Pixel International ConferencesThis 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">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">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">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">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">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">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">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">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">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">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">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">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">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">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">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">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">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">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">https://doi.org/10.2760/115376
|
Pixel - Via Luigi Lanzi 12 - 50134 Firenze (FI) - VAT IT 05118710481
Privacy Policy