowyer, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref15">46</reflink>]). However, as pointed out by Schreeder, van Deursen and van Dijk ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref16">67</reflink>]), there are no guarantees that this will then promote the desired offline outcomes. Therefore, more research is needed in order to address the impact that skills development has on digital citizenship and other related areas. There is an increasing amount of research work being conducted around digital and media literacies, but most do not necessarily include critical media literacy (Hess & McAvoy, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref17">34</reflink>]), which is becoming crucial in modern-day education due to the misuse and unethical management of information and data.</p> <p>In this paper, we understand, based on an extensive literature review (UNESCO, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref18">73</reflink>]; Lankshear & Knobel, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref19">48</reflink>]; Erstad, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref20">21</reflink>]; Ferrari, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref21">27</reflink>]; Vuorikari, Punie, Carretero & Van den Brane, 2016; Kereluik, Mishra, Fahnoe and Terry, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref22">47</reflink>]; Moradi, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref23">55</reflink>]; Spector, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref24">72</reflink>]; Hall, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref25">31</reflink>]; Oberländer, Beinicke & Bipp, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref26">59</reflink>]), that digital skills are those that embrace creative, critical, and the safe use of information and communication technologies (ICT) in order to fulfil a given motivation, while also being able to adapt to a new knowledge and attitudes set that are necessary in this day and age to be competent in a digital environment. An importance is also given to ethical and responsible actions via the use of digital technologies and alludes to the necessity of developing high-order thinking skills. Whereas social skills in the 21st century point towards the interpersonal aspects of prosocial actions like being empathetic or understanding other perspectives; while also focusing on intrapersonal traits such as self-control. In other words, building friendly relationships with other people and managing social situations. Engaged citizens share certain characteristics like maintaining a relationship with their community, confidence in their capacity to effect change, and demonstrating active civic behaviours.</p> <p>Although there is a successful field of literature relating to digital skills and specifically relating to instrument development (Van Deursen, Helsper & Eynon, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref27">80</reflink>]; Greene, Yu, & Copeland, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref28">29</reflink>]; Martin & Grudziecki, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref29">52</reflink>]; Somerville, Smith & Macklin, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref30">71</reflink>]; ISTE,[<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref31">36</reflink>]; ISTE, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref32">37</reflink>]; ISTE, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref33">38</reflink>]; Calvani, Cartelli, Fini & Ranieri, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref34">6</reflink>]; Gisbert, Espuny & González, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref35">28</reflink>]; Ferrari, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref36">27</reflink>]: UNESCO, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref37">74</reflink>]; ECDL Foundation, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref38">17</reflink>]; Vuorikari, et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref39">83</reflink>]; Antoninis &Montoya, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref40">4</reflink>]; JISC, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref41">42</reflink>]) there is still a lack of reliable measurement on digital-age skills (Olszewski & Crompton, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref42">60</reflink>]). Take for example, how technology is used for social and civic actions and engagement. There are some studies (Jones & Mitchell, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref43">44</reflink>]; Elliott & Earl, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref44">19</reflink>]) on how digital skills effect participation, but there is a lack of research being conducted on how these skills are jointly developed and how they affect youth participation and society on a whole. As we stated previously, there is a minority of the youth that engages and participates using digital technologies to better society; and then, a larger majority that does not engage or use digital tools for social or civic goals. Baring this in mind, this study focuses on how youth use digital technologies and how they develop digital and socio-civic skills for this purpose. The aim of this study is to develop a valid and reliable instrument that invites young people to assess their digital and socio-civic skills. From this, we intend to identify core aspects that help or hinder youth participation and develop an instrument that will contribute to a larger on-going study regarding how to educate in youth participation and how to improve on digital citizenship education through the development of digital and socio-civic skills. As most research establishes how technology is used by students and how they are integrated into education (Olszewski & Crompton, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref45">60</reflink>]), we would like to contribute on what aspects are being taught and how they are addressed in different educational setting and measure the current level of digital and socio-civic skills of young people. The first step towards this goal is establishing an instrument with scientific guarantees. The development process of the instrument has involved undertaking an extensive literature review, designing and constructing the dimensions and items of the questionnaire and then, finally, assessing the validity and reliability of the instrument. The following sections provide detail into each step of this process.</p> <hd id="AN0147320135-3">Literature review</hd> <p>Every young person has the right to develop capacities in order to favorably interact in society in a critical and emancipatory way and to be a literate citizen of the 21st century (UNESCO, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref46">74</reflink>]). The American Library Association ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref47">2</reflink>]) defines a digitally literate person as someone who possesses a variety of technical and cognitive skills, including using technology, interpreting the veracity of information and also, collaborating with others and using skills to participate actively in civic society and contribute to an informed and engaged community. On the one hand, from a European perspective, digital literacy is used in initiatives and policy when addressing digitally inclusive actions (Janseen, Stoyanov, Ferrari, Punie, Pannekeet & Sloep, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref48">40</reflink>]; European Commission, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref49">23</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref50">24</reflink>]) and is used to address what kind of skills, understandings, and critical reflections students are able to use (Hatlevik & Christophersen, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref51">33</reflink>]). Recently, Johnston ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref52">43</reflink>]) explains how <emph>The Edith Cowan University's Digital Literacy Framework</emph> unified different concepts of digital literacy to develop a definition that embraces the ability to use digital technologies to access, evaluate, create and communicate information in a socially responsible and ethical manner. This follows the international literature set by the UNESCO Standards (2008) and the framework developed by the International Society for Technology in Education-ISTE ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref53">36</reflink>]). While in Europe, digital competence or digital skills are the most widespread terms, both in the policy papers of administrations and in research. An example of this, is provided by the EU's DIGCOMP project (Ferrari, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref54">27</reflink>]) and in the renewed version of the instrument, <emph>DIGCOMP 2.0</emph> (Vuorikari et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref55">83</reflink>]). This version presents a review of the constructs: 1) <emph>information and data literacy, 2) communication and collaboration, 3) digital content creation, 4) safety and 5) problem solving.</emph> Said authors also determine similar sub-dimensions constituting digital competence. Most of which can be related to the larger international framework provided by UNESCO ([<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref56">74</reflink>]) on needs analysis, the use, search and management of information and data, but mainly on critical and ethical awareness.</p> <p>Digital competence and digital skills are more often employed as broader and educational-orientated concepts (European Parliament and the Council of Europe, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref57">26</reflink>]), understood to be an integrated, transferable and multifunctional set of knowledge, cognitive and practical skills, attitudes and values in a digital setting (Ramboustek, Stípek & Vanková, 2016). The work conducted by Van Laar, Van Deursen, Van Dijk and De Haan ([<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref58">81</reflink>]) pointed out that the main difference with digital skills or digital literacy in the 21st century skills-set is that these provide for a real integration and are not seen as discreet or transversal concepts. All in all, the meaning and scope of digital skills and its related concepts are often used as synonyms when describing the competences needed for actors working in educational contexts. Accordingly, this seems to have resulted in a mix and acceptance of same meaning concepts (Pettersson, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref59">63</reflink>]). On a European level, the concepts that are mainly used are digital competence and digital skills. By means of a definition, the European Commission in [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref60">25</reflink>] find that people with digital and effective citizenship skills are those that embrace creative, critical, and safe use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in order to fulfil a given motivation, being able to adapt to a new set of knowledges and attitudes that are necessary in this day and age to be competent in a digital environment. Although digital literacy skills will necessarily change as technology evolves, being digitally literate will continue to require basic reading and writing skills, access to up-to-date digital instruction and a commitment to lifelong learning (American Library Association, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref61">2</reflink>]; Murawski & Bick, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref62">57</reflink>]).</p> <p>In this paper, we also address the development of socio-civic skills as a combination of knowledge, abilities and attitudes, to interact with the public and to express solidarity and interest in solving community problems. As with digital skills, it involves critical reflection to be active participants in a community and in decision-making processes (European Commission, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref63">22</reflink>]). Other literature (Ilhan, Sukut, Utas, Akhan and Batmaz, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref64">35</reflink>]; So, Voisen, Burnside and Gaylord-Harden, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref65">70</reflink>]) defines social competence as the condition of possessing the social, emotional and cognitive skills necessary to adapt effectively in a variety of social environments. Meanwhile some authors (Chaveilier, 2015; McNaughton, Rosedale, Ngaire-Jesson, Hoda & Teng, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref66">54</reflink>]) establish that social skills in the 21st century point towards the interpersonal aspects of prosocial actions like being empathetic or looking at other perspectives; while also focusing on intrapersonal traits such as self-control. In other words, building cordial relationships with other people and managing social situations. The contributions of Zaff, Boyd, Li and Lerner ([<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref67">85</reflink>]) also argue that engaged citizens share several common characteristics including a sense of civic duty, a social connection with their community, confidence in their ability to effect change, and demonstrate active civic behaviours. In addition, Parés ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref68">61</reflink>]) adds that the ultimate purpose of developing social competence is to train citizens who can democratically coexist with other to participate in the social, cultural, economical and political life of their surrounding community, trying to improve it and exercising citizenship.</p> <p>While developing social and civic knowledge is key in providing youth with the skills that are necessary to be active citizens, we also need to provide a framework for developing digital citizenship and digital youth engagement in order to close the ever-growing digital and social divide (Selwyn & Facer, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref69">68</reflink>]). Previous research on Digital Citizenship Education (Adorjan & Micciardelli,[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref70">1</reflink>]; Choi, Glassman & Cristol, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref71">13</reflink>]; UNESCO, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref72">75</reflink>]; Shin et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref73">69</reflink>]; Emejulu & McGregor; [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref74">20</reflink>]) points out that a digitally-literate student ought to attain technological skills and critical thinking skills; while, also, assessing online risks and take measures to protect themselves, their privacy, and their digital reputation (Adorjan & Micciardelli, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref75">1</reflink>]). In addition, the curriculum should promote the development of technical skills and global awareness and other complicated capabilities such as networking, critical perspective and online political activism (Choi, Glassman & Cristol, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref76">13</reflink>]) along with assuming responsibilities and being a productive member of a shared project on common good. Students in this sense are empowered to critically analyze the consequences of technologies in everyday life and take action (Emejulu & McGregor, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref77">20</reflink>]). This is also apparent in the <emph>UNESCO policy for Digital Kids Asia-Pacific: Insights into Children's Digital Citizenship</emph> in which they establish Digital Citizenship as a product relating to digital literacy, safety and resilience, digital participation and agency, digital emotional intelligence and finally, creativity and innovation (Shin et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref78">69</reflink>]).</p> <p>All in all, both digital and socio-civic skills relate to empowering people, specifically young people, in order to navigate modern society and to become competent digital citizens. Thus, there is a need to start looking at digital and social skills as key catalysts for closing the digital divide, as promotors of engagement and active political, cultural and social participation as well as key tools for transforming societies in terms of social justice, equity and human rights through education and skills development.</p> <hd id="AN0147320135-4">Design of the instrument to measure digital and socio-civic skills for youth participation</hd> <p>Based upon the work of several authors (Cubo et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref79">15</reflink>]; Coe, Waring, Hedges and Arthur, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref80">14</reflink>]; European Parliament and the Council of Europe, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref81">26</reflink>]; Martínez Arias, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref82">53</reflink>]) we followed several steps in order to develop an instrument with scientific guarantees, the aforementioned steps are:</p> <hd id="AN0147320135-5">Establishing the objective of the instrument</hd> <p>The objective of this questionnaire is to measure the development of digital and socio-civic skills for youth participation, specifically in young people, from Spain and the United Kingdom, aged from 16 to 35.</p> <hd id="AN0147320135-6">Exploring the theoretical foundations and construction of items and dimensions and draft vers...</hd> <p>After an extensive literature review and determining the objective of the questionnaire, we then moved forward into writing the items and forming the structure of the instrument. All items were initially written in Spanish. The draft version of the questionnaire was designed using 7 sociodemographic questions, 75 items and 2 open-ended questions. These items formed a total of 12 sub-dimensions and 6 dimensions: 1) <emph>information</emph>, 2) c<emph>ommunication and collaboration</emph>, 3) c<emph>reation of digital content</emph>, 4) <emph>ICT security</emph>, 5) <emph>critical thinking</emph> and 6) <emph>socio-civic</emph>, all of which relate to previous theoretical work, which is detailed fully in the following paragraphs.</p> <hd id="AN0147320135-7">Dimension 1: information</hd> <p>This dimension aims to collect data on the level of information and media literacy of a person and is defined as the ability to recognize a need for information and the ability to locate, store, retrieve, apply, synthesize and evaluate information (UNESCO & IFLA, 2005; European Commission, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref83">22</reflink>], Vuorikari, et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref84">83</reflink>]; Shin et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref85">69</reflink>]). As well as, recognize and evaluate the quality of the media that are transmitted (UNESCO, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref86">74</reflink>]). This dimension of the questionnaire is composed of 4 sub-dimensions: 1) need, access, location and selection of information; 2) management, understanding and use of information; 3) evaluation of information and 4) access, understanding and evaluation of the media (Table 1).</p> <p>Table 1 Dimension 1: Information</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Dimension</p></th><th align="left"><p>Sub-dimension</p></th><th align="left"><p>Item</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="18"><p>D1. Information</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>D1.1. Need, access, location and selection of information</p></td><td align="left"><p>1. I keep myself informed of current political and social issues</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2. I have apps that are configured to keep me up to date with the news</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3. I search for and access information in digital environments</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4. I select the most relevant information in digital environments</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>D1.2. Management, understanding and use of information</p></td><td align="left"><p>5. I use tools to store and manage information</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>6. I look for information on the Internet about social issues and/or politics</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>7. I consider only the most important information on the Internet</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>8. I understand the information that I find on the Internet</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="5"><p>D1.3. Evaluation of information</p></td><td align="left"><p>9. I trust everything I see on the Internet</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>10. I worry about fake news and misinformation on the Internet</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>11. I am worried that the information that I have is false</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>12. I am critical of the information that I have</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>13. I assess the information that I have</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="5"><p>D1.4. Access, understanding and evaluation of the media</p></td><td align="left"><p>14. I understand the information and messages transmitted by the media</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>15. I appreciate the importance of accessing media in different formats (press, radio, television, Internet ...)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>16. I understand the role of the media</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>17. I critically evaluate the media</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>18. I trust the information presented by the media</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0147320135-8">Dimension 2: communication and collaboration</hd> <p>This dimension highlights the need to communicate information with other people (Catts and Lau, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref87">8</reflink>]; Vuorikari, et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref88">83</reflink>]) and it aims to measure the communicative skills of an individual in a variety of situations. In addition, it evaluates the participation and collaboration of said individual with other people in regard to communication. Moreover, the European Commission ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref89">22</reflink>]) considers a citizen competent when being able to evaluate communication and above all, communicate with judgment. This section helps with the development of the process by which individuals become able to understand the meaning of being critical of techniques and the effects of messages and productions of the media. The dimension is composed of 2 sub-dimensions: 1) communication with others and 2) collaboration with others (Table 2).</p> <p>Table 2 Dimension 2: communication and collaboration</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Dimension</p></th><th align="left"><p>Sub-dimension</p></th><th align="left"><p>Item</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="12"><p>D2. Communication and collaboration</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="8"><p>D2.1. Communication with others</p></td><td align="left"><p>19. I have good communication skills</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>20. I know how to communicate in different ways (images, text, videos ...)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>21. I communicate my ideas to people that I know</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>22. I communicate my ideas to strangers</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>23. I listen to other people when they present opinions contrary to my own</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>24. I am careful and try to ensure that my messages do not upset others</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>25. I transmit constructive messages in different environments</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>26. I argue my opinion politely</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>D2.2. Collaboration with others</p></td><td align="left"><p>27. I am part of a social network group that talks about political issues</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>28. I am part of a social network group that talks about social issues</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>29. I participate in digital activities organized by other people or entities</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>30. I share information and content with other people via electronic devices</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0147320135-9">Dimension 3: digital content creation</hd> <p>The objective of this dimension is to collect information on the actions people take to create, share and disseminate digital content (Ferrari, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref90">27</reflink>]; Vuorikari et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref91">83</reflink>]). A person is competent, in terms of the creation of digital content, when they are able to create and edit new content, creative productions, multimedia products and digital expressions while taking into account the ethical and legal aspects of a person's rights and intellectual property. The dimension is composed of two sub- dimensions: 1) development of digital content and 2) integration and restructuring of digital content (Table 3).</p> <p>Table 3 Dimension 3: digital content creation</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Dimension</p></th><th align="left"><p>Sub-dimension</p></th><th align="left"><p>Item</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="8"><p>D3. Digital content creation</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="5"><p>D3.1. Development of digital content</p></td><td align="left"><p>31. I know different ways to create and edit digital content (videos, photographs, infographics, texts, animations ...)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>32. I use different digital content to express myself in digital environments</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>33. I can transform information and organize it in different formats</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>34. I develop and publish digital content taking into account people's Rights</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>35. I develop and publish digital content taking into account intellectual property rights</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>D3.2. Integration and restructuring of digital content</p></td><td align="left"><p>36. I modify and include digital content in my own posts on social Networks</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>37. I share materials created by myself and by other people</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>38. In case of developing new digital content, I say from where or whom the information comes</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0147320135-10">Dimension 4: digital security</hd> <p>This dimension aims to measure a person's ability to protect themselves and assess their safety and well-being when using digital technologies and in a digital environment (Vuorikari, et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref92">83</reflink>]). The dimension is composed of 2 sub-dimensions; 1) data protection and privacy settings and 2) protection of a person's health and well-being (Table 4).</p> <p>Table 4 Dimension 4: digital security</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Dimension</p></th><th align="left"><p>Sub-dimension</p></th><th align="left"><p>Item</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="9"><p>D4. Digital security</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>D4.1. Data protection and privacy settings</p></td><td align="left"><p>39. I configure my devices to protect my privacy</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>40. I reflect on whether a digital environment is a safe space</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>41. I am careful with my personal information</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>42. I am careful with the information of other people</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="5"><p>D4.2. Protection of a person's health and wellbeing</p></td><td align="left"><p>43. I avoid having arguments in digital environments</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>44. I have discussions in digital environments</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>45. Social networks influence my personal well-being (mood, physical health, social relationships...)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>46. I identify harmful behaviours that can affect my health and wellbeing on social networks</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>47. I avoid behaviours that are harmful to my health and wellbeing on social networks</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0147320135-11">Dimension 5: critical thinking</hd> <p>The objective of this dimension is to measure the critical thinking skills of an individual. Critical Thinking is one of the most active concepts in the field of education (Cheung Kong, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref93">10</reflink>]) influencing not only educational settings by helping to better understand information but also, in socio-personal environments by motivating better communication skills (Volman & Ten Dam, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref94">82</reflink>]) decision making and problem solving. It is absolute that to be able to think critically is crucial in today's society with the proliferation of information from many sources e.g. social media, and the ever-growing phenomenon of <emph>fake news</emph> and disinformation (El Soufi & See, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref95">18</reflink>]). These authors also affirm that, more than ever, young people need to be able to discriminate facts from opinions, evaluate and judge the credibility of evidence (van de Oudeweetering & Voogt, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref96">78</reflink>]). Many authors (Cheung Kong, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref97">10</reflink>]; Dwyer and Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref98">16</reflink>]; Janssen, et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref99">41</reflink>]; van de Oudeweetering & Voogt, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref100">78</reflink>]) describe critical thinking as a metacognitive process that encompasses skills such as analysis, evaluation and inference; that, when used correctly, improves the ability of the individual to produce a conclusion, solution or logical opinion about a given situation and validate its reliability. This dimension is made up of a single sub-dimension called critical thinking skills (Table 5).</p> <p>Table 5 Dimension 5: critical thinking</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Dimension</p></th><th align="left"><p>Sub-dimension</p></th><th align="left"><p>Item</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="14"><p>D5. critical thinking</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="14"><p>D5.1. critical thinking skills</p></td><td align="left"><p>48. I am a socially involved person</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>49. I am a politically involved person</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>50. Before doing a digital activity (upload a photograph, commenting ...) I usually think about the possible consequences</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>51. I use dialogue to resolve conflicts in digital environments</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>52. I engage with other people through social networks</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>53. I use critical thinking to analyse daily life situations</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>54. I listen to both sides of a disagreement</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>55. I try to listen to opinions that differ from my own before making decisions</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>56. I am critical of, and reject any type of violent behaviour</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>57. I make judgments about new information that I receive</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>58. I make decisions using relevant information</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>59. I solve problems using relevant information</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>60. I evaluate and reflect on my achievements and failures</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>61. I reflect on the information that I have</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0147320135-12">Dimension 6: socio-civic</hd> <p>The <emph>socio-civic</emph> dimension measures the knowledge, skills, attitudes, values and social and civic behaviour of a person. Also, it emphasizes people's interpersonal and intreapersonal skills, along with the use of social skills, emotional awareness, ensuring dialogue and the exchange of positive and constructive ideas (European Parliament and the Council of Europe, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref101">26</reflink>], Zaff et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref102">85</reflink>]; Parés, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref103">61</reflink>], Puig and Morales, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref104">64</reflink>]; Chaveilier, 2015; McNaughton et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref105">54</reflink>]). This dimension is made up of a single sub-dimension (Table 6).</p> <p>Table 6 Dimension 6: Socio-civic</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Dimension</p></th><th align="left"><p>Sub-dimension</p></th><th align="left"><p>Item</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="14"><p>D6. Socio-civic</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="14"><p>D6.1. Knowledge, skills, attitudes, values and behaviour</p></td><td align="left"><p>62. I consider volunteering a fundamental activity for young people</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>63. I help other people</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>64. I consider it important that young people know about political life</p><p>(political parties, electoral programs, election procedures ...)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>65. I assume responsibilities in my local community</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>66. I am engaged and act on social problems</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>67. I value and defend democratic values (freedom, equality, social</p><p>justice, solidarity, tolerance ...)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>68. I work to achieve a diverse and multicultural society</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>69. I am interested in the socio-economic development of society</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>70. I use digital technologies to exercise my citizenship</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>71. I am able to put myself in other people's shoes</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>72. I respect other people</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>73. I take into account the opinion of others</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>74. I get informed before commenting on a topic</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>75. I adopt and defend an opinion on different topics</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0147320135-13">Empirical assessment of the instrument</hd> <p>After establishing the structure of the questionnaire, we then began the empirical assessment of the instrument by following three steps: 1) assessing content validity through a group of experts, 2) assessing construct validity with a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and finally, 3) assessing reliability with cronbach's alpha coefficient.</p> <hd id="AN0147320135-14">Assessing content validation via a group of experts</hd> <p>The draft version of the questionnaire was designed in Spanish and submitted through a process of content validation via a group of experts. The group of experts was formed by nine people of the knowledge field from Spanish and Portuguese universities. They were asked to assess the instrument and data was collected on a digital form. The group of experts were asked to evaluate the structure and content of the draft version of the instrument. On the one hand, in regard to structure, the experts assessed: a) adequacy, which refers to the degree of connection between the item and the dimension and b) relevance, that refers to the degree to which the dimension fits the aim of the study. On the other hand, in regard to content, the experts assessed: 1) the relevance of an item to be included in the questionnaire. 2) The coherent logical relationship of the item with the dimension and 3) the clarity that measures if the item is easily understood. All were assessed using a Likert scale of 1 (low)–5 (high) and there was an open-ended comment section for further observations.</p> <p>As shown in the previous table (Table 7), all of the dimensions and the average scores (<emph>x</emph>̅) are above 4 and the standard deviation (<emph>s</emph>) is reasonably low. Therefore, the questionnaire has very favorable scores both in terms of structure and content. However, some slight modifications were made (spelling, language changes...) such as: Item 3: <emph>"I search and access information in digital environments",</emph> and item 4: <emph>"I select the most relevant information in digital environments",</emph> were fused together creating a revised item 3: <emph>"I search and select the most relevant information in digital environments"</emph>. In addition, several items were deleted (Item 7, 11, 13, 44, 53, 61, 69), following the recommendations of the group of experts and by decision of the research team. All item numbers where then adjusted taking into account the previous modifications. The draft questionnaire after the content validation process was made up of seven socio-demographic variables, six dimensions and twelve sub-dimensions derived from the literature, comprised of a total of 67 items and two open-ended questions.</p> <p>Table 7 Results of the content validation via group of experts</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Dimension</p></th><th align="left" colspan="4"><p>Structure</p></th><th align="left" colspan="6"><p>Content</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Adequacy</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Pertinence</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Relevance</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Coherence</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Clarity</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p><italic>x</italic>̅</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>s</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>x</italic>̅</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>s</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>x</italic>̅</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>s</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>x</italic>̅</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>s</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>x</italic>̅</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>s</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Sociodemographic variables</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.67</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.52</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.83</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.41</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.38</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.85</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.17</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.93</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.14</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.07</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Information</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.67</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.52</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.83</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.41</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.62</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.62</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.63</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.62</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.19</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.04</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Communication and collaboration</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.83</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.41</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.67</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.52</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.47</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.92</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.51</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.79</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.29</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.07</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Digital content creation</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.33</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.82</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.50</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.82</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.63</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.73</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.60</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.76</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.44</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.95</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Digital security</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.50</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.82</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.50</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.82</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.43</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.11</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.33</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.08</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.04</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.10</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Critical thinking</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.83</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.41</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.83</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.41</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.52</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.02</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.45</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.01</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.26</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.17</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Socio-civic</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.50</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.82</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.33</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.82</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.41</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.01</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.39</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.05</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.22</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.04</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.62</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.62</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.64</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.60</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.49</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.89</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.44</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.89</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.23</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.06</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0147320135-15">Assessing construct validity via confirmatory factor analysis</hd> <p>Taking into account the work conducted by Mundfrom, Shaw and Ke ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref106">56</reflink>]) on sample sizes for conducting factor analysis, 205 participants provided data through convenience sampling from secondary schools, universities and selected non-governmental organizations. The demographic characteristics of the participants in this study are presented in the following table (Table 8).</p> <p>Table 8 Participant's sociodemographic characteristics</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Variables</p></th><th align="left"><p>%</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>Sex</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Female</p></td><td align="left"><p>69.9</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Male</p></td><td align="left"><p>30.1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>Age group</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 16–19</p></td><td align="left"><p>34.4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 20–24</p></td><td align="left"><p>44</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 25–29</p></td><td align="left"><p>13.9</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 30–35</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.7</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The modified draft version of the questionnaire was then submitted through a construct validation process via confirmatory factor analysis based on twelve factors, derived from theory from previous stages of the process. To determine if factor analysis was adequate for the sample, the KMO (Keiser- Meyer-Olkin) measures and Bartlett's Sphericity test were confirmed. As shown in the following table (Table 9), the KMO score was 0.874 and the Bartlett's test measures 6643,544 (<emph>df</emph>=2211, <emph>p</emph>= 0.00), which indicated that the sample was acceptable.</p> <p>Table 9 KMO and Bartlett's test scores</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>KMO and Bartlett's test</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p>Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.874</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Bartlett's test of sphericity</p></td><td align="left"><p>Approx. chi-square</p></td><td align="left"><p>6643,544</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>df</p></td><td align="left"><p>2211</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Sig.</p></td><td align="left"><p>0000</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>After confirming the adequacy of the sample, we then analyzed the total explained variance where the data confirms twelve principal components that in turn, explain 57.39% of the variance. As shown in the following table (Table 10), <emph>component 1</emph>, explains 25,016% of the variance and the rest of the factors explain the remaining percentage.</p> <p>Table 10 Explained variance</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" colspan="7"><p>Total variance explained</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Component</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Initial eigenvalues</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Extraction Sums of Squared</p><p>Loadings</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Total</p></th><th align="left"><p>% of</p><p>Variance</p></th><th align="left"><p>Cumulative</p><p>%</p></th><th align="left"><p>Total</p></th><th align="left"><p>% of</p><p>Variance</p></th><th align="left"><p>Cumulative</p><p>%</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16.760</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>25.016</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>25.016</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16.760</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>25.016</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>25.016</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.678</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.982</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>31.998</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.678</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.982</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>31.998</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.427</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.622</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>35.620</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.427</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.622</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>35.620</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.307</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.443</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>39.063</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.307</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.443</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>39.063</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.010</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.000</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>42.063</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.010</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.000</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>42.063</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.799</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.685</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>44.748</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.799</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.685</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>44.748</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.593</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.377</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>47.125</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.593</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.377</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>47.125</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>8</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.502</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.242</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>49.367</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.502</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.242</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>49.367</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>9</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.446</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.159</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>51.526</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.446</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.159</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>51.526</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.394</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.080</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>53.606</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.394</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.080</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>53.606</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>11</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.291</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.927</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>55.532</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.291</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.927</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>55.532</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.246</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.860</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>57.392</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.246</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.860</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>57.392</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The results from the rotated components matix showed the total of 67 items distributed into the twelve components. During this phase, the research team checked factor loadings of each item with respect to the component group and then, made decisions to link each item with its corresponding factor. The following table shows the distribution of items in regard to the principal components (Table 11).</p> <p>Table 11 Summarized version of matrix of rotated components</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Component</p></th><th align="left"><p>Item number</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2, 6, 27, 28, 29, 49, 64, 66, 70</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>9, 23, 26, 42, 47, 63, 65, 71, 72, 74</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>3, 8, 14, 16, 17, 58, 59</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>30, 32, 36, 45, 51, 52</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>48, 54, 55, 68, 73, 75</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>19, 20, 21, 25, 60</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>5, 31, 33, 37, 39, 41</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>8</p></td><td align="left"><p>24, 34, 35, 38, 50</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>9</p></td><td align="left"><p>12, 22, 40, 46, 57</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p>10, 43, 67</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>11</p></td><td align="left"><p>15, 56, 62</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p>18</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Eliminated in previous steps</p></td><td align="left"><p>4, 7, 11, 13, 44, 53, 61, 69</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The following decisions were adopted by the research team taking into account the factor loadings of each item in the components and also, the theoretical framework of the questionnaire. Firstly, item 9 was eliminated from component 2 as the factor loading of the item was low (−0.238) in addition, during the pilot stage of the questionnaire the item proved to be difficult for pilot test participants. Secondly, item 65 was eliminated from component 2. The factor loading of the item was acceptable (0.424); however, we decided to eliminate the item as it was not theoretically coherent with the rest of items in the factor. Thirdly, item 51 and 52 were moved from component 4 to component 2 and 1 respectively, as it was theoretically more appropriate, and the factor loading permitted us to do so. In addition, item 42, 45 and 60 were eliminated from their respective components. All factor loadings were acceptable (0.420; 0.493 and 0.488 respectively); however, said items where not coherent with the identified theoretical construct, so the decision was made to eliminate all items. Finally, item 18 was eliminated from component 12 and therefore component 12 was eliminated also. The factor loading was acceptable (0.704); however, taking into account that this item was the only one in the component, the research team did not deem it necessary and it was eliminated. At the end of this process, the questionnaire was comprised of 61 items distributed into eleven factors.</p> <hd id="AN0147320135-16">Assessing the internal consistency via cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient</hd> <p>The reliability coefficient of cronbach's alpha refers to the internal consistency of the measurements obtained from a test administration (Cubo et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref107">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>The results show that each factor has an acceptable score (Table 12). However, the decision was made to eliminate two more items. Item 48 was eliminated from component 5 increasing the Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient from <emph>α</emph>=0.690 to <emph>α</emph>=0.727. Also, Item 22 was eliminated from component 9 increasing the Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient from <emph>α</emph>=0.641 to <emph>α</emph>=0.672. Therefore, reducing the instrument to 59 items in total with a very acceptable internal consistency score for the digital skills dimension <emph>α</emph>=0.906 and for the socio-civic skills dimension α=0.902. In addition, we have also found that the results are coherent with the revised literature in a way that the larger theoretical constructs obtain higher coefficient scores.</p> <p>Table 12 Reliability Scores</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Dimension</p></th><th align="left"><p>Sub-dimension</p></th><th align="left"><p>Component</p></th><th align="left"><p>Item number</p></th><th align="left"><p>Cronbach's</p><p>α</p></th><th align="left"><p>McDonald's</p><p>ω</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="5"><p>Digital skills</p><p>α = 0.906</p><p>ω = 0.909</p></td><td align="left"><p>Management and use of information and data</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>3, 8, 14, 16, 17, 51, 58,</p><p>59</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>α = 0.845</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>ω = 0.847</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Communication skills</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>19, 20, 21, 25</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>α = 0.646</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>ω = 0.683</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Digital content creation</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>30, 32, 36</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>α = 0.682</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>ω = 0.687</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Management and security of information and digital content</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>5, 31, 33, 37, 39, 41</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>α = 0.738</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>ω = 0.739</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Ethics and digital responsibility</p></td><td align="left"><p>8</p></td><td align="left"><p>24, 34, 35, 38, 50</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>α = 0.727</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>ω = 0.729</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="6"><p>Socio-civic skills</p><p>α = 0.902</p><p>ω = 0.911</p></td><td align="left"><p>Social and political behaviours and attitudes</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2, 6, 27, 28, 29, 49,</p><p>52, 64, 66, 70</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>α = 0.843</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>ω = 0.845</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Digital empathy</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>23, 26, 47, 63, 71, 72,</p><p>74</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>α = 0.800</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>ω = 0.812</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Social and digital engagement</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>54, 55, 68, 73, 75</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>α = 0.727</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>ω = 0.739</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Critical thinking</p></td><td align="left"><p>9</p></td><td align="left"><p>12, 40, 46, 57</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>α = 0.672</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>ω = 0.677</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Democratic attitudes</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p>10, 43, 67</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>α = 0.558</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>ω = 0.591</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Prosocial behaviour</p></td><td align="left"><p>11</p></td><td align="left"><p>15, 56, 62</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>α = 0.539</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>ω = 0.544</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0147320135-17">Determining the final version of the instrument</hd> <p>The final Spanish version of the instrument (Table 13), taking into account the statistical data and the developed theoretical framework, is made up of 59 items grouped into eleven sub-dimensions that build up two dimensions, along with the seven sociodemographic variables and two open questions that can be completed online in 10–15 minutes.</p> <p>Table 13 Final version of questionnaire</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Dimension</p></th><th align="left"><p>Sub-dimension</p></th><th align="left"><p>Component</p></th><th align="left"><p>Item number</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="5"><p>Digital skills</p></td><td align="left"><p>Management and use of information and data</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>3, 8, 14, 16, 17, 51, 58, 59</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Communication skills</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>19, 20, 21, 25</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Digital content creation</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>30, 32, 36</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Management and security of information and digital content</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>5, 31, 33, 37, 39, 41</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Ethics and digital responsibility</p></td><td align="left"><p>8</p></td><td align="left"><p>24, 34, 35, 38, 50</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="6"><p>Socio-civic skills</p></td><td align="left"><p>Social and political behaviours and attitudes</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>1, 2, 6, 27, 28, 29, 49, 52, 64, 66,</p><p>70</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Digital empathy</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>23, 26, 47, 63, 71, 72, 74</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Social and digital engagement</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>54, 55, 68, 73, 75</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Critical thinking</p></td><td align="left"><p>9</p></td><td align="left"><p>12, 40, 46, 57</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Democratic attitudes</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p>10, 43, 67</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Prosocial behaviour</p></td><td align="left"><p>11</p></td><td align="left"><p>15, 56, 62</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>After obtaining the final version of the instrument in Spanish, we proceeded to translate the Digital and Socio-Civic (DIGISOC) Skills Questionnaire into English and validated the content of the translation with a group of ten experts from the United Kingdom. They assessed the wording of the constructs and provided further comment on the understanding and clarity of the concepts translated in English.</p> <hd id="AN0147320135-18">Discussions and conclusions</hd> <p>During the review of the literature, we have found that there are many commonalities between digital and socio-civic skills and Media and Information Literacy as well as interrelated constructs derived from both skills. The final version of the instrument is composed of 59 Likert-scale items distributed into eleven sub-dimensions that make up the two dimensions of the questionnaire. On the one hand, we find that the <emph>Digital Skills</emph> dimension is comprised of 5 sub-dimensions: 1) m<emph>anagement and use of information and data</emph> as it addresses the need to use and manage information correctly and with a degree of competence, 2) <emph>communication skills,</emph> which is understood as the need and ability to effectively communicate information with other people, 3) <emph>digital Content Creation</emph> that measures a person's ability to create and edit new content, creative productions, multimedia products and digital expressions while taking into account the ethical and legal aspects, as suggested by Ferrari ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref108">27</reflink>]), 4) <emph>management and security of information and digital content</emph> which addresses the need for a person to manage information and content adequately (JISC, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref109">42</reflink>]). Also, it highlights privacy concerns such as using digital technology in a safe environment and safeguarding well-being and securing information (Vuorikari, et al, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref110">83</reflink>]); 5) e<emph>thics and digital responsibility,</emph> which refers to the evaluative abilities of a person to think critically and act according to moral and ethical guidelines based around the core principles of social justice and a person's rights (Kereluik, et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref111">47</reflink>]). The principal findings that emerged during the statistical testing was the loading values of the <emph>Management and use of information and data</emph> sub-dimension. This coincides with previous work (Vuorikari, et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref112">83</reflink>]; JISC, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref113">42</reflink>]) confirming that the core factor to digital skills is data and information management and using this information synchronously with high order thinking skills in an ethical way (Lutzke, Drummond, Slovic & Árvai, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref114">50</reflink>]). This also coincides with the current social and cultural climate of disinformation (El Soufi & See, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref115">18</reflink>]) and addresses the necessity of tackling the importance of discriminating facts and opinions as well as judging the credibility of evidence (van de Oudeweetering & Voogt, 2017) found online or while using social media. This takes preference as misinformation and fake news are exponentially becoming a prevailing concern for social media use and is precipitating a crisis of democracy (Jang & Kim, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref116">39</reflink>]) and has the possibility to influence participation and other forms of citizenship.</p> <p>On the other hand, the <emph>Socio-civic skills</emph> dimension is made up of 6 sub-dimensions; 1) <emph>social and political behaviours and attitudes</emph>, that relate to the actions that people undertake and their mind-set regarding social and political issues (European Commission, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref117">22</reflink>]). 2) <emph>digital empathy</emph>, which refers to the measurement of a person's cognitive and emotional ability to be reflective and socially responsible, while strategically using digital media (Chen, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref118">9</reflink>]); 3) <emph>social and digital engagement</emph>, that refers to the implication and agency of a person in digital environments and/or by using digital technologies for social and/or political issues and topics (Martens & Hobbs, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref119">51</reflink>]), 4) <emph>critical thinking</emph>, as stated previously responds to a person's ability to employ higher thinking skills; e.g. analysis, evaluation and inference of a conclusion, logical opinion or solution in regards to a given situation (Dwyer and Walsh, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref120">16</reflink>]), 5) <emph>democratic attitudes</emph> that relate to a person's values and beliefs regarding democracy and related concepts (Puig and Morales, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref121">64</reflink>]) and finally, 6) <emph>prosocial behaviours</emph>, designates helping, sharing and other seemingly positive, intentional, voluntary and unmotivated behaviours towards others. This partially follows the framework and literature set out by the European Commission ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref122">22</reflink>]) and other authors (Chen, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref123">9</reflink>]; Cheung Kong, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref124">10</reflink>]; Puig and Morales, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref125">64</reflink>]; Ang, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref126">3</reflink>]; Eisenberg and Mussen, 1989).</p> <p>Results show that after <emph>Management and use of information and data,</emph> the following core components of the instrument, and therefore of the skills themselves, refers to social and political attitudes and digital empathy. The first, highlights the importance of citizenship education, such as knowing how democratic societies function as well as being engaged with political and social content. The latter introduces room to reflect on how people conduct themselves and relate to other people in digital environments. This somewhat echoes the work of UNESCO ([<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref127">75</reflink>]) regarding digital citizenship. Also, it coincides with Chen (2019) who suggests that because students have grown up with digital technologies and are active participants in digital spheres, digital empathy is a good starting point to teach students about important social issues; in order for them to draw on social and humanitarian values, to recognize the opinions and feelings of others and primarily to be more reflective before communicating or posting. Moreover, it draws on the ethical and digital responsibilities of digital technology users. This means proposing support for young people in order to make appropriate, responsible and ethical decisions when using and accessing technology and social networks (Walters, Gee & Mohammed, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref128">84</reflink>]). Ethical and digital responsibilities are concepts that have been developed by several authors (Kereluik, <emph>et al</emph>., 2015; Moradi, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref129">55</reflink>]; Spector, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref130">72</reflink>]; Walters, Gee & Mohammed, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref131">84</reflink>]) who have underlined the significance of ethics and being sensible when using of digital technologies. They also allude to the necessity of developing high order thinking skills when teaching students on how to use technology and prioritize the acquisition of skills relating to the Media and Information Literacy Curriculum (UNESCO, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref132">74</reflink>]) in order to empower young people in the use of technology and in attaining digital skills.</p> <p>In this article, we address digital and socio-civic skills, both of which can be developed in order to empower young people to participate actively as competent citizens, able to navigate through vast amounts of information, communicate globally and whom are socially aware. Educating youth in digital citizenship has been framed as curricular content on information literacy, internet safety, privacy and security as well as managing one's digital footprint and reputation (Common Sense Media, 2012; Jones & Mitchell, 2016). At the same time, they help scope the development of a young person's digital identity (Gutiérrez-Esteban, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref133">30</reflink>]). The research conducted by Jordán-Conde, Mennecke and Townsend ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref134">45</reflink>]) on Americans between 18 and 21 years old found that social networks are becoming a place for developing their digital identity. These authors highlight that young people are not aware of the potential harm that the disclosure of this personal information can have for their well-being. In other words, learning digital citizenship is increasingly paramount and involves being digitally literate and having a combination of skills, knowledges and understanding that young people need to learn before they can participate fully and safely in an increasingly digital and socially active world (Choi, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref135">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>We have produced a valid and reliable instrument that measures key aspects of these areas and provides information about the social and civic skillset of a given individual. It is clear from the final structure of the questionnaire that these competences are highly related to behavioural and attitudinal development. Although the scientific guarantees of the instrument are highly favourable, we will apply the instrument and complement the study with qualitative research tools as to attain a deeper understanding of how these skills are developed and how they are used in youth participation. Also, future research will explore both skills and sub-dimensions such as critical thinking and ethics and digital responsibility along with sociodemographic, education and cultural variables in order to contribute to the growing literature on third-level digital divides (van Deursen and Helsper, 2017). Mainly, the next steps in analyzing digital and socio-civic skills for participating in social life will entail exploring the role of educational development of these concepts and identify key outlining influential factors and determine if they are catalysts in empowering young people to use technology for engagement and bettering communities and help bridge the digital divide and promote digital citizenship education.</p> <hd id="AN0147320135-19">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0147320135-20"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref70" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Adorjan M, Ricciardelli R. Student perspectives towards school responses to cyber-risk and safety: the presumption of the prudent digital citizen. Learning, Media and Technology. 2019; 44; 4: 430-442. 10.1080/17439884.2019.1583671</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref47" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> American Library Association. (2013). Digital literacy. Libraries and public policy: Report of the office for information technology policy's digital literacy taskforce. https://districtdispatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2012_OITP_digilitreport_1_22_13.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref126" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ang CS. Assessment of social competence: exploring the dimensions of young adult social competence. Journal Psikologi Malaysia. 2016; 30; 1: 90-101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref40" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Antoninis, M, & Montoya, S. (2018). A global framework to measure digital literacy.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Brancato G, Macchia S, Murgia M, Signore M, Simeoni G, Blanke K, Körner T, Nimmergut A, Lima P, Paulino R, Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik JHP. Handbook of recommended practices for questionnaire development and testing in the European statistical system. 2006: Brussels; European Commission Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref34" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Calvani A, Cartelli A, Fini A, Ranieri M. Models and instruments for assessing digital competence at school. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society. 2008; 4; 3: 183-193</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref1" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Castells M. Networks of outrage and hope. Social Movements in the internet age. 2012: Chichester; Wiley Publishers</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref87" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Catts R, y Lau, J. Towards Information Literacy Indicators. 2008: Paris, France; UNESCO Institute for Statistics Publishing Office</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref118" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Chen CW. Developing EFL students' digital empathy through video production. System. 2018; 77; 1: 50-57</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cheung Kong SC. Developing information literacy and critical thinking skills through domain knowledge learning in digital classrooms: An experience of practicing flipped classroom strategy. Computers & Education. 2014; 78: 160-173</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chevalier N. The development of executive function: Toward more optimal coordination of control with age. Child Development Perspectives. 2015; 9; 4: 239-244</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Choi M. A concept analysis of digital citizenship for democratic citizenship education in the internet age. Theory & Research in Social Education. 2016; 00: 1-43</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Choi M, Glassman M, Cristol D. What it means to be a citizen in the internet age: development of a reliable and valid digital citizenship scale. Computers & Education. 2017; 107: 100-112. 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coe R, Waring M, Hedges LV, Arthur J. Research methods and methodologies in Education. 20172: Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cubo, S, Martín, B. y Ramos, J.L. (2011). Métodos de Investigación y análisis de datos en Ciencias Sociales y de la Salud. Madrid. Ed. Pirámide. Accessed 03 May 2012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dwyer CP, Walsh A. An exploratory quantitative case study of critical thinking development through adult distance learning. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2019; 68: 1-19</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foundation ECDL. ECDL and DIGCOMP: Describing, Developing & Certifying Digital Competence. 2016: Dublin, Ireland; ECDL and ICDL Foundation Publications</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> El Soufi N, See BH. Does explicit teaching of critical thinking improve critical thinking skills of English language learners in higher education? a critical review of causal evidence. Studies in educational evaluation. 2019; 60: 140-162. 10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.12.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elliott T, Earl J. Online protest participation and the digital divide: modelling the effect of the digital divide an online petition-signing. New Media & Society. 2016; 20; 2: 698-719</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Emejulu A, McGregor C. Towards a radical digital citizenship in digital education. Critical Studies in Education. 2015; 60; 1: 131-147. 10.1080/17508487.2016.1234494</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erstad O. Educating the Digital Generation-Exploring Media Literacy for the 21st Century. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy. 2010; 10: 85-102</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Commission E. Recommendation 2009/625/CE of the commission, 20 August 2009, on Media Literacy in digital environments for audio-visual industries and entrepreneur and knowledge society. 2009: Brussels; European Commission Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Commission E. A digital agenda for Europe, COM (2010) 245. 2010: Brussels; European Commission Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Commission E. Europe 2020: a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. 2010: Brussels; European Commission Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Commission E. Sustainable Development Strategy Eurostat Statistical Report. 2015: Luxemburg; Publications Office of the European Union</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> European Parliament and the Council of Europe (2006). Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning. Brussels. Official Journal of the European Union, L394/310.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferrari, A. (2013). DIGCOMP: a framework for developing and understanding digital competence in Europe. Joint Research Centre Reports. Publications Office of the European Union. https://digcomp.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/DIGCOMP-1.0-2013.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gisbert M, Espuny C, y González, J. INCOTIC: Una herramienta para la @utoevaluación diagnósticadelacompetenciadigitalenlauniversidad. Profesorado Revista De Currículum y Formación Del Profesorado. 2011; 15; 1: 75-90</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greene JA, Yu SB, Copeland DZ. Measuring critical components of digital literacy and their relationships with learning. Computers & Education. 2014; 76; 3: 55-69. 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.03.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gutiérrez-Esteban, P. (2018). Exploring and Fostering Digital Identity In Pre-service Teachers. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Educational Sciences, University of Extremadura, Badajoz, Spain.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hall B. An ethics whirlwind: a perspective of the digital lifestyle of digital natives and initial thoughts on ethics education in technology. Information Systems Education Journal. 2012; 10; 1: 4-12</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hargittai E, Shaw A. Digitally savvy citizenship: the role of internet skills and engagement in young adults' political participation around the 2008 presidential election. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 2013; 57; 2: 115-134</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hatlevik OE, Christophersen KA. Digital competence at the beginning of upper secondary school: Identifying factors explaining digital inclusion. Computers & Education. 2013; 63: 240-247. 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hess D, McAvoy P. Should teachers help students develop partisan identities?. Social Education. 2014; 78; 6: 293-297</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ilhan N, Sukut O, Akhan L, Batmaz M. The effect of nurse education on the self-esteem and assertiveness of nursing students. Nurse Education Today. 2016; 39: 72-78</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> ISTE (2007a). The ISTE NETS and Performance Indicators for students. Washington DC. United States.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> ISTE (2007b). NETS for Students. 2nd Edition. https://<ulink href="http://www.iste.org/standards/for/students">www.iste.org/standards/for/students</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> ISTE (2017). ISTE Standards.https://<ulink href="http://www.iste.org/standards">www.iste.org/standards</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jang SM, Kim JK. Third person effects of fake news: Fake news regulation and media literacy interventions. Computers in Human Behavior. 2018; 80: 295-302</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Janseen J, Stoyanov S, Ferrari A, Punie Y, Pannekeet K, Sloep P. Experts' views on digital competence: commonalities and differences. Computers & Education. 2013; 68: 473-481</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Janssen E, Mainhard T, Buisman R, Verkoeijen P, Heijltjes A, van Peppen L, van Gog T. Training higher education teachers' critical thinking and attitudes towards teaching it. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2019; 58: 310-322</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> JISC (2017). Developing Digital Literacies. https://<ulink href="http://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/developing-digital-literacies">www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/developing-digital-literacies</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnston N. The shift towards digital literacy in Australian university libraries: developing a digital literacy framework. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association. 2020; 69; 1: 93-101. 10.1080/24750158.2020.1712638</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones LM, Mitchell KJ. Defining and measuring youth digital citizenship. New Media & Society. 2015; 18; 9: 2063-2079. 10.1177/1461444815577797</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jordán-Conde Z, Mennecke B, Townsend A. Late adolescent identity definition and intimate disclosure on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior. 2014; 33: 356-366</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kahne J, Bowyer B. Can media literacy increase digital engagement in politics. Learning, Media and Technology. 2019; 44; 2: 211-224. 10.1080/17439884.2019.1601108</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kereluik K, Mishra P, Fahnoe C, Terry L. What knowledge is of most worth: teacher knowledge for 21st century learning. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education. 2013; 29; 4: 127-140</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lankshear C, Knobel M. Researching New Literacies: Web 2.0. practices and insider perspective. Journal of E-Learning. 2007; 4; 3: 224-240</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lenhart A, Guddan M, Perrin A, Stepler R, Rainie H, Parker K. Teens, social media & technology overview 2015. 2015: Washington DC; Pew Internet & American Life Project</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lutzke L, Drummond C, Slovic P, Árvai J. Priming critical thinking: simple interventions limit the influence of fake news about climate change on Facebook. Global Environment Change. 2019; 58; 1: 1-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martens H, Hobbs R. How media literacy supports civic engagement in a digital age. Atlantic Journal of Communication. 2015; 23; 2: 120-137. 10.1080/15456870.2014.961636</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin A, Grudziecki J. DigEuLit: concepts and tools for digital literacy development. ITALICS: Innovations in Teaching & Learning in Information & Computer Sciences. 2006; 5; 4: 246-264</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martínez Arias R. Pychometrics: Theory for psychological and educational tests. 1995: Madrid; Síntesis</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNaughton S, Rosedale N, Ngaire-Jesson R, Hoda R, Teng L. How digital environments in schools might be used to boost social skills: developing a conditional augmentation hypothesis. Computers & Education. 2018; 126; 1: 311-323</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moradi Sheykhjan, T. (2017). Internet research ethics: Digital Citizenship Education. In Seminar on New Perspectives in Research. Seminar conducted by Department of Education, University of Kerala, Kerala, India.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mundfrom DJ, Shaw DG, Ke TL. Minimumsamplesizerecommendationsforconducting factor analyses. International Journal of Testing. 2005; 5; 2: 159-168. 10.1207/s15327574ijt0502_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murawski M, Bick M. Digital competences of the workforce: a research topic?. Business Process Management Journal. 2017; 23; 3: 721-734. 10.1108/BPMJ-06-2016-0126</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nacu DC, Martin CK, Pinkard N, Gray T. Analyzing educators' online interactions: a framework of online learning support roles. Learning, Media and Technology. 2016; 41; 2: 283-305</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oberländer M, Beinicke A, Bipp T. Digital competencies: a review of the literature and application in the workplace. Computers & Education. 2020; 146; 1: 103752. 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103752</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olszewski B, Crompton H. Educational technology conditions to support the development of Digital Age Skills. Computers & Education. 2020; 150: 1-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parés, M. (2014). The political participation of young people in the change of the Era: State of the Art. Metamorfosis. Journal of the Reina Sofía Centre for Adolescence and Youth, Nº0, 65–85.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peart, M, Gutiérrez-Esteban, P, Cubo-Delgado, S. (2021). Empirical assessment for DIGISOC Questionnaire, Mendeley Data, (v2), https://doi.org/10.17632/bkb66jfjgc.2. Accessed 30 Jan 2020</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pettersson F. On the issue of digital competence in educational contexts—a review of literature. Journal of Education and Information Technologies. 2018; 23; 3: 1005-1021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Puig-Gutiérrez M, Morales-Lozano JA. La formación de ciudadanos: conceptualización y desarrollo de la competencia social y cívica. Education XXI Journal. 2015; 18; 1: 259-282</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rambousek V, Stípek J, Vanková P. Contents of digital literacy from the perspective of teachers and pupils. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2016; 217: 354-362</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ritzhaupt AD, Liu F, Dawson K, Barron AE. Differences in student information and communication technology literacy based on socio-economic status, Ethnicity, and gender: Evidence of a digital divide in Florida schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2013; 45; 4: 291-307</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schreeder A, van Deursen A, van Dijk J. Determinants of Internet skills, uses and outcomes: a systematic review of the second- and third-level digital divide. Telematics and Informatics. 2017; 34; 8: 1607-1624</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Selwyn N, Facer K. Beyondthedigitaldivide,rethinkingdigitalinclusionforthe21stcentury, Futurelab. 2007: Berkshire; National Foundation for Educational Research Publication</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shin TS, Hwang H, Park J, Teng JX, Dang T. Digital kids Asia-Pacific: insights into children's digital citizenship. 2019: Bangkok; UNESCO Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> So S, Voisin DR, Burnside A, Gaylord-Harden NK. Future orientation and health related factors among African American adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review. 2016; 61: 15-21</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Somerville MM, Smith GW, Macklin AS. TheETSiSkillsAssessment:adigitalagetool. The Electronic Library. 2007; 26; 2: 158-171</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spector J. Building strong futures: literacy practices for developing engaged citizenship in the 21st century. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy. 2016; 39; 1: 86-95</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNESCO. Alfabetizaciónmediáticaeinformacional. 2011: Curriculum para Profesores. Paris; UNESCO Publishing Office: 13-45</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNESCO. Global media and information literacy assessment framework: country readiness and competencies. 2013: Paris, France; UNESCO publications</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNESCO. A policy review: building digital citizenship in Asia Pacific through safe, effective and responsible use of ICT. 2016: Bangkok; UNESCO Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNESCO, IFLA and National Forum on Information Literacy (2005). The Alexandria Proclamation on Information Literacy and Lifelong Learning, Beacons on the information society. https://<ulink href="http://www.ifla.org/publications/beacons-of-the-information-society-the-alexandria-">www.ifla.org/publications/beacons-of-the-information-society-the-alexandria-</ulink> proclamation-on-information-literacy.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United Nations (2015). General Assembly Resolution on Transforming out world: the 2030 Agenda for SustainableDevelopment. https://<ulink href="http://www.un.org/ga/search/view%5fdoc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E">www.un.org/ga/search/view%5fdoc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van de Oudeweetering K, Voogt J. Teachers' conceptualization and enactment of twenty-first century competences: exploring dimensions for new curricula. Curriculum Journal. 2018; 29; 1: 116-133. 10.1080/09585176.2017.1369136</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Deursen A, Helsper ERobinson L, Cotten SR, Schulz J, Hale TM, Williams A. The third-level digital divide: who benefits most from being online?. Communicationandinformationtechnologiesannual-studiesinmediaandcommunications. 2015: Bingley; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: 29-52</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Deursen AJAM, Helsper E, Eynon R. Development and validation of the Internet Skills Scale (ISS). Information, Communication & Society. 2016; 19; 6: 804-823. 10.1080/1369118X.2015.1078834</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Laar E, Van Deursen AJAM, Van Dijk JAGM, de Haan J. The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: a systematic literature review. Computers in Human Behavior. 2017; 72: 577-588</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Volman M, ten Dam GDavies M, Barnett R. Critical Thinking for Educated Citizenship. The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education. 2015: London; Palgrave Macmillan Ed: 593-603</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vuorikari, R, Punie, Y, Carretero Gomez S, Van den Brande, G. (2016). DigComp 2.0: The digital competence framework for citizens. Update phase 1: The conceptual reference model. Luxembourg: Luxembourg Publication Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2791/11517.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walters MG, Gee D, Mohammed S. A literature review: digital citizenship and the elementary educator. International Journal of Technology in Education (IJTE). 2019; 2; 1: 1-21</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zaff K, Boyd M, Li Y, Lerner R. Active and engaged citizenship: multigroup and longitudinal factorial analysis of an integrated construct of civic engagement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2010; 39: 736-750</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Mark Thomas Peart; Prudencia Gutiérrez-Esteban and Sixto Cubo-Delgado</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Mark Thomas Peart Candidate in the doctorate programme: "Innovation in Teacher Training, Counselling, analysis of educational practice and ICT in Education". Mr Peart received a B.Ed. undergraduate degree in Primary School Teaching in 2015 and in 2017, he completed a Master's in Research of Teacher Training and ICT.</p> <p>Prudencia Gutiérrez-Esteban Senior Lecturer at the Department of Educational Science at the Faculty of Education, University of Extremadura (Spain). Her research work is focused on Educational Technology, Teacher Training, Online Learning Communities, PLE and Innovation in Teaching Methods. She has a developed research portfolio and is a co-convenor of Network 22 Higher Education in European Conference of Educational Research.</p> <p>Sixto Cubo-Delgado Senior Lecturer at the Department of Educational Science at the Faculty of Education, University of Extremadura (Spain). His research has been focused on ICT in Education and Teacher Training. He currently coordinates the research master "Teacher training and ICT" and the PhD Program "Innovation in Teacher Training. Counselling, analysis of educational practice and ICT in education".</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref135"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1277896
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Development of the Digital and Socio-Civic Skills (DIGISOC) Questionnaire
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Peart%2C+Mark+Thomas%22">Peart, Mark Thomas</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1480-7094">0000-0003-1480-7094</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gutiérrez-Esteban%2C+Prudencia%22">Gutiérrez-Esteban, Prudencia</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cubo-Delgado%2C+Sixto%22">Cubo-Delgado, Sixto</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Technology+Research+and+Development%22"><i>Educational Technology Research and Development</i></searchLink>. Dec 2020 68(6):3327-3351.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 25
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Validity%22">Test Validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Reliability%22">Test Reliability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questionnaires%22">Questionnaires</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interpersonal+Competence%22">Interpersonal Competence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technological+Literacy%22">Technological Literacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Access+to+Computers%22">Access to Computers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skill+Development%22">Skill Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Evaluation+%28Individuals%29%22">Self Evaluation (Individuals)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adolescents%22">Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Young+Adults%22">Young Adults</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Citizen+Participation%22">Citizen Participation</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11423-020-09824-y
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1042-1629
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Recognizing that digital citizenship includes the capacity to foster growth opportunities and also, can help to minimize risks and divides from the use of digital technology is essential for today's society and education. This on-going study intends to identify core aspects that help or hinder youth participation and contribute on how to educate youth and improve on digital citizenship through the development of digital and socio-civic skills. The aim of this study is to develop a valid and reliable instrument that invites young people, aged 16-35, to assess their digital and socio-civic skills. The development process of the instrument involves a literature review, designing and constructing the dimensions and items of the questionnaire and finally, assessing the content and construct validity as well as the reliability of the instrument. We have obtained an instrument in English and Spanish with acceptable scientific guarantees; including statistical data regarding a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and favorable reliability coefficients using cronbach's alpha.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1277896
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1277896
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11423-020-09824-y
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 25
        StartPage: 3327
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Test Validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Reliability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questionnaires
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interpersonal Competence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technological Literacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Access to Computers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Skill Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Evaluation (Individuals)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Young Adults
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Citizen Participation
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Development of the Digital and Socio-Civic Skills (DIGISOC) Questionnaire
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Peart, Mark Thomas
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gutiérrez-Esteban, Prudencia
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cubo-Delgado, Sixto
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2020
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1042-1629
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 68
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Educational Technology Research and Development
              Type: main
ResultId 1