Skip to main content

Development of an instrument to measure Faculty’s information and communication technology access (FICTA)

Abstract

The phenomenon of “digital divide” is complex and multidimensional, extending beyond issues of physical access. The purpose of this study was to develop a scale to measure a range of factors related to digital divide among higher education faculty and to evaluate its reliability and validity. Faculty’s Information and Communication Technology Access (FICTA) scale was tested and validated with 322 faculty teaching in public and private sector universities. Principal components analysis with varimax rotation confirmed an 8-factor solution corresponding to various dimensions of ICT access. The 57-item FICTA scale demonstrated good psychometric properties and offers researchers a tool to examine faculty’s access to ICT at four levels – motivational, physical, skills, and usage access.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  • Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(2), 71–80. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.05.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alampay, E. (2006). Beyond access to ICTs: Measuring capabilities in the information society. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 2(3), 4–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Y., Wong, S. F., & Park, M. C. (2014). A three-tier ICT access model for intention to participate online a comparison of developed and developing countries. Information Development. doi:10.1177/0266666914529294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, J. (2006). The digital divide: The special case of gender. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(5), 320–334. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00185.x.

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeVon, H. A., Block, M. E., Moyle-Wright, P., Ernst, D. M., Hayden, S. J., Lazzara, D. J., et al. (2007). A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 39(2), 155–164. doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.2007.00161.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D. A., & Redline, C. D. (2004). Testing paper self-administered questionnaires: Cognitive interview and field test comparisons. In S. Presser, J. M. Rothgeb, M. P. Couper, J. T. Lessler, E. Martin, J. Martin, & E. Singer (Eds.), Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires (pp. 299–317). Hoboken: Wiley & Sons, Inc..

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghobadi, S., & Ghobadi, Z. (2015). How access gaps interact and shape digital divide: A cognitive investigation. Behaviour & Information Technology, 34(4), 330–340. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2013.833650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goh, D., & Kale, U. (2016). The urban–rural gap: Project-based learning with web 2.0 among West Virginian teachers. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(3), 355–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haeger, H., Lambert, A. D., Kinzie, J., & Gieser, J. (2012). Using cognitive interviews to improve survey instruments. Paper presented at the annual forum of the Association for Institutional Research, New Orleans. http://cpr.indiana.edu/uploads/AIR2012%20Cognitive%20Interviews.pdf.

  • Hameed, T. (2007). ICT as an enabler of socio-economic development. Paper presented at the Digital Opportunity Forum, Seoul. http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un-dpadm/unpan043799.pdf

  • Hanafizadeh, M. R., Hanafizadeh, P., & Bohlin, E. (2013). Digital divide and e-readiness: Trends and gaps. International Journal of E-Adoption (IJEA), 5(3), 30–75. doi:10.4018/ijea.2013070103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hohlfeld, T. N., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Barron, A. E., & Kemker, K. (2008). Examining the digital divide in K-12 public schools: Four-year trends for supporting ICT literacy in Florida. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1648–1663. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.04.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, T. (2015). Training teachers to bridge the digital divide. The William and Mary Educational Review, 3(2), 15–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kale, U., & Goh, D. (2014). Teaching style, ICT experience and teachers’ attitudes toward teaching with web 2.0. Education and Information Technologies, 19(1), 41–60. doi:10.1007/s10639-012-9210-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupac, P., & Sladek, J. (2008). The deepening of the digital divide in the Czech Republic. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 2(1).

  • Malisuwan, S., Kaewphanuekrungsi, W., & Milindavanij, D. (2016). Digital divide in Thailand: Analysis and recommendations. International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology, 7(1), 41–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, S. (2012). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Teaching of Psychology, 39(2), 152–156. doi:10.1177/0098628312437704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritzhaupt, A. D., Liu, F., Dawson, K., & Barron, A. E. (2013). 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, 45(4), 291–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadaf, A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2012). Exploring factors that predict preservice teachers’ intentions to use web 2.0 technologies using decomposed theory of planned behavior. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(2), 171–196. doi:10.1080/15391523.2012.10782602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Safdar, M., Hussain, I., Malik, M. A., Masood, K., & Yaqoob, M. (2011). Challenges of information era: Teachers’ attitude towards the use of internet technology. Paper presented at the International Arab Conference on Information Technology. http://212.138.128.45/handle/123456789/55510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Decomposition and crossover effects in the theory of planned behavior: A study of consumer adoption intentions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12(2), 137–155. doi:10.1016/0167-8116(94)00019-K.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Deursen, A. J. A. M., Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2014). Measuring digital skills: Fromdigital skills to tangible outcomes project report. http://doc.utwente.nl/92924/1/Measuring_Digital_Skills.pdf.

  • van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2008). Measuring digital skills: Performance tests of operational, formal, information and strategic internet skills among the Dutch population. Paper presented at the 58th conference of the International communication association, Montreal.

  • van Deursen, A. J. A. M., van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & Peters, O. (2012). Proposing a survey instrument for measuring operational, formal, information, and strategic internet skills. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 28(12), 827–837. doi:10.1080/10447318.2012.670086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, J. A. J. G. M. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics, 34(4), 221–235. doi:10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2012). The evolution of the digital divide: The digital divide turns to inequality of skills and usage. In J. Bus, M. Crompton, M. Hildebrandt, & G. Metakides (Eds.) Digital enlightenment yearbook, 2012, 57–75. doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-057-4-57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youssef, A. B., Dahmani, M., & Omrani, N. (2013). Information technologies, students’e-skills and diversity of learning process. Education and Information Technologies, 20(1), 141–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zait, P. A., & Bertea, P. S. P. E. (2011). Methods for testing discriminant validity. Management & Marketing Journal, 9(2).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kamal Ahmed Soomro.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Soomro, K.A., Kale, U., Curtis, R. et al. Development of an instrument to measure Faculty’s information and communication technology access (FICTA). Educ Inf Technol 23, 253–269 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9599-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9599-9

Keywords

  • ICT access
  • Instrument development
  • Faculty
  • Digital divide