Measuring the adoption of internet and communication technologies among practitioners in routine disability services: a stepped inclusive approach

Figures & data

Table 1. The initial item Pool of the scale measuring adoption of ICTs among practitioners in disability services.

Item	Never	Approximately 1–2 times per half year	Approximately 1–2 times per month	Approximately 1–2 times per week	Daily
Purpose1: relationship building
1. Email	□	□	□	□	□
2. WhatsApp/text messaging	□	□	□	□	□
3. Videoconferencing	□	□	□	□	□
4. Online service record systems	□	□	□	□	□
5. Social medial	□	□	□	□	□
6. Informational websites	□	□	□	□	□
Purpose2: assessment
7. Online screening tools	□	□	□	□	□
8. Self-monitoring apps	□	□	□	□	□
9. Wearable/biofeedback devices	□	□	□	□	□
Purpose3: treatment
11. Virtual/augmented reality	□	□	□	□	□
12. Rehabilitation training apps/technologies	□	□	□	□	□
13. Assistive technology for individuals with disabilities	□	□	□	□	□

Note. The initial labels of the three dimensions were later refined to (1) “Information and Communication Tools”, (2) “Screening and Monitoring Tools”, and (3) “Treatment and Rehabilitation Tools” for greater clarity, drawing on the results of the EFA.

Table 2. Clinical-demographic characteristics of participants (n = 324).

Characteristics	n (%)	Missing
Gender		1
Female	230 (71.2%)
Male	93 (28.8%)
Age (range 20–69, mean 38.7, standard deviation [SD] 9.8)
Early adult (20–25)	18 (5.8%)	14
Young adult (26–40)	176 (56.8%)
Middle-aged adult (41–55)	94 (30.7%)
Older adult (56–69)	22 (7.1%)
Education
Diploma or below	103 (31.8%)
Bachelor’s degree	101 (31.2%)
Master’s degree or above	120 (37.0%)
Occupation
Psychosocial practitioners	156 (48.1%)
Rehabilitation therapists and assistants	65 (20.1%)
Medical professionals	40 (12.3%)
Training and welfare practitioners	63 (19.4%)
Position
Executive positions	17 (5.2%)	2
Supervisory positions	53 (16.5%)
Frontline professionals	252 (78.3%)
Years of experience (range 0.25–40, mean 9.8, SD 8.1)		5
Junior (= <3)	86 (27.0%)
Mid-level (>3 and = <10)	118 (37.0%)
Senior (>10)	115 (36.0%)
Employing organization		2
Non-governmental agencies	278 (86.3%)
Governmental agencies	44 (13.7%)
Clientele (disability type)
Persons with IDD	99 (30.6%)
Persons with MHI	136 (42.0%)
Persons with SPD	89 (27.5%)

MHI: mental health issue; IDD: intellectual and developmental disability; SPD: sensory/physical disability.

Table 3. Factor loadings of the 12 ICT items.

	Factor 1: Information and communication tools	Factor 2: Screening and monitoring tools	Factor 3: Treatment and rehabilitation tools
1. E-mail	0.701
2. WhatsApp/text messaging	0.577
3. Videoconferencing	0.590
4. Online service record system	0.588
5. Social media	0.531
6. Informational website	0.631
8. Self-monitoring apps			0.747
9. Wearables and biofeedback			0.777
10. Virtual/augmented reality		0.663
11. Rehabilitation training apps/technologies		0.817
12. Assistive technology for persons with disabilities		0.837

Note. Applied rotation method is oblimin.

Table 4. Mean scale scores of ICT adoption across each factor.

	Current practice, mean (SD)	Future work, mean (SD)	t-Test (df)	p-Value
Factor 1: Information and communication tools	3.71 (0.70)	3.72 (0.75)	−0.447 (323)	0.586
Factor 2: Screening and monitoring tools	1.63 (1.04)	1.91 (1.13)	−6.179 (323)	<0.001
Factor 3: Treatment and rehabilitation tools	1.65 (0.81)	1.98 (1.02)	−9.444 (323)	<0.001

Note. 1: never; 2: approximately 1–2 times per half year; 3: approximately 1–2 times per month; 4: approximately 1–2 times per week; 5: every day.

Table 5. Results of MANOVA for the combination of ICT subscales.

Variables	Pillai’s trace	F	df	Error df	p	Partial η^2
Gender	0.008	0.902	3	319	0.440	0.008
Age	0.026	0.904	9	918	0.521	0.009
Education	0.042	2.274	6	640	0.035	0.021
Occupation	0.245	9.49	9	960	<0.001	0.082
Position	0.053	2.883	6	636	0.009	0.026
Years of experience	0.027	1.466	6	628	0.189	0.014
Employing organization	0.043	4.748	3	318	0.003	0.043
Clientele	0.157	9.104	6	640	<0.001	0.079

Note. Age was recoded into four groups and years of experience was recoded into three groups. The bold values indicate group differences revealed by MANOVA.