Introduction
Interest in affective concepts related to the use of technology and information systems has grown enormously in recent decades (Davidson, 1998;Salazar-Concha et al., 2021), especially concerning its “dark side," that is, negative emotions (Salanova et al., 2014;Tarafdar et al., 2019). However, there are many conceptual and methodological gaps in the investigation of this topic (Agogo & Hess, 2018).
Three concepts are close to that of technology anxiety. In chronological order of appearance, they are “computer anxiety" (Masters, 1967), “technophobia" (Paschen & Gresser, 1974), and “technostress" (Brod, 1982). Although used as synonyms, probably because they have been investigated from areas outside Psychology, such as information technologies or human resources, the difference can be seen in their names: compared to phobia, anxiety is an emotional response that is not necessarily abnormal; regarding stress, anxiety is a specific emotion like anger or sadness (Agogo & Hess, 2018;Khasawneh, 2018;Tacy, 2016). In this sense, “technology anxiety" is a generalization to other technologies of the original “computer anxiety".
Older people are especially vulnerable to technology anxiety. For example, two studies developed in Italy showed that high levels of computer anxiety in older people were associated with disuse, lack of autonomy, and the need for help in the management of technology, linked to high levels of technophobia (di Giacomo et al., 2020;di Giacomo et al., 2020).
The risks of technology anxiety can transcend playful or social aspects, causing harm in other areas. In the professional context,Hou et al. (2017)experimentally demonstrated that the combination of advanced age and technophobia generated great reading difficulties on screens.Tams (2017), concerning the increased technology anxiety of older workers, proposed an explanation that is based on differences in inhibitory control compared with younger adults.
As for health, technology anxiety linked to internet use is associated with lower well-being and quality of life (Nimrod, 2018a). It can even interfere with the acceptability of the use of surveillance devices in older people with heart disease (Tsai et al., 2020) or tumor monitoring systems (Özdemir-Güngör & Camgöz-Akdag, 2018). Technology anxiety is considered a risk factor for older people’s health, reaching critical levels during the COVID-19 pandemic (Nimrod, 2021,2022). If age is linked to low levels of education, the problem is aggravated, to the point of requiring psychoeducational intervention programs to address it.
Psychometric measures of “technostress" (Nimrod, 2018b;Penado Abilleira et al., 2020), “technophobia" (Martínez-Córcoles et al., 2017), and “computer anxiety" (Raub, 1981) have been developed. Concerning technology anxiety,Meuter et al. (2003)developed the first measure by adapting that ofRaub (1981)to any information and communication technology (ICT) in a consumer study on self-service technologies. This produced a unifactorial instrument, with nine items, reliability of = .90, predicting the use of self-service technology well above other variables such as age, gender, income level, or educational level.Niemelä-Nyrhinen (2007)tested the psychometric properties of this scale with a sample of 620 Finnish baby boomers, finding a bifactorial structure. The factor they called “fear" was composed of the first six items, which are drafted in the sense of anxiety, and they obtained a reliability of = .89. The factor they called “confidence" was composed of the last three items, drafted in the opposite direction to anxiety but they did not report the reliability, although they stated that it was significantly lower, probably due to the smaller number of items.
López-Bonilla and López-Bonilla (2012) adapted a scale composed of the items of that ofMeuter et al. (2003)and another scale of “computer anxiety" (Loyd & Gressard, 1984) to Spanish, using a sample of 819 university students. To our knowledge, there is no psychometric measure of technology anxiety in Spanish validated in the older population.
Considering the above, the aims of this work were, firstly, to adapt the Technology Anxiety Scale to Spanish in the older population and, secondly, to differentially determine its fit to a unifactorial (Meuter et al., 2003) and bifactorial structure (Niemelä-Nyrhinen, 2007).
Method
Participants
The sample included 355 Spaniards between the ages of 63 and 97, with a mean age of 78.63 ( SD = 6.77). Of them, 122 were men and 233 were women, of whom 115 (32.4%) indicate not having any studies, 148 (41.7%) have primary education, 49 have secondary education (13.8%), and 43 indicate having completed university studies (12.1%). Regarding marital status, most were married (47%; n = 167) or widowed (48.5%; n = 172), although 13 were divorced people (3.7%), 2 with a common-law partner (0.6%), and 1 single person (0.3%) also participated.
Instrument
Technology Anxiety Scale (Meuter et al., 2003)
As indicated in the introduction, this scale consists of nine items, generated from those that made up the Computer Anxiety Scale (Raub, 1981), which are rated on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Higher scores indicate higher levels of anxiety.
Items from other scales were used to assess the concurrent validity. Concretely, the four items of personal growth (e.g., “For me, life has been a continuous process of study, change, and growth"), the five items of positive relationships with others (e.g., “I know I can trust my friends and they know they can trust me"), and the four items of self-acceptance (e.g., “For the most part, I am proud of who I am and the life I lead") from the Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-being (Ryff, 1989) in its Spanish version (Villar et al., 2010). The response scale of them ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Higher scores indicate higher levels of psychological well-being. To assess perceived quality of life and health satisfaction, the items “How would you rate your quality of life?" and “How satisfied are you with your health?" were used. Both are scored on a 5-point Likert scale and are included in the “WhoQol Bref" Quality of Life Scale, developed by the World Health Organization and validated in Spain with older people byLucas-Carrasco et al. (2011).
Procedure
As part of a research project on ICTs and intergenerational relationships that included older people, and because of the limitations in the application of the scale in person due to COVID-19, discretionary sampling was carried out through the snowball technique by telematic means. A Google Forms link was sent to university students through social networks and/or email to spread among their friends and peers so that they could send it to their relatives over 60 years old who interacted with ICTs and were willing to collaborate in the study.
The form requested the older person to collaborate anonymously and required informed consent before showing the scale, which did not request any data that would allow personal identification. The data processing was carried out following the European Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of 2016.
The adaptation of this scale to Spanish was carried out following the guidelines of the International Test Commission (ITC) for the intercultural adaptation of tests (Muñiz et al., 2013), and the list for the quality control of the translation-adaptation of the items ofHambleton and Zenisky (2011).
Two native Spanish speakers with a C1 English level separately translated the items into Spanish. There was an initial agreement of 89%, with only one discrepancy in item 4, the word “apprehensive", that was resolved by consensus: two native English speakers, an American and a New Zealander, with a C1 Spanish level; then it was translated back into English, with no discrepancies. The results of the back translations were identical.
Regarding the response options, although their range is directly related to the sensitivity of the scale (Bisquerra & Pérez-Escoda, 2015), we preferred to use a five-point scale compared to the original of seven points because the cognitive impairment that may be found in older people (Mora Simón et al., 2012) could affect their discriminative capacity in responses to scales with high ranges. In fact, recent studies show that the adjusted prevalence rates for mild cognitive impairment range from 5.2% in the population aged 65 to 69 years to 45.3% in populations aged 85 years or older (Vega Alonso et al., 2018). Not controlling this source of variation at older ages would have posed a substantial threat to the internal validity of the results.
Data Analysis
Descriptive data were obtained for the items that make up the instrument: means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis. Given the multivariate non-normality and the ordinal nature of the items, weighted least squares with mean and variance adjusted (WLSMV) estimation was used (Finney & DiStefano, 2013) to perform two confirmatory factor analyses. First, a one-dimensional model (M1) was tested (Meuter et al., 2003) and then another model of two correlated factors (M2): the “fear factor" and the “confidence factor" (Niemelä-Nyrhinen, 2007).
To check the fit of the models, the following fit indices were considered: the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and the standard root mean square residual (SRMR).Kenny et al. (2015)andTaasoobshirazi and Wang (2016)argue that the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) does not perform well with few degrees of freedom and small sample sizes. For this reason, this index is not considered in the interpretation of results.
The reference values were a minimum value of .90 for the CFI and TLI, and a maximum cut-off of .08 for the SRMR to consider as indicative of a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1995;Marsh et al., 1996). The factor measurement reliability (Kline, 2016) was evaluated with the composite reliability index (CRI) (Werts et al., 1974), which is identical to the ω coefficient (McDonald, 1999) but using the standardized factor loadings (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2015). Then, the average variance extracted (AVE) (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) was estimated to determine factor measurement validity (Raykov, 1997). The alpha values are also given for the two subscales and for the total scale. For the CRI and alpha, values higher than .70 are considered acceptable (Raykov, 2004), whereas for AVE values above .50 are necessary (Hair, 2010).
To test the concurrent validity of the Technology Anxiety Scale, bivariate correlations with measures of psychological well-being (personal growth, positive relationships with others and self-acceptance), quality of life, and health satisfaction were calculated.
We assessed the invariance of the factorial structure by gender with the factorial structure that presented the best fit. Three nested models with increasing degree of restriction were tested: the base model assessed configural invariance and allowed free estimation of all the parameters for each group. The metric (weak) invariance model, nested in the configural model, added the restriction of invariant factor loadings among groups. Finally, the scalar (strong) invariance model, nested in the second model, added the thresholds constraint of the invariant items among the comparison groups. When sample size is small, sample sizes are unequal, and the pattern of noninvariance is uniform, the following cutoff criteria are suggested: for testing loading invariance, a change of ≤ -.005 in CFI, supplemented by a change of ≥ .025 in SRMR would indicate noninvariance; for testing intercept or residual invariance, a change of ≤ -.005 in CFI, supplemented by a change of ≥ .005 in SRMR would indicate noninvariance (Chen, 2007).
All these analyses were carried out using the program Mplus 8.7 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017). To obtain descriptions of the sociodemographic variables and the items of the Technology Anxiety Scale and for concurrent validity measures, the IBM SPSS 26 statistical package was used.
Results
The process of translating the items was described in the Procedure section. The resulting scale in Spanish is shown inAppendix.
The descriptive data of the items are shown inTable 1. As can be seen, the items with a higher mean were “technological terminology sounds like confusing jargon to me" and “I’m sure I can learn technology-related skills", whereas the item “I feel apprehensive about the use of technology" is the one that presented a lower mean. The total score of the scale in this sample has a mean of 25.82 with 9 being the minimum score and 45 the maximum score. Therefore, this sample presents moderately high values of technology anxiety.
Enlarge this image.Table 1 Descriptive Data of the Items of the Spanish Adaptation of the Technology Anxiety Scale
Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; Sk = skewness; Kt = kurtosis.
As for the factor analyses, as can be seen inTable 2, Model 1 (one-dimensional) showed acceptable fit indices, although the two-factor model clearly presented better values.
Note. M1 = one factor model; M2 = two correlated factor model; χ2 = chi-square; df = degrees of freedom; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.
All the χ2 are p <.001.
All factor loadings were higher than .600, as shown inFigure 1. In addition, the Confidence factor and the Fear factor had a negative and high correlation. CRI values were good both for the Fear (CR = .924) and the Confidence (CR = .773) factors, as occurred with the AVE values (Fear = .714, Confidence = .609). Both the overall Cronbach’s alpha (α = .899) and for each subscale (Fear α = .896, Confidence α = .717) were good.
Regarding the results of concurrent validity, the fear factor showed negative and significant correlations with Personal Relationships with Others ( r = -.286; p <.001), Personal Growth ( r = -.209, p <.001), Quality of Life ( r = -.153, p <.001), and Health Satisfaction ( r = -.188, p <.001), and no significant correlation with Self-acceptance ( r = -.041, p = .438). On the other hand, the Confidence factor showed positive and significant correlations with Personal Relationships with Others ( r = .293, p <.001), Personal Growth ( r = .248, p <.001), Quality of Life ( r = .253, p <.001), and Health Satisfaction ( r = .270, p <.001) and did not show significant correlation with Self-acceptance ( r = .079, p = .134).
Using the two-factor model, which showed better fit, gender invariance analysis was performed.Table 3shows that this model fit men’s group well and women’s group excellently. After this confirmation, we verified that the criteria for the scalar invariance of the instrument were met and, therefore, the latent means between genders could be compared. The results showed that, by setting the reference group (men) to 0, there were no group differences either in the Fear factor ( b = 0.080, z = 0.092, p = .359) or the Confidence factor ( b = 0.057, z = 0.620, p = .535).
Note. df = degrees of freedom; χ2 = chi-square; Δχ2 = difference in chi-square; Δ df = difference in degrees of freedom; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; SRMR = standard root mean square residual.
All χ2 are significant at p <.001.
Discussion
Our objective was to validate the Technology Anxiety Scale (Meuter et al., 2003) in the Spanish-speaking older population.
After the process of cross-cultural adaptation of the items, which was carried out without problems, both the unifactorial structure proposed byMeuter et al. (2003)and that of two correlated factors found byNiemelä-Nyrhinen (2007)showed adequate fit. Therefore, we can conclude, preliminarily, that this instrument is suitable for measuring technology anxiety in older Spaniards. Of course, our results are in line with those ofNiemelä-Nyrhinen (2007), and therefore support the use of the scale to measure two inversely correlated factors, which correspond to the direction of the drafting of the items: the factor called “fear", which integrates the first six items, reflecting negative emotionality towards technology, and the factor called “confidence", which integrates the last three items and reflects trust, that is, a positive experience of the relationship with technology.
We cannot compare our fit indices with those of the two studies that serve as a reference because neither of them performed confirmatory factor analyses, but only exploratory factor analyses. As a reference, our factor loadings, ranging between .63 and .90, were even higher than those obtained byMeuter et al. (2003), between .58 and .89, and very similar to those obtained byNiemelä-Nyrhinen (2007), between .61 and .91. Nor can we take as a reference the scale validated in Spanish university students byLópez-Bonilla and López-Bonilla (2012), not only because they merged the technology anxiety scale ofMeuter et al. (2003)with another “computer anxiety" scale (Loyd & Gressard, 1984), but also because they did not report the fit indices of the confirmatory factor analysis in their work.
Also, although the two previous studies were conducted with people of both genders, 53% and 59% of women respectively, the validity of the instrument for both genders had not actually been established. Our study confirms the factorial invariance of the scale by gender and therefore endorses the use of this scale in men and women.
Regarding concurrent validity, it was confirmed that older adults with higher technology anxiety had lower scores on well-being, quality of life, and health satisfaction, in line with the results obtained byNimrod (2018a)andPfaffinger et al. (2021).
The study presents some limitations. First, due to the COVID-19 pandemic situation, the questionnaire was applied precisely using technology, through Google Forms, also distributed through technology such as email, instant messaging, or social networks. This could have produced a sample bias favoring participants with lower levels of technology anxiety. In any case, the fact that it was their relatives who urged the older people to carry out the survey could mitigate this bias. Secondly, and concerning the previous limitation, although the sample was sufficient to reach the desired statistical power, it would have been desirable to have a higher number of participants, a fact that perhaps was also conditioned by the moment of application, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, as argued in the introduction, to facilitate the application to older participants and even to those with potential cognitive impairment (Mora Simón et al., 2012;Vega Alonso et al., 2018), we decided to simplify the response format, going from seven to five Likert-type alternatives. In fact, the sample was finally made up of people with an average age of more than 78 years, and more than 70% had no studies or had only primary studies. However, despite being the desired effect on our part, the reduction of the response alternatives may have influenced the good factorial fit we found. In any case, these limitations imply that this validation should be considered preliminary and that studies with larger and more representative samples are required.
Evidence indicates that technology anxiety is one of the main barriers to older people’s adaptation to digital life (di Giacomo et al., 2019, 2020;Nimrod, 2018b;Tsai et al., 2020). Interventions are therefore required to counter it, which, in turn, need appropriate screening tools for this purpose. In this sense, the main practical implication of our study has been to demonstrate the preliminary validity of the Technology Anxiety Scale to evaluate technology anxiety in older Spaniards.
Agogo, D., & Hess, T. J. (2018). “How does tech make you feel?” A review and examination of negative affective responses to technology use.European Journal of Information Systems, 27(5), 570-599. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2018.1435230AgogoDHessT. J.2018How does tech make you feel?” A review and examination of negative affective responses to technology useEuropean Journal of Information Systems27557059910.1080/0960085X.2018.1435230
Bisquerra, R., & Pérez-Escoda, N. (2015). ¿Pueden las escalas Likert aumentar en sensibilidad?REIRE. Revista d’Innovació i Recerca En Educació, 8(2), 129-147. https://doi.org/10.1344/reire2015.8.2828BisquerraRPérez-EscodaN.2015¿Pueden las escalas Likert aumentar en sensibilidad?REIRE. Revista d’Innovació i Recerca En Educació8212914710.1344/reire2015.8.2828
Brod, C. (1982). Managing technostress: Optimizing the use of computer technology.Personnel Journal, 61(10), 753-757.BrodC.1982Managing technostress: Optimizing the use of computer technologyPersonnel Journal6110753757
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance.Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464-504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834ChenF. F.2007Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invarianceStructural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal14346450410.1080/10705510701301834
Davidson, J. (1998). Conquering change: Overcoming technology anxiety.Hoosier Banker, 82(5), 54-55. https://www.proquest.com/trade-journals/conquering-change-overcoming-technology-anxiety/docview/195280800/se-2?accountid=14744DavidsonJ.1998Conquering change: Overcoming technology anxietyHoosier Banker8255455https://www.proquest.com/trade-journals/conquering-change-overcoming-technology-anxiety/docview/195280800/se-2?accountid=14744
di Giacomo, D., Guerra, F., Perilli, E., & Ranieri, J. (2020). Technophobia as emerging risk factor in aging: Investigation on computer anxiety dimension.Health Psychology Research, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.4081/hpr.2020.8207di GiacomoDGuerraFPerilliERanieriJ.2020Technophobia as emerging risk factor in aging: Investigation on computer anxiety dimensionHealth Psychology Research8110.4081/hpr.2020.8207
di Giacomo, D., Ranieri, J., D’Amico, M., Guerra, F., & Passafiume, D. (2019). Psychological barriers to digital living in older adults: Computer anxiety as predictive mechanism for technophobia.Behavioral Sciences, 9(9), Article 96. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs9090096di GiacomoDRanieriJD’AmicoMGuerraFPassafiumeD.2019Psychological barriers to digital living in older adults: Computer anxiety as predictive mechanism for technophobiaBehavioral Sciences99969610.3390/bs9090096
Finney, S. J., & DiStefano, C. (2013). Nonnormal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In G. R. , Hancock & R. O. , Mueller (Eds.),Structural equation modeling: A second course(2nd ed., pp. 269-314). IAP Information Age Publishing.FinneyS. JDiStefanoC.2013Nonnormal and categorical data in structural equation modelingHancockG. R.MuellerR. O.Structural equation modeling: A second course2nd ed.269314IAP Information Age Publishing
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error.Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104FornellCLarckerD. F.1981Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement errorJournal of Marketing Research181395010.1177/002224378101800104
Hair, J. F. (Ed.) (2010). Multivariate data analysis : A global perspective(7th ed.). Pearson.HairJ. F.2010Multivariate data analysis : A global perspective7th ed.Pearson
Hambleton, R. K., & Zenisky, A. L. (2011).Translating and adapting tests for cross-cultural assessments.In D. Matsumoto & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.),Cross-cultural research methods in psychology(pp. 46-74). Cambridge University Press.HambletonR. KZeniskyA. L.2011Translating and adapting tests for cross-cultural assessmentsMatsumotoD.van de VijverF. J. R.Cross-cultural research methods in psychology4674Cambridge University Press
Hou, J., Wu, Y., & Harrell, E. (2017). Reading on paper and screen among senior adults: Cognitive map and technophobia.Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 2225. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02225HouJWuYHarrellE.2017Reading on paper and screen among senior adults: Cognitive map and technophobiaFrontiers in Psychology8222510.3389/fpsyg.2017.02225
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.),Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications(pp. 76-99). Sage Publications, Inc.HuL. TBentlerP. M.1995Evaluating model fitHoyleR. H.Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications7699Sage Publications, Inc
Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2015). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom.Sociological Methods & Research, 44(3), 486-507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114543236KennyD. AKaniskanBMcCoachD. B.2015The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedomSociological Methods & Research44348650710.1177/0049124114543236
Khasawneh, O. Y. (2018). Technophobia: Examining its hidden factors and defining it.Technology in Society, 54(C), 93-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.03.008KhasawnehO. Y.2018Technophobia: Examining its hidden factors and defining itTechnology in Society54C9310010.1016/j.techsoc.2018.03.008
Kline, R. B. (2016).Principles and practice of structural equation modeling(4th ed.). Guilford Press.KlineR. B.2016Principles and practice of structural equation modeling4th ed.Guilford Press
López-Bonilla, J. M., & López-Bonilla, L. M. (2012). Validation of an information technology anxiety scale in undergraduates.British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), E56-E58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01256.xLópez-BonillaJ. MLópez-BonillaL. M.2012Validation of an information technology anxiety scale in undergraduatesBritish Journal of Educational Technology432E56E5810.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01256.x
Loyd, B. H., & Gressard, C. (1984). Reliability and factorial validity of Computer Attitude Scales.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44(2), 501-505. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164484442033LoydB. HGressardC.1984Reliability and factorial validity of Computer Attitude ScalesEducational and Psychological Measurement44250150510.1177/0013164484442033
Lucas-Carrasco, R., Laidlaw, K., & Power, M. J. (2011). Suitability of the WHOQOL-BREF and WHOQOL-OLD for Spanish older adults.Aging & Mental Health, 15(5), 595-604. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2010.548054Lucas-CarrascoRLaidlawKPowerM. J.2011Suitability of the WHOQOL-BREF and WHOQOL-OLD for Spanish older adultsAging & Mental Health15559560410.1080/13607863.2010.548054
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & Hau, K. T. (1996). An evaluation of incremental fit indices: A clarification of mathematical and empirical properties. In G. A., Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.),Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques(pp. 315-353). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.MarshH. WBallaJ. RHauK. T.1996An evaluation of incremental fit indices: A clarification of mathematical and empirical propertiesMarcoulidesG. A.SchumackerR. E.Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques315353Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Martínez-Córcoles, M., Teichmann, M., & Murdvee, M. (2017). Assessing technophobia and technophilia: Development and validation of a questionnaire.Technology in Society, 51(C), 183-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2017.09.007Martínez-CórcolesMTeichmannMMurdveeM.2017Assessing technophobia and technophilia: Development and validation of a questionnaireTechnology in Society51C18318810.1016/j.techsoc.2017.09.007
Masters, R. (1967). The physician and the computer.Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 9(2), 38-40. https://doi.org/10.1097/00043764-196702000-00002MastersR.1967The physician and the computerJournal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine92384010.1097/00043764-196702000-00002
McDonald, R. P. (1999).Test theory: A unified treatment.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.McDonaldR. P.1999Test theory: A unified treatment.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers
Meuter, M. L., Ostrom, A. L., Bitner, M. J., & Roundtree, R. (2003). The influence of technology anxiety on consumer use and experiences with self-service technologies. Journal of Business Research, 56(11), 899-906. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00276-4MeuterM. LOstromA. LBitnerM. JRoundtreeR.2003The influence of technology anxiety on consumer use and experiences with self-service technologiesJournal of Business Research561189990610.1016/S0148-2963(01)00276-4
Mora Simón, S., García García, R., Perea Bartolomé, M. V., Ladera Fernández, V., Unzueta Arce, J., Patino Alonso, M. C., & Rodríguez Sánchez, E. (2012). Deterioro cognitivo leve: detección temprana y nuevas perspectivas.Revista de Neurología, 54(05), 303-310. https://doi.org/10.33588/rn.5405.2011538Mora SimónSGarcía GarcíaRPerea BartoloméM. VLadera FernándezVUnzueta ArceJPatino AlonsoM. CRodríguez SánchezE.2012Deterioro cognitivo leve: detección temprana y nuevas perspectivasRevista de Neurología540530331010.33588/rn.5405.2011538
Muñiz, J., Elosua, P., & Hambleton, R. K. (2013). Directrices para la traducción y adaptación de los tests (2nd ed.).Psicothema, 25(2), 151-157. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2013.24MuñizJElosuaPHambletonR. K.2013Directrices para la traducción y adaptación de los tests (2nd ed.)Psicothema25215115710.7334/psicothema2013.24
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017).Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables: User’s guide (8th version). Authors.MuthénL. KMuthénB. O.2017Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables: User’s guide 8th versionAuthors
Niemelä-Nyrhinen, J. (2007). Baby boom consumers and technology: Shooting down stereotypes.Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24(5), 305-312. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760710773120Niemelä-NyrhinenJ.2007Baby boom consumers and technology: Shooting down stereotypesJournal of Consumer Marketing24530531210.1108/07363760710773120
Nimrod, G. (2018a). Technophobia among older Internet users.Educational Gerontology, 44(2-3), 148-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2018.1428145NimrodG.2018aTechnophobia among older Internet usersEducational Gerontology442-314816210.1080/03601277.2018.1428145
Nimrod, G. (2018b). Technostress: measuring a new threat to well-being in later life.Aging & Mental Health, 22(8), 1086-1093. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2017.1334037NimrodG.2018bTechnostress: measuring a new threat to well-being in later lifeAging & Mental Health2281086109310.1080/13607863.2017.1334037
Nimrod, G. (2021). Not good days for technophobes: Older internet users during the COVID-19 pandemic.Educational Gerontology, 47(4), 160-171. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2021.1894530NimrodG.2021Not good days for technophobes: Older internet users during the COVID-19 pandemicEducational Gerontology47416017110.1080/03601277.2021.1894530
Nimrod, G. (2022). Technostress in a hostile world: older internet users before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.Aging and Mental Health, 26(3), 526-533. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2020.1861213NimrodG.2022Technostress in a hostile world: older internet users before and during the COVID-19 pandemicAging and Mental Health26352653310.1080/13607863.2020.1861213
Özdemir-Güngör, D., & Camgöz-Akdag, H. (2018). Examining the effects of technology anxiety and resistance to change on the acceptance of breast tumor registry system: Evidence from Turkey.Technology in Society, 54(C), 66-73. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/examining-effects-technology-anxiety-resistance/docview/2113601339/se-2?accountid=14744Özdemir-GüngörDCamgöz-AkdagH.2018Examining the effects of technology anxiety and resistance to change on the acceptance of breast tumor registry system: Evidence from TurkeyTechnology in Society54C6673https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/examining-effects-technology-anxiety-resistance/docview/2113601339/se-2?accountid=14744
Paschen, H., & Gresser, K. (1974). Some remarks and proposals concerning the planning and performance of technology assessment studies.Research Policy, 2(4), 306-321. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(74)90024-9PaschenHGresserK.1974Some remarks and proposals concerning the planning and performance of technology assessment studiesResearch Policy2430632110.1016/0048-7333(74)90024-9
Penado Abilleira, M., Rodicio-García, M. L., Ríos-de-Deus, M. P., & Mosquera-González, M. J. (2020). Technostress in Spanish university students: Validation of a measurement scale.Frontiers in Psychology, 11,Article 582317. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.582317Penado AbilleiraMRodicio-GarcíaM. LRíos-de-DeusM. PMosquera-GonzálezM. J.2020Technostress in Spanish university students: Validation of a measurement scaleFrontiers in Psychology11Article 58231710.3389/fpsyg.2020.582317
Pfaffinger, K. F., Reif, J. A. M., Huber, A. K., Eger, V. M., Dengler, M. K., Czakert, J. P., Spieß, E., & Berger, R. (2021). Digitalisation anxiety: Development and validation of a new scale.Discover Mental Health, 1(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44192-021-00003-wPfaffingerK. FReifJ. A. MHuberA. KEgerV. MDenglerM. KCzakertJ. PSpießEBergerR.2021Digitalisation anxiety: Development and validation of a new scaleDiscover Mental Health1111410.1007/s44192-021-00003-w
Raub, A. C. (1981).Correlates of computer anxiety in college students.University of Pennsylvania.RaubA. C.1981Correlates of computer anxiety in college students.University of Pennsylvania
Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures.Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(2), 173-184. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216970212006RaykovT.1997Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measuresApplied Psychological Measurement21217318410.1177/01466216970212006
Raykov, T. (2004). Behavioral scale reliability and measurement invariance evaluation using latent variable modeling.Behavior Therapy, 35(2), 299-331. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(04)80041-8RaykovT.2004Behavioral scale reliability and measurement invariance evaluation using latent variable modelingBehavior Therapy35229933110.1016/S0005-7894(04)80041-8
Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2015). A direct latent variable modeling based method for point and interval estimation of coefficient alpha.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 75(1), 146-156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164414526039RaykovTMarcoulidesG. A.2015A direct latent variable modeling based method for point and interval estimation of coefficient alphaEducational and Psychological Measurement75114615610.1177/0013164414526039
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069-1081. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069RyffC. D.1989Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-beingJournal of Personality and Social Psychology5761069108110.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069
Salanova, M., Llorens, S., & Ventura, M. (2014). Technostress: The dark side of technologies. In C. Korunka & P. L. T. Hoonakker (Eds.),The impact of ICT on quality of working life(pp. 87-103). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8854-0_6SalanovaMLlorensSVenturaM.2014Technostress: The dark side of technologiesKorunkaC.HoonakkerP. L. T.The impact of ICT on quality of working life87103Springer10.1007/978-94-017-8854-0_6
Salazar-Concha, C., Ficapal-Cusí, P., Boada-Grau, J., & Camacho, L. J. (2021). Analyzing the evolution of technostress: A science mapping approach.Heliyon, 7(4), Article e06726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06726Salazar-ConchaCFicapal-CusíPBoada-GrauJCamachoL. J.2021Analyzing the evolution of technostress: A science mapping approachHeliyon74e06726e0672610.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06726
Taasoobshirazi, G., & Wang, S. (2016). The performance of the SRMR, RMSEA, CFI, and TLI: An examination of sample size, path size, and degrees of freedom.Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 11(3), 31-39.TaasoobshiraziGWangS.2016The performance of the SRMR, RMSEA, CFI, and TLI: An examination of sample size, path size, and degrees of freedomJournal of Applied Quantitative Methods1133139
Tacy, J. W. (2016). Technostress: A concept analysis.Online Journal of Nursing Informatics, 20(2).TacyJ. W.2016Technostress: A concept analysisOnline Journal of Nursing Informatics202
Tams, S. (2017). A refined examination of worker age and stress: Explaining how, and why, older workers are especially techno-stressed in the interruption age. In F. Davis, R. Riedl, J. vom Brocke, P. M. Léger, & A. Randolph (Eds.),Information systems and neuroscience. Lecture notes in information systems and organisation(Vol. 16, pp. 175-183). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41402-7_22TamsS.2017A refined examination of worker age and stress: Explaining how, and why, older workers are especially techno-stressed in the interruption ageDavisF.RiedlR.vom BrockeJ.LégerA.RandolphP. M.Information systems and neuroscience. Lecture notes in information systems and organisation16175183Springer10.1007/978-3-319-41402-7_22
Tarafdar, M., Cooper, C. L., & Stich, J.-F. (2019). The technostress trifecta - techno eustress, techno distress and design: Theoretical directions and an agenda for research.Information Systems Journal, 29(1), 6-42. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12169TarafdarMCooperC. LStichJ.-F.2019The technostress trifecta - techno eustress, techno distress and design: Theoretical directions and an agenda for researchInformation Systems Journal29164210.1111/isj.12169
Tsai, T.-H., Wen-Yen, L., Yung-Sheng, C., Po-Cheng, C., & Ming-Yih, L. (2020). Technology anxiety and resistance to change behavioral study of a wearable cardiac warming system using an extended TAM for older adults.PLoS One, 15(1), Article e0227270. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227270TsaiT.-HWen-YenLYung-ShengCPo-ChengCMing-YihL.2020Technology anxiety and resistance to change behavioral study of a wearable cardiac warming system using an extended TAM for older adultsPLoS One151e022727010.1371/journal.pone.0227270
Vega Alonso, T., Miralles Espí, M., Mangas Reina, J. M., Castrillejo Pérez, D., Rivas Pérez, A. I., Gil Costa, M., López Maside, A., Arrieta Antón, E., Lozano Alonso, J. E., & Fragua Gil, M. (2018). Prevalencia de deterioro cognitivo en España. Estudio Gómez de Caso en redes centinelas sanitarias.Neurología, 33(8), 491-498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nrl.2016.10.002Vega AlonsoTMiralles EspíMMangas ReinaJ. MCastrillejo PérezDRivas PérezA. IGil CostaMLópez MasideAArrieta AntónELozano AlonsoJ. EFragua GilM.2018Prevalencia de deterioro cognitivo en España. Estudio Gómez de Caso en redes centinelas sanitariasNeurología33849149810.1016/j.nrl.2016.10.002
Villar, F., Triadó, C., Celdrán, M., & Solé, C. (2010). Measuring well-being among Spanish older adults: Development of a simplified version of Ryff’s Scales of Psychological Well-Being.Psychological Reports, 107(1), 265-280. https://doi.org/10.2466/02.07.08.10.21.PR0.107.4.265-280VillarFTriadóCCeldránMSoléC.2010Measuring well-being among Spanish older adults: Development of a simplified version of Ryff’s Scales of Psychological Well-BeingPsychological Reports107126528010.2466/02.07.08.10.21.PR0.107.4.265-280
Werts, C. E., Linn, R. L., & Jöreskog, K. G. (1974). Intraclass reliability estimates: Testing structural assumptions.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34(1), 25-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447403400104WertsC. ELinnR. LJöreskogK. G.1974Intraclass reliability estimates: Testing structural assumptionsEducational and Psychological Measurement341253310.1177/001316447403400104
Checa-Esquiva, Irenea
Aires-González, María del Marb
Cano-García, Francisco J.b
Bueno-Moreno, María R.b
1 Universidad de Valencia, Spain
2 Universidad de Sevilla, Spain
© 2023. This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.