» Articles » PMID: 33533727

Measurement of Digital Literacy Among Older Adults: Systematic Review

Overview
Publisher JMIR Publications
Date 2021 Feb 3
PMID 33533727
Citations 66
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Numerous instruments are designed to measure digital literacy among the general population. However, few studies have assessed the use and appropriateness of these measurements for older populations.

Objective: This systematic review aims to identify and critically appraise studies assessing digital literacy among older adults and to evaluate how digital literacy instruments used in existing studies address the elements of age-appropriate digital literacy using the European Commission's Digital Competence (DigComp) Framework.

Methods: Electronic databases were searched for studies using validated instruments to assess digital literacy among older adults. The quality of all included studies was evaluated using the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool (CCAT). Instruments were assessed according to their ability to incorporate the competence areas of digital literacy as defined by the DigComp Framework: (1) information and data literacy, (2) communication and collaboration, (3) digital content creation, (4) safety, and (5) problem-solving ability, or attitudes toward information and communication technology use.

Results: Searches yielded 1561 studies, of which 27 studies (17 cross-sectional, 2 before and after, 2 randomized controlled trials, 1 longitudinal, and 1 mixed methods) were included in the final analysis. Studies were conducted in the United States (18/27), Germany (3/27), China (1/27), Italy (1/27), Sweden (1/27), Canada (1/27), Iran (1/27), and Bangladesh (1/27). Studies mostly defined older adults as aged ≥50 years (10/27) or ≥60 years (8/27). Overall, the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) was the most frequently used instrument measuring digital literacy among older adults (16/27, 59%). Scores on the CCAT ranged from 34 (34/40, 85%) to 40 (40/40, 100%). Most instruments measured 1 or 2 of the DigComp Framework's elements, but the Mobile Device Proficiency Questionnaire (MDPQ) measured all 5 elements, including "digital content creation" and "safety."

Conclusions: The current digital literacy assessment instruments targeting older adults have both strengths and weaknesses, relative to their study design, administration method, and ease of use. Certain instrument modalities like the MDPQ are more generalizable and inclusive and thus, favorable for measuring the digital literacy of older adults. More studies focusing on the suitability of such instruments for older populations are warranted, especially for areas like "digital content creation" and "safety" that currently lack assessment. Evidence-based discussions regarding the implications of digitalization for the treatment of older adults and how health care professionals may benefit from this phenomenon are encouraged.

Citing Articles

Identifying Profiles of Digital Literacy Among Community-Dwelling Korean Older Adults: Latent Profile Analysis.

Shin J, Kang H, Choi S, Chu S, Choi J J Med Internet Res. 2025; 27:e57122.

PMID: 39969960 PMC: 11888056. DOI: 10.2196/57122.


Enhancing Older Adults' Lives Through Positive Aging Perception, Quality-of-Life Enhancement, and Social Support to Drive Acceptance and Readiness Toward Indoor Assistive Technology: Cross-Sectional Study.

Wong K, Teh P, Lim W, Lee S JMIR Aging. 2025; 8:e59665.

PMID: 39908542 PMC: 11840390. DOI: 10.2196/59665.


Measuring Digital Health Literacy in Older Adults: Development and Validation Study.

Kim S, Park C, Park S, Kim D, Bae Y, Kang J J Med Internet Res. 2025; 27:e65492.

PMID: 39908081 PMC: 11840366. DOI: 10.2196/65492.


A health-equity framework for tailoring digital non-pharmacological interventions in aging.

Turnbull A, Odden M, Gould C, Adeli E, Kaplan R, Lin F Nat Ment Health. 2025; 2(11):1277-1284.

PMID: 39867489 PMC: 11756576. DOI: 10.1038/s44220-024-00347-6.


Cognitive Training Using Virtual Reality: An Assessment of Usability and Adverse Effects.

Bang M, Kim M, Kim S, Kim H Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl. 2025; 6(4):100378.

PMID: 39822192 PMC: 11734004. DOI: 10.1016/j.arrct.2024.100378.


References
1.
McCausland L, Falk N . From dinner table to digital tablet: technology's potential for reducing loneliness in older adults. J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. 2012; 50(5):22-6. DOI: 10.3928/02793695-20120410-01. View

2.
Hoogland A, Mansfield J, LaFranchise E, Bulls H, Johnstone P, Jim H . eHealth literacy in older adults with cancer. J Geriatr Oncol. 2020; 11(6):1020-1022. PMC: 8320530. DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2019.12.015. View

3.
Schroder J, Sautier L, Kriston L, Berger T, Meyer B, Spath C . Development of a questionnaire measuring Attitudes towards Psychological Online Interventions-the APOI. J Affect Disord. 2015; 187:136-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2015.08.044. View

4.
Tennant B, Stellefson M, Dodd V, Chaney B, Chaney D, Paige S . eHealth literacy and Web 2.0 health information seeking behaviors among baby boomers and older adults. J Med Internet Res. 2015; 17(3):e70. PMC: 4381816. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.3992. View

5.
McInnes M, Moher D, Thombs B, McGrath T, Bossuyt P, Clifford T . Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: The PRISMA-DTA Statement. JAMA. 2018; 319(4):388-396. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.19163. View