ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023
Diagnosing homo digitalis: towards a standardized assessment for digital tool competencies.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Apraxia: From Neuroanatomical Pathways to Clinical Manifestations.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2024Review
- Patient Experience and Feasibility of a Remote Monitoring System in Parkinson's Disease.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In the 21st century, digital devices have become integral to our daily lives. Still, practical assessments designed to evaluate an individual's digital tool competencies are absent. The present study introduces the "Digital Tools Test" ("DIGI"), specifically designed for the evaluation of one's proficiency in handling common applications and functions of smartphones and tablets. The DIGI assessment has been primarily tailored for prospective use among older adults and neurological patients with the latter frequently suffering from so-called apraxia, which potentially also affects the handling of digital tools. Similar to traditional tool use tests that assess tool-selection and tool-action processes, the DIGI assessment evaluates an individual's ability to select an appropriate application for a given task (e.g., creating a new contact), their capacity to navigate within the chosen application and their competence in executing precise and accurate movements, such as swiping. Methods: We tested the implementation of the DIGI in a group of 16 healthy adults aged 18 to 28 years and 16 healthy adults aged 60 to 74 years. All participants were able to withstand the assessment and reported good acceptance. Results: The results revealed a significant performance disparity, with older adults displaying notably lower proficiency in the DIGI. The DIGI performance of older adults exhibited a correlation with their ability to employ a set of novel mechanical tools, but not with their ability to handle a set of familiar common tools. There was no such correlation for the younger group. Conclusion: In conclusion, this study introduces an innovative assessment tool aimed at evaluating common digital tool competencies. Our preliminary results demonstrate good acceptance and reveal expected group differences. For current cohorts of older adults, the results seem to indicate that the ability to use novel tools may aid digital tool use. In the next step, the psychometric properties of the DIGI assessment should be evaluated in larger and more diverse samples. The advancement of digital tool competency assessments and rehabilitation strategies is essential when we aim at facilitating societal inclusion and participation for individuals in affected populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.