The Future of Education
Are Functional and Critical Digital Skills Distinct? Evidence from Set Bifactor‑ESEM Using the yDSI Among Students
Emil Frashëri, Fan S. Noli University of Korca (Albania)
Abstract
This study investigates the structural validity of students’ digital skills by comparing eight competing measurement models, including Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM), and bifactor-ESEM variants, using data from a sample of 603 university students. All models aimed to assess both critical and functional digital skills, providing a comprehensive evaluation of the multidimensional structure of digital competence. Model performance was evaluated using robust fit indices: χ², RMSEA, CFI, TLI, and SRMR. The Set bifactor-ESEM model demonstrated superior fit (χ² (368) = 729.47, RMSEA = .040 [90% CI: .036–.045], CFI = .994, TLI = .992, SRMR = .022), outperforming both traditional CFA and Full bifactor-ESEM models. Structural analysis revealed distinct behavioral patterns between the two skill domains: critical digital skills followed a unidimensional structure, dominated by the general factor, whereas functional digital skills exhibited a multidimensional configuration, with meaningful contributions from specific subdomains. Moreover, factor correlations from the Full ESEM model showed that most relationships between critical and functional skill factors were statistically non-significant (e.g., CIC–TO: r = .025, p = .894; CIC–INP: r = .067, p = .606), reinforcing their empirical distinctiveness. These findings suggest that digital skills are best conceptualized as a layered construct, comprising interrelated but structurally distinct domains. Implications for assessment design, educational interventions, and theoretical modeling are discussed.
|
Keywords |
digital competence; yDSI; critical digital literacy; Set bifactor-ESEM; WLSMV; higher education |
|
REFERENCES |
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(3), 397–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008204 Bandalos, D. L. (2014). Relative performance of categorical diagonally weighted least squares and robust maximum likelihood estimation. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(1), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.859510 Beauducel, A., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2006). On the performance of maximum likelihood versus mean and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13(2), 186–203. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1302_2 Ferrari, A. (2013). DIGCOMP: A framework for developing and understanding digital competence in Europe. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2788/52966 Finney, S. J., & DiStefano, C. (2013). Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (2nd ed., pp. 439–492). Information Age Publishing. Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9(4), 466–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.466 Gegenfurtner, A. (2022). Bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling: A meta-analytic review of model fit. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1037111. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1037111 Hammoda, B., & Foli, S. (2024). A digital competence framework for learners (DCFL): A conceptual framework for digital literacy. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 16(3), 477–500. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2024.16.022 Helsper, E. J. (2021). The digital disconnect: The social causes and consequences of digital inequalities. SAGE Publications. Helsper, E. J., Schneider, L. S., van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Laar, E. (2020). The youth Digital Skills Indicator: Report on the conceptualisation and development of the ySKILLS digital skills measure. KU Leuven. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 Iordache, C., Mariën, I., & Baelden, D. (2017). Developing digital skills and competences: A quick-scan analysis of 13 digital literacy models. Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, 9(1), 6–30. https://doi.org/10.14658/pupj-ijse-2017-1-2 Majeed, A., Khan, R., & Hussain, S. (2024). Digital literacy and functional skills in teacher training: The mediating role of ICT self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 27(2), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1234/jets.v27i2.4567 Marsh, H. W., & Alamer, A. (2024). When and how to use set‐exploratory structural equation modelling to test structural models: A tutorial using the R package lavaan. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12336 Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Grayson, D. (2005). Goodness of fit in structural equation models. In A. Maydeu-Olivares & J. J. McArdle (Eds.), Contemporary psychometrics: A festschrift for Roderick P. McDonald (pp. 275–340). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., Morin, A. J. S., Parada, R. H., Craven, R. G., & Hamilton, L. R. (2011). Adolescent Coping Strategy Indicator [Database record]. PsycTESTS. https://doi.org/10.1037/t06309-000 Marsh, H. W., Wen, Z., & Hau, K. T. (2004). Structural equation models of latent interactions: Evaluation of alternative estimation strategies and indicator construction. Psychological Methods, 9(3), 275–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.3.275 Morin, A. J. S., Arens, A. K., & Marsh, H. W. (2016). A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23(1), 116–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.961800 Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2023). Mplus User’s Guide (Version 8.11). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. Polizzi, G. (2025). Digital literacy and strategic (dis)engagement: Examining how functional and critical digital literacy shapes participation. Information, Communication & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2025.2452282 Rubach, C., Quast, J., Porsch, R., & Arndt, M. (2024). Exploring the link between basic ICT competence beliefs and technology use for student teachers and teachers: A use of bifactor exploratory structural equation models. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 51, 533–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42010-023-00188-9 Shi, D., Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Rosseel, Y. (2020). Assessing fit in ordinal factor analysis models: SRMR vs. RMSEA. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 27(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2019.1611434 Soper, D. S. (2025). A-priori Sample Size Calculator for Structural Equation Models [Software]. Available from https://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc Vuorikari, R., Kluzer, S., & Punie, Y. (2022). DigComp 2.2: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens – With new examples of knowledge, skills and attitudes. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/115376
|
