& Redecker, 2012; Iste, 2007; Riel et al., 2012). Therefore, this skill refers to the safe, legal and responsible use of digital technology.
In Table 8 we present a summary of our conceptual model of digital literacy with five digital skills.
Table 8.
Conceptual model of digital literacy for the present study Digital skills Definition
Technological Ability to effectively use digital technologies Communication Ability to communicate through digital technologies
Information Ability to find information, obtain it, and evaluate its relevance in the digital environment.
Critical Ability to critically analyse the information obtained Security Ability to use digital technology without risks and dangers
participant; and (c) performance tests in which participants complete certain assignments.
Self-reported questionnaires are the most frequently used method for measuring digital skills and, as such, digital literacy (Kuhlemeier & Hemker, 2007; van Deursen et al., 2014). Nonetheless, some researchers consider that digital skills should be directly observed in performance tests (Sonck & de Haan, 2013). However, the cost and time consuming nature of such tests are strong limitations for large scale population-wide surveys (van Deursen et al., 2014; van Deursen, van Dijk, & Peters, 2012). Therefore, self-report questionnaires are unquestionably most useful for measuring digital skills when dealing with large samples in a short time.
As we said before, there is a lack of research on developing measures of digital literacy. Furthermore, some of the currently existing measures have several limitations, such as not being up to date with the rapid changes in technology (van Deursen et al., 2014; Wilson et al., 2015), having a narrow focus on the Internet with the omission of other technological developments (Hargittai & Hsieh, 2012; S.-J. Lee &
Chae, 2012; Len-Ríos, Hughes, McKee, & Young, 2016; M.-J. Tsai & Tsai, 2010) or not having been validated (Bulger, Mayer, & Metzger, 2014; Gastelú, Kiss, & Domínguez, 2015; Lazzari, 2016; Li & Ranieri, 2010; S. Park & Burford, 2013; Pérez-Escoda, Castro- Zubizarreta, & Fandos-Igado, 2016; Pino Juste & Soto Carballo, 2010).
Added to that, some of the measures have been validated only among children, adults or young adults (Boyaci & Atalay, 2016; Bunz et al., 2007; Helsper &
Eynon, 2013; Koc & Barut, 2016; S. Park & Burford, 2013; Røkenes & Krumsvik, 2016; van Deursen et al., 2014), but not specifically among adolescents, which is our target population. Consequently, in Table 9 we present a review of digital literacy measures developed for adolescents.
As we can see, most of the measurements do not include items related to security or digital safety (E. mee Kim & Yang, 2016; Kuhlemeier & Hemker, 2007; Lau
& Yuen, 2014). Moreover, the scales developed by Kuhlemeier and Hemker (2007) and Kim and Jang (2016) only contain items related to technological and informational knowledge and omit other digital skills. Additionally, Kuhlemeier and Hemker’s (2007) study focuses only on Internet skills for schools and does not include validating analyses. Finally, in the scale of digital literacy in the EU Kids Online study (Sonck et al., 2011), only eight items were used for measuring three different skills. However, results from an exploratory factor analysis showed that there was only one single factor in the scale of digital skills. In this sense, the Net Children Go Mobile study (Mascheroni & Ólafsson, 2014) uses that same scale with five new items designed to measure communication skill. However, they do not report any validating analysis of the scale.
As we have seen, research on developing measures of digital literacy is scarce, especially in the case of adolescents. Therefore, further research is necessary to develop reliable and valid measures of digital literacy and digital skills. In particular, we consider that more research is needed to develop and validate a scale that measures the five digital skills that we proposed previously.
Table 9.
Digital literacy measures developed and validated among adolescents
Study Sample Measurement Analyses Dimensions
(E. mee Kim &
Yang, 2016) 257 students in 10th grade
Internet literacy: Self- reported test with ten items
Cronbach’s alpha and exploratory factor analysis
(1) Internet skill literacy (2) Internet information literacy
(Kuhlemeier &
Hemker, 2007)
2,615 students (13-15 years old) in secondary education
Internet skills for school:
performance test with 36 items.
Item response theory analysis
(1) Know how to use the Internet to search for relevant
information
(2) Be able to communicate with others via e-mail
(3) Be familiar with current Internet terminology (4) Have a command of some general windows principles and word processing skills
(Lau & Yuen, 2014) 826 students in 8grade th
Perceived ICT literacy scale: self-reported test with 17 items
Cronbach’s alpha, exploratory factor analysis and second- order confirmatory analysis.
(1) Information literacy (2) Internet literacy (3) Computer literacy
Study Sample Measurement Analyses Dimensions
(Mascheroni &
Ólafsson, 2014) 3,500 (9-16 years old) Internet users
Net Children Go Mobile:
Self-reported test with 13
items -
(1) Instrumental (2) Critical (3) Safety
(4) Communication (Sonck et al., 2011) 25.000 (9-16 years
old) Internet users
EU Kids Online: Self- reported test with eight items
Cronbach’s alpha and exploratory factor
analysis (1) Digital literacy
In this chapter we have presented a review of the literature on digital literacy and digital skills. First, we have looked at the antecedents and the definition of the term digital literacy. As we have seen, this concept has been developed after other literacies.
Consequently, we have also discussed these literacies: information literacy, media literacy, news media literacy and multiliteracy. We have discovered that these concepts share conceptual grounds and that, in fact, digital literacy relies on some of them. We have then reviewed the different definitions of digital literacy, as there is no agreement on a common definition.
Secondly, we have analysed the different digital skills that make up the broader concept of digital literacy. As with the definition, there is no commonly accepted model. Therefore, we have revised previous models and have proposed a model of digital literacy for adolescents with five digital skills: technological, communication, information, critical, security.
Finally, we have analysed the digital literacy measures that have been developed so far. There is a lack of research on this area and some of the currently existing measures have several limitations, such as being obsolete or not having been validated. Moreover, the present study focuses on adolescents, but validated measures among this population are very scarce. Therefore, we have called for more research that develops and validates measurements of digital literacy.
At any rate, as we mentioned at the beginning, digital literacy and digital skills have been pointed out as essential in a range of professional occupations, for different aspects of people’s lives and for being successful in our society. In the case of children and adolescents, some research has suggested that digital literacy could be a prevention tool against online risks and a facilitator of online opportunities. In the next chapter we will analyse the different types of online risks and online opportunities and the impact that digital skills have on them.