Measuring technology self efficacy: reliability and construct validity of a modified computer self efficacy scale in a clinical rehabilitation setting

References

• The Productivity Commission. Caring for older Australians. Productivity Commission Issues Paper. Canberra: May 2010.
   Google Scholar
• van Hoof J, Kort HS, van Waarde H, Blom MM. Environmental interventions and the design of homes for older adults with dementia: an overview. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen 2010;25:202–232.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demiris G. E-health: Current status and future trends in the EU and the US. The Netherlands: IOS Press; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Koopman-Boyden P, Reid S. Internet/email usage and well-being among 65–84 year olds in New Zealand: Policy implications. Educ Gerontol 2009;35:990–1007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melenhorst AS, Rogers WA, Bouwhuis DG. Older adults’ motivated choice for technological innovation: evidence for benefit-driven selectivity. Psychol Aging 2006;21:190–195.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris A, Goodman J, Brading H. Internet use and non-use: views of older people. Universal Access in the Information Society 2007;6:43–57.
   Google Scholar
• World Internet Project 2010. Available from http://www.worldinternetproject.net/. Accessed 2010 December 15.
   Google Scholar
• Ziefle M, Wilkowska W. Technology acceptability for medical assistance. 4th Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare; 2010; Munich, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Arning K, Ziefle M. Different perspectives on technology acceptance: The role of technology type and age. In: Holzinger A, Miesenberger K, editors. Human-computer interaction for eInclusion. Berlin: Springer; 2009. p 20–41.
   Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V et al. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 2003;27:425–478.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis F. User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. Int J Man-Machine Studies 1993;38:475–487.
   Google Scholar
• King W, He J. A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management 2006;43:740–755.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma Q, Liu L. The technology acceptance model: A meta-analysis of empirical findings. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing 2004;16:59–72.
   Google Scholar
• Turner P, Turner S, Van de Walle G. How older people account for their experiences with interactive technology. Behav Inf Technol 2007;26:287–296.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V. Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research 2000;11:342–365.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bandura A. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am Psychol 1982;37:122–147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1986.
   Google Scholar
• Gist M. Self-efficacy: implications for organisational behaviour and human resource management. Acad Manage Rev 1987;2:472–486.
   Google Scholar
• Bandura A. Self-Efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Locke E, Frederick E, Lee C, Bobko P. Effect of self efficacy, goals and task strategies on task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 1984;69:241–251.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• George S, Clark M, Crotty M. Development of the Adelaide driving self-efficacy scale. Clin Rehabil 2007;21:56–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maibach E, Murphy D. Self-efficacy in health promotion research and practice: conceptualisation and measurement. Health Education Research Theory and Practice 1995;10:37–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Compeau D, Higgins C. Computer self efficacy: development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly 1995;19:189–211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Czaja SJ, Charness N, Fisk AD, Hertzog C, Nair SN, Rogers WA, Sharit J. Factors predicting the use of technology: findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE). Psychol Aging 2006;21:333–352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eastin M, LaRose R. Internet self-efficacy and the psychology of the digital divide. J Comput Mediat Commun 2000;6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1083–6101.2000.tb00110.
   Google Scholar
• Torkzadeh G, Van Dyke T. Development and validation of an internet self efficacy scale. Behav Inf Technol 2001;20:275–280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkowska W, Ziefle M. Which factors form older adults’ acceptance of mobile information and communication technologies?. In: Holzinger A, Miesenberger K, editors. Human-computer interaction for eInclusion. Berlin: Springer; 2009. p 81–101.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenberg L, Nygard L, Kottorp A. Everyday technology use questionnaire: psychometric evaluation of a new assessment of competence in technology use. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health 2009;29:52–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tesio L. Measuring behaviours and perceptions: Rasch analysis as a tool for rehabilitation research. J Rehabil Med 2003;35:105–115.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. ‘Mini-mental state’. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975;12:189–198.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeVellis R. Scale Development theory and applications. London: SAGE Publications; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Streiner DL. Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. J Pers Assess 2003;80:99–103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henson R, Roberts J. Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research. Educ Psychol Meas 2006;66:393–416.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garson GD. Factor analysis. In Statnotes: topics in multivariate analysis [online] 2010. Available from http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/statnote.htm. Accessed 2010 December 15.
   Google Scholar
• Bartlett M. A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square approximations. J R Stat Soc 1954;16:296–298.
   Google Scholar
• Kaiser H. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 1974;39:31–36.
   Google Scholar
• Kaiser H. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ Psychol Meas 1960;20:141–151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Swieten JC, Koudstaal PJ, Visser MC, Schouten HJ, van Gijn J. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke 1988;19:604–607.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar