Computers in Human Behavior 118 (2021) 106636

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Addressing 21st-century digital skills in schools – Development and

validation of an instrument to measure teachers’ basic ICT
competence beliefs
Charlott Rubach a, *, Rebecca Lazarides b
a
School of Education, University of California, Irvine, USA
b
Department of Education, Universität Potsdam, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Both teachers’ pedagogical and basic ICT competence beliefs are antecedents of ICT implementation in class.
Teachers’ ICT competence Beliefs Research has developed instruments to assess teachers’ pedagogical ICT competence beliefs. However, there is a
Measurement development and validation paucity of research on the assessment of teachers’ basic ICT competence beliefs. The purpose of this study was to
Expectancy-value model
develop and validate an instrument to assess teachers’ basic ICT competence beliefs. Our analyses based on a
Will
Skill
sample of 372 teachers in Germany (51.2% women, age M = 44.48, SD = 10.77) who participated in an online
Tool model survey. We used exploratory factor analyses to test the factorial structure and confirmatory factor analyses to
investigate the multidimensionality of the measure. Construct validity was analyzed using teachers’ attitudes
toward ICT, ICT use, and socio-demographic variables as validation variables. Our analyses identified six di­
mensions of teachers’ basic ICT competence beliefs: information and data literacy, communication and collab­
oration, digital content creation, safety and security, problem solving, and analyzing and reflecting. Three of
these dimensions had a second-order structure. The six dimensions are differently correlated with teachers’ at­
titudes towards ICT, private and professional use of ICT, student-centered ICT teaching practices, and teacher
gender.

1. Introduction
Both teachers’ digital competence and their competence beliefs
related to information and communications technology (ICT) are
important for the successful integration of digital technology in teaching
and learning settings (Hatlevik, 2017; Hobbs, 2017; Knezek & Chris­
tensen, 2016; Petko, Prasse, & Cantieni, 2018; Wozney, Venkatesh, &
Abrami, 2006). In particular, teachers’ beliefs about their ability to deal
with ICT are closely related to the implementation of ICT in
school-related learning environments (Hatlevik, 2017; Klassen & Chiu,
2010; Pareja Roblin et al., 2018). A substantial body of studies have
examined specific dimensions of teachers’ ICT competence beliefs
related to teaching and instruction (e.g., Chai, Ng, Li, Hong, & Koh,
2013; Elstad & Christophersen, 2017; Knezek, Christensen, & Furuta,
2019). However, there is a paucity of research regarding teachers’
competence beliefs related to their basic ICT skills (for further discussion
see Hatlevik, 2017; Rubach & Lazarides, 2019). Although theoretical
and empirical work has identified multiple dimensions of teachers’ basic
ICT skills related to the use of digital tools and new technologies
(Tourón, Martín, Navarro Asencio, Pradas, & Íñigo, 2018; Wei, Piaw,
Kannan, & Moulod, 2016), this multidimensionality is rarely applied to
assess teachers’ beliefs about their skills. It is, however, important to
investigate the multidimensional structure of teachers’ basic ICT
competence beliefs as such investigations enable a more detailed un­
derstanding of these beliefs as an essential antecedent of ICT imple­
mentation in class (Pareja Roblin et al., 2018). Furthermore, it is crucial
to investigate whether different dimensions of competence beliefs
related to basic ICT skills vary in their importance for ICT teaching
practices. Against this backdrop, the present study aims to develop and
validate an instrument of teachers’ basic ICT competence beliefs in
various theoretically described ICT competence dimensions.

* Corresponding author. School of Education, University of California, 3200 Education Building, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA.
E-mail address: crubach@uci.edu (C. Rubach).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106636
Received 28 May 2020; Received in revised form 9 November 2020; Accepted 14 November 2020
Available online 7 December 2020
0747-5632/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Rubach and R. Lazarides
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Teachers’ basic and pedagogical ICT competence and competence
beliefs
Competence beliefs are defined as self-perceived and self-evaluated
competence with respect to certain activities in the respective domain,
to activities in other domains, and other people (Muenks, Wigfield, &
Eccles, 2018). On a theoretical level, the situated expectancy-value
theory of achievement motivation (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020) states
that beliefs about the self, i.e., competence beliefs, together with
task-related value beliefs, explain an individual’s achievement-related
behaviors. Applying these assumptions to the context of teachers’ pro­
fessional competence, research has shown that teachers who are more
confident about their skills and knowledge in a specific domain are also
more likely to make use of these skills in their learning and instruction
(see Bandura, 1997; Watt & Richardson, 2015). These theoretical as­
sumptions also pertain to teachers’ ICT competence beliefs, which have
been shown to be related to the successful implementation of ICT in
teaching settings (Alt, 2018; Hatlevik, 2017; Knezek & Christensen,
2016; Pareja Roblin et al., 2018; Wozney et al., 2006).
Over the last decades, a substantial body of research has identified
and validated instruments to assess teachers’ and student teachers’
digital competence beliefs (Brandhofer, 2017; Elstad & Christophersen,
2017; Herzig & Martin, 2018; Knezek et al., 2019; Koh, Chai, & Tsai,
2013; Scherer, Tondeur, & Siddiq, 2017). Many of these studies have
referred to the technological pedagogical content knowledge framework
(TPCK), a well-known theoretical framework developed by Mishra and
Koehler (2006). The authors proposed in their framework that the
combination of teachers’ knowledge about technology, content, and
pedagogical approaches are primary influences on the successful
implementation of technology in teaching and learning settings. The
model further emphasized that teachers’ basic ICT knowledge about
various technologies is a central prerequisite for the professional
implementation of ICT in class.
Teachers’ ICT knowledge and related competence beliefs have been
further differentiated into basic ICT competence, pedagogical ICT
competence, and related competence beliefs (Krumsvik, 2014). Many
previous studies have assessed teacher competence beliefs, however,
only in relation to teachers’ pedagogical ICT-related skills. Focusing on
instruction, Knezek et al. (2019), for example, developed an instrument
to assess teachers’ perceived confidence in their ability to integrate
technology in learning environments, to prepare their lessons, and to use
new technologies appropriately in class. Elstad and Christophersen
(2017) focused on student teachers’ ICT self-efficacy regarding problem
solving in challenging pedagogical situations, i.e., bullying of students
through digital communication. Herzig and Martin (2018) developed an
instrument that assesses student teachers’ self-efficacy in using ICT for
specific teaching-related tasks (i.e., explaining content to students).
Consequently, whereas most developed instruments refer to Krumviks’
pedagogical ICT competence, instruments that measure teachers’ basic
ICT competence and related competence beliefs are not well-researched.
The few studies that already have addressed this research gap by
assessing basic ICT competence beliefs are often rather general, assess­
ing whether teachers perceive themselves as able to create web pages,
learn technology easily, or have the technical skills they need to use
technology (Fraillon, Ainley, Schulz, Friedman, & Gebhardt, 2014; Koh
et al., 2013; Scherer et al., 2017; Vanderlinde & van Braak, 2010). In the
International Computer and Information Literacy Study 2013 (ICILS),
for example, teachers’ basic ICT self-efficacy is assessed by asking
teachers about their perceived skills in communicating and collabo­
rating via ICT, producing digital content, or organizing digital data using
ICT (Fraillon et al., 2014; Lorenz, Gerick, Wendt, & Weischenberg,
2016). More detailed measures are needed to assess basic ICT compe­
tence beliefs (Cox, 2008; Hatlevik, 2017). More concretely, new in­
struments are needed that cover the complete range of basic ICT skills
2
Computers in Human Behavior 118 (2021) 106636
described in frameworks (Ferrari, 2013; Siddiq, Hatlevik, Olsen,
Throndsen, & Scherer, 2016) without being too focused on specific
teaching tasks. Such instruments would enable researchers to investi­
gate the interrelations between specific facets of teachers’ basic ICT
competence beliefs and teachers’ ICT teaching behaviors, for example,
using ICT for collaborative processes or producing digital products
(Hatlevik, 2017; Klassen & Chiu, 2010).
2.2. Dimensions of teachers’ basic ICT competence and competence
beliefs
In the last decade, research has intensively investigated questions
regarding the relations between ICT competence and related compe­
tence beliefs. Theoretical models, such as the situated expectancy-value
theory, propose a strong association between competence beliefs and
competence (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020). Within ICT, there is a large
amount of research that has shown low to moderate associations be­
tween ICT competence beliefs and ICT competence for students in K-12
and Higher Education (Aesaert, Voogt, Kuiper, & van Braak, 2017;
Hatlevik, Throndsen, Loi, & Gudmundsdottir, 2018; Prior, Mazanov,
Meacheam, Heaslip, & Hanson, 2016; Rohatgi, Scherer, & Hatlevik,
2016; Siddiq et al., 2016). Some studies also show such associations in
populations of teachers. Hatlevik (2017), for example, indicated a sig­
nificant moderate association between basic ICT self-efficacy beliefs and
basic ICT competence using a sample of teachers from primary and
secondary schools.
Due to the theoretically assumed association between competence
beliefs and competence (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020) and the empirically
demonstrated association between ICT competence beliefs and actual
ICT competency (Hatlevik, 2017; Krumsvik, 2014), we aim to describe
the structure of ICT competence beliefs by reviewing both frameworks of
ICT competence and competence beliefs.
A highly comprehensive overview of frameworks that conceptualize
ICT competence is provided by Siddiq et al. (2016). The authors describe
the following six competence dimensions based on a systematic review
of 66 publication: information [e.g., managing digital information],
communication [e.g., Interacting through digital technologies],
content-creation [e.g., developing content and programming], safety [e.
g., protecting the environment], problem solving [e.g., innovating and
creatively using technology], and technical operational [e.g., basic
technical skills].
Frameworks that have been suggested by educational policy (Car­
retero, Vuorikari, & Punie, 2017; Ferrari, 2013; Kultusministerkonfer­
enz, 2016) and that have been validated in empirical studies (Tourón
et al., 2018) have described similar dimensions of basic ICT competence:
information and data literacy, communication and collaboration, digital
content creation, safety, problem solving, and analysis and reflection.
All described frameworks further differentiate the overarching di­
mensions of basic ICT skills into more specific competencies and skills;
for example, the dimension ‘problem solving’ is further differentiated
into the sub-facets ‘solving technical problems,’ ‘identifying needs and
technological responses,’ ‘using digital technologies in a creative way,’
and ‘identifying the boundaries of own competence.’ An overview of
such competence dimensions and subordinated skills are visualized in
Fig. 1.
As Siddiq et al. (2016) pointed out, in order to understand the whole
range of ICT competence (beliefs), next to theoretical frameworks,
empirical studies need to be reviewed. In our work, we tested the
theoretically assumed multidimensionality of basic ICT competence by
developing a 28-item measure that assessed student teachers’ basic ICT
competence beliefs. Referring to the above-described dimensionality of
six different competence dimensions (Ferrari, 2013; Kultusminis­
terkonferenz, 2016; Tourón et al., 2018) and using data on 292 student
teachers, we identified six overarching dimensions of basic ICT
competence beliefs: information and data literacy, communication and
collaboration, digital content creation, safety and security, problem solving,
C. Rubach and R. Lazarides Computers in Human Behavior 118 (2021) 106636

Fig. 1. Overview of the Six Dimensions of Basic ICT Competence. Notes. a Dimensions of basic ICT digital competence from the digital competence framework 2.0
(Carretero et al., 2017). b Empirically shown teachers’ basic ICT competencies (Touron et al., 2018). c Dimensions of basic ICT digital competence reported by the
German policy framework about education in digital spaces (Kultusministerkonferenz, 2016). d Dimensions of basic ICT digital competence reported by Siddiq
et al. (2016).

and analyzing and reflecting (Rubach & Lazarides, 2019). As a result, we
empirically demonstrated a similar structure of student teachers’ ICT
competence beliefs that has already been shown in Tourón et al. (2018)
for teachers’ ICT competence. Until now, however, studies have rarely
examined whether such dimensions of basic ICT competence beliefs and
their subordinated competencies and skill sub-facets can be applied to
teachers.
2.3. Teachers’ ICT competence beliefs, attitudes, and ICT teaching
practices
On a theoretical level, Situated Expectancy-Value Theory (SEVT,
Eccles & Wigfield, 2020) proposes that individuals’ achievement be­
haviors in a certain domain depend on their feelings of being competent
in the respective domain and on their subjective value beliefs related to
the task. In the context of ICT, the will, skill, tool model of technology
integration (Knezek & Christensen, 2016) similarly proposes that

3
C. Rubach and R. Lazarides
teachers’ ICT competence beliefs, ICT skills, and positive attitudes, as
well as the availability and accessibility of ICT in schools and peda­
gogical approaches to ICT use, are proximal antecedents of teachers’ ICT
use and teaching practices in class. Based on both theoretical models,
research has shown positive associations between teachers’ basic ICT
competence beliefs and ICT implementation in class (Drossel, Eick­
elmann, & Gerick, 2017; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Ertmer,
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, & Sendurur, 2012; Fraillon et al.,
2014; Knezek & Christensen, 2016; Pareja; Petko, 2012; Pareja Roblin
et al., 2018). More specifically, findings by Rubach and Lazarides (2019)
have indicated, for example, that student teachers who felt competent in
the dimensions ‘information and data literacy,’ ‘communication and
collaboration,’ and ‘analyzing and reflecting’ were likely to use a
particularly diverse range of digital devices in their university studies.
Furthermore, student teachers who often used digital devices in uni­
versity courses to plan teaching- and learning-related activities felt
particularly competent in the overarching competence dimension
‘problem solving’ (Rubach, Lazarides, Brendel, & Krauskopf, 2019).
In line with the assumptions of SEVT (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020), re­
lations between competence beliefs and value beliefs may also be
assumed. Empirical evidence shows that (student) teachers’ basic ICT
competence beliefs are related to their attitudes toward ICT (Ertmer
et al., 2012; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Petko, 2012; Rubach &
Lazarides, 2019; Scherer, Siddiq, & Teo, 2015). Positive attitudes to­
ward academic activities are assumed to enhance effort and persistence,
which in turn leads to high achievement and high achievement-related
competence beliefs (Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). Whereas some studies
exist that examine relations between the dimensions of teachers’ basic
ICT competence beliefs (Petko, 2012; Rubach & Lazarides, 2019;
Scherer et al., 2015), ICT use in private and professional settings, and
ICT-related attitudes, there is a scarcity of research regarding the asso­
ciations between teachers’ basic ICT competence beliefs and the
implementation of ICT teaching practices. Teachers’ ICT teaching
practices can be differentiated into teacher-centered and
student-centered ICT practices (Ertmer et al., 2012; Prasse, Döbeli
Honegger, & Petko, 2017). In teacher-centered ICT teaching practices,
the teacher presents and manages the learning content and mainly uses
technology for instructional purposes. Student-centered ICT teaching
practices can be described as using ICT to create collaborative settings
between teachers and students, in which teachers guide students in the
processes of creating their own knowledge (Ertmer et al., 2012). In such
instructional settings, teachers and students use technology to explore
content, communicate with each other, and solve problems or to analyze
learning content using ICT. Student-centered ICT teaching practices can
be used to support students’ autonomy in class, enhance cognitive
activation, and foster individualized instruction and personalized
learning. Previous research has emphasized that teachers who imple­
ment teacher-centered and student-centered ICT teaching practices feel
competent in the competence dimension ‘information and data literacy’
(Ertmer et al., 2012; Gobbo & Girardi, 2001; Schaumburg, Prasse,
Tschackert, & Blömeke, 2007). Moreover, teachers who apply
student-centered ICT teaching practices are shown to feel particularly
competent in the dimension ‘problem solving’ in digital environments,
as well as in the dimensions ‘communication and collaboration’ and
‘digital content creation’ (Ertmer et al., 2012; Gobbo & Girardi, 2001;
Prasse et al., 2017). One explanation for these results could be that
teachers who believe that they are able to competently communicate
with their students using digital tools and who believe that they are able
to solve complex problems with such tools are more likely to approach
their students and to effectively and directly support them by using
digital technology. That might result in a stronger focus on
student-centered ICT teaching practices (see Knezek & Christensen,
2016). Due to student-centered ICT teaching practices are more
collaborative, teachers in their role as collaborators need to help stu­
dents in various situations in which students use ICT to gain knowledge
autonomously and individually (Ertmer et al., 2012). Teachers might
4
Computers in Human Behavior 118 (2021) 106636
feel more competent in mandatory competence areas such as ‘commu­
nication and collaboration’ or ‘problem solving’ to use such practices.
2.4. Individual characteristics and teachers’ basic ICT competence beliefs
As described in Eccles’ et al. SEVT, person characteristics e.g.,
gender, age, temperament, and the cultural milieu (e.g., gender social
roles or stereotypes) influence an individual’s self schemata (Eccles &
Wigfield, 2020). Applied to ICT, research has shown that time-specific
ICT trends and options of access led to different ICT-related socializ­
ation processes in different age groups (Palfrey & Gasser, 2008).
Furthermore, different stereotypes based on gender and ICT, such as the
prototypical male computer scientist, have been shown to be associated
with gender difference in ICT interests, competence beliefs, and
behavior (Buchmüller, Joost, Bessing, & Stein, 2011; Cheryan, Plaut,
Handron, & Hudson, 2013; Ferreira, 2017, pp. 1–6).
Previous research has indicated that individual characteristics of
teachers are related to their competence beliefs – for example, younger
teachers reported higher ICT competence beliefs than older teachers
(Fraillon et al., 2014; López-Vargas, Duarte-Suárez, & Ibáñez-Ibáñez,
2017). Results of an empirical study by Fraillon et al. (2014) demon­
strate particularly strong relations between age and the competence
dimensions ‘information and data literacy,’ ‘communication and
collaboration,’ and ‘digital content creation.’ Another study indicated
that age is negatively related to perceived competence in sending
e-mails with attachments or participating in online discussion threads
(Lorenz et al., 2016). Teachers’ years of teaching experience is closely
related to teachers’ age. Previous studies have identified teachers’ work
experience in years compared to their age as a more meaningful factor in
understanding ICT use and teachers’ ICT competence beliefs (Drossel
et al., 2017; Gil-Flores, Rodríguez-Santero, & Torres-Gordillo, 2017).
Another individual characteristic that is related to teachers’ basic
ICT competence beliefs is their gender. Existing studies yield inconsis­
tent results, as some findings indicate that male teachers, compared to
female teachers, perceive themselves as more competent to analyze and
reflect on data using ICT and to produce digital content (Gebhardt,
Thomson, Ainley, & Hillman, 2019; Koh, Chai, & Tsai, 2014; Lorenz
et al., 2016). Other results did not demonstrated significant gender
differences in basic ICT competence beliefs or competence among
teachers (Yuen & Ma, 2002), whereas other studies identified gender
differences for specific competence dimensions - for example, male
teachers have been shown to exhibit overall higher basic ICT compe­
tence in the areas of web content creation, programming, or information
seeking (Kaarakainen, Kivinen, & Vainio, 2018).
2.5. The current study
Previous studies have shown that both basic and pedagogical ICT
competence beliefs of teachers are central antecedents of effectively
integrating digital technology in educational settings (Hatlevik, 2017;
Pareja Roblin et al., 2018; Wozney et al., 2006). Nevertheless, existing
studies have often focused only on teachers’ pedagogical ICT compe­
tence beliefs (Elstad & Christophersen, 2017; Knezek & Christensen,
2016) or assessed teachers’ basic ICT competence beliefs without
considering the multidimensionality of the construct (Hatlevik, 2017;
Ramírez-Montoya, Mena, & Rodríguez-Arroyo, 2017; Scherer et al.,
2017). The purpose of this study is to address these gaps in the current
research by developing and validating a measure to assess multiple di­
mensions and the hierarchical structure of teachers’ basic ICT compe­
tence beliefs.
The development of the measure is informed by theoretical concepts
in educational psychology (SEVT; Eccles & Wigfield, 2020), by frame­
works derived from educational policy (Ferrari, 2013; Kultusminis­
terkonferenz, 2016; Law, Woo, La Torre, & Wong, 2018), and by
empirical research on teachers’ basic ICT competence (Tourón et al.,
2018). Based on theoretical frameworks and previous research (Rubach
C. Rubach and R. Lazarides
& Lazarides, 2019; Tourón et al., 2018), six dimensions of teachers’
basic ICT competence beliefs are hypothesized: information and data
literacy, communication and collaboration, digital content creation,
safety and security, problem solving, and analyzing and reflecting
(Hypothesis 1). Within these theoretical frameworks, sub-facets and
respectively, a second-order structure in these six dimensions are
assumed. Extending this line of research, we examine a higher-order
structure in which each dimension of basic ICT competence beliefs
comprises various specific competencies and skills (see Fig. 1).
To validate our measure, guided by SEVT (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020)
and the will, skill, tool model of technology integration (Knezek &
Christensen, 2016), we examined relations between teachers’ basic ICT
competence beliefs, their attitudes towards ICT, their ICT use (Ertmer
et al., 2012; Fraillon et al., 2014; Lorenz et al., 2016; Schaumburg et al.,
2007), and their socio-demographic characteristics (Fraillon et al., 2014;
Lorenz et al., 2016). More concretely, we included teachers’ gender and
work experience in years, ICT use (usage of digital media, teaching
practices with digital media), and attitudes (attainment, interest, utility,
and cost value) as validating factors. We anticipated that teachers who
felt highly competent to use ICT – for example, to solve problems, to
communicate, or to inform themselves about specific content – would
also use ICT more often in their private and professional environments
(Hypothesis 2). We also hypothesized that student-centered ICT teach­
ing practices such as autonomy support, cognitive activation, or indi­
vidualized instruction would be stronger positively related to basic ICT
competence beliefs about informing, communicating, creating content,
or solving problems (Hypothesis 3). For teachers’ ICT value beliefs, we
assumed that teachers who felt more competent using ICT would also
have high benefit value beliefs regarding the implementation of ICT in
class and report lower cost values concerning ICT implementations in
class (Hypothesis 4). Finally, we hypothesized that teachers’ work
experience in years would be negatively related to basic ICT competence
beliefs (Hypothesis 5), and male teachers would report higher basic ICT
competence beliefs than female teachers, in particular in the dimensions
‘information and data literacy,’ ‘analyzing and reflecting,’ and ‘digital
content creation’ (Hypothesis 6).
3. Methods
3.1. Sample
Our analyses were based on data of N = 372 teachers (age:
M = 44.48, SD = 10.77; 67.5% full-time teachers) in Germany who
participated in the DigiKompEL study (ICT competence beliefs of stu­
dent teachers and teachers; Rubach & Lazarides, 2017–2019) that
focused, for example, on teachers’ basic and pedagogical ICT compe­
tence beliefs, attitudes towards ICT, and ICT teaching practices. Online
survey data were assessed via Twitter and newsletters from teacher
training institutions. Participation in this survey was voluntary and
anonymous. The teachers (51.2% female, n = 12 missing indications of
gender) worked in different school tracks or stages: 79.7% were sec­
ondary school teachers, 9.6% were primary school teachers, and 3.4%
were special education teachers. Participants taught in a wide range of
different domains, whereby the most frequently taught subjects were
mathematics (35.6%), computer science (30.1%), the German language
(28.3%), English as a foreign language (21.6%), history (12.5%),
physical education (11.9%), biology (10.1%) and chemistry (9.1%)
(more than one subject could be listed).
3.2. Measures
Basic ICT competence beliefs. In-service teachers’ basic ICT digital
competence beliefs were assessed using a survey questionnaire that was
previously validated in various samples of student teachers (Rubach &
Lazarides, 2019). Out of 32 items in the questionnaire, we used 14 items
with the original wording from Rubach and Lazarides (2019), adapted
5
Computers in Human Behavior 118 (2021) 106636
the wording of seven items from the previous instrument, and newly
developed 11 items that specified previous items in more detail to assess
specific skills in a more differentiated manner. The complete list of items
per competence dimension is provided in Table 1 and in the Appendix,
Table A1 (items in German and English). Items were assessed using a
five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). The reliabilities of the subscales are provided in the results
section of the manuscript.
ICT attitudes. To assess teachers’ attitudes with respect to the
implementation of digital technology in class, we used a scale developed
by Rubach and Lazarides (2019) that is based on the original task value
scales of Eccles (2005). Items were assessed using a five-point Likert
scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Each facet
of subjective task value (interest, utility, attainment, cost) was assessed
with three items. An example item for the interest value of ICT imple­
mentation in class is, “I enjoy using digital technology in classrooms.”
An example item for the utility value of ICT implementation in class is, “I
am convinced that I can better support my students in school by using
digital technology in class.” An example item for teachers’ perceived
attainment value of ICT is, “It is important to me as a teacher to use
digital technology in my class.” An example item for teachers’ perceived
cost value of ICT is, “It costs me effort to use digital technology in class.”
For the present study, we used a composite ‘ICT benefit values’ scale that
included the interest, utility, and attainment values. The reliability was
ω = 0.93. The second scale (ICT cost value) assessed teachers’ perceived
cost to implement ICT in class. The reliability was ω = 0.73.
ICT use. Teachers were asked how often they used digital devices (4
items, e.g., tablets and laptops) and digital resources (13 items, e.g.,
forums, wikis, learning management systems) in their private and pro­
fessional environments. The answer format ranged from 0 (not at all) to
4 (daily). The items formed two separate subcomponents - the average
use of multiple digital technologies in day-to-day life (ω = 0.64) and the
professional usage of multiple digital technologies in classrooms
(ω = 0.73).
ICT teaching practices. Teachers’ self-reported ICT teaching prac­
tices, i.e., the frequency, were assessed with three subscales: ICT indi­
vidualized instruction, cognitive activation, and autonomy support. The
answer format ranged from 0 (in no lesson) to 5 (in every lesson).
Teacher-reported cognitive activation with digital technology was
assessed with a three-item scale based on Kunter et al. (2008). The
reliability was ω = 0.90. An example item is, “In my lessons, I ask that
the students explain their thought processes thoroughly with the help of
digital technology.” Teacher-reported individualized instruction with
digital technology was assessed with a three-item scale based on Clausen
(2002). The reliability was ω = 0.89. An example item is, “Using digital
technology, I provide extra tasks to students who solve their tasks more
quickly than others.” Teacher-reported autonomy support with digital
technology was assessed with a four-item scale based on Rakoczy, Buff,
and Lipowsky (2005). The reliability was ω = 0.89. An example item is,
“Students explore new topics autonomously through the use of digital
technology in class.”
Socio-demographic characteristics. Teachers’ gender was assessed
using a binary response format (0 = female, 1 = male). Teachers’ job
experience was assessed by asking teachers for their job experience in
years.
3.3. Data analysis
Data were analyzed using structural equational techniques with
Mplus 8.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2016). We used a stepwise (bot­
tom-up) approach by conducting a series of exploratory factor analyses
(EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) to estimate the structure
of teachers’ basic ICT competence beliefs (Jarvis, MacKenzie, & Pod­
sakoff, 2003; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Podsakoff, 2011). To examine the
assumed higher-order structure of each competence dimension (see
Fig. 2), we conducted in the first step a series of EFA and CFA models for
C. Rubach and R. Lazarides Computers in Human Behavior 118 (2021) 106636

Table 1 Table 1 (continued )

Item Means, Standard Deviations, Factor Loadings (λ), and Corrected Item-Total Item Wording M SD λ r
Correlations (r) for the Six Factors of Teachers’ Self-Evaluated Basic ICT
Competence Beliefs Testing in Separate Models. EK06_02 I can evaluate interest-driven 3.76 0.96 .90 .79
dissemination and the dominance of
Item Wording M SD λ r topics in digital space.
Information and data literacy (INFO) EK06_03 I can reflect on the opportunities and 4.24 0.77 .74 .64
Subscale 1: Searching risks of media use for my own media use.
EK01_01 I can identify and use appropriate sources 4.65 0.56 .75 .64 Subscale 2: Analysis of business activities
in digital environments based on my EK06_04 I can analyze the benefits of business 3.67 1.07 .93 .87
information needs. activities and services in digital
EK01_02 I can use my search strategies in digital 4.55 0.67 .86 .73 environments.
environments. EK06_05 I can analyze the risks of business 3.59 1.09 .94 .87
EK01_03 I am critical about information, sources 4.40 0.73 .71 .62 activities and services in the digital
and data in digital environments. space.
Subscale 2: Storing and organizing Notes. N = 372.
EK01_04 I can store digital information and data 4.39 0.83 .69 .47
securely.
EK01_05 I can retrieve the information that I have 4.60 0.63 .66 .47 each of the six competence dimensions separately. Building on this, we
stored. specified various models to validate the final model, including all six
EK01_06 I can retrieve information that I have 4.39 0.97 .51 .39 competence dimensions.
stored from different environments.
Communication and collaboration (COMM)
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Exploratory factor analyses
EK02_01 I can communicate using different digital 4.74 0.53 .66 .60 (EFA) were modeled in line with Williams, Onsman, and Brown (2014).
media. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy and Bartlett’s
EK02_02 I can cite information and files from 4.39 0.78 .67 .62 Test of Sphericity were used to assess the appropriateness of the data to
digital environments.
conduct EFA (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010, p. 7; Malhotra,
EK02_03 I can edit files and documents 4.52 0.73 .69 .63
collaboratively with others using digital 1999). A series of EFA models were carried out to examine the factorial
media. structure of each of the theoretically assumed competence dimensions
EK02_04 I can apply behavioral rules in digital 4.41 0.79 .72 .66 separately using the maximum likelihood extraction method with obli­
interactions and collaborations. que rotation (Eid, Gollwitzer, & Schmitt, 2017; Moosbrugger, 2012). We
EK02_05 I can actively participate in society using 4.55 0.73 .73 .65
digital media. I can share my experiences
used the oblique rotations (Promax) in our EFA models because the
with digital media in interactions with correlation coefficients between the included items for each competence
others. dimension were above r = 0.32, indicating an overlap of more than 10%
EK02_06 I can share my experiences with digital 4.49 0.74 .78 .70 of the variance among the items for each factor (Tabachnick & Fidell,
media in interactions with others.
2007). We considered factor loadings above λ = 0.50 as well as parallel
Digital content creation (CREAT)
EK03_01 I can use familiar apps and programs 4.52 0.69 .67 .64 loadings λ < 0.20 as criteria for an acceptable threshold to include items
according to my needs. (Ferguson & Cox, 1999). We used the χ2‒ test to compare the EFA
EK03_02 I can design my digital products in 4.15 1.06 .85 .79 models, as well as the root mean square residual (SRMR) and the root
various formats. mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) (Fabrigar, Wegener,
EK03_03 I can edit and merge digital content in 4.23 0.93 .91 .83
different formats.
MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999, Eid et al., 2017). Furthermore, we eval­
EK03_04 I can present digital content in different 4.40 0.82 .88 .82 uated each factor solution based on its theoretical meaningfulness.
formats. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). One of the aims of using CFA
Safety and security (SAFE) was to test the hypothesized factor structure derived from our theoret­
EK04_01 I know about the dangers and risks in 4.16 0.80 .75 .66
ical EFA models for each scale separately. We assumed different factor
digital environments and consider them.
EK04_02 I can protect my privacy in digital 4.01 0.92 .84 .76 loadings of the items, which is why we conducted τ-congeneric models
environments through appropriate (Eid & Schmidt, 2014). McDonald’s (1999) ω coefficient was therefore
measures. used to estimate the internal consistency of each scale.
EK04_03 I can regularly update my security 4.10 0.99 .81 .72 After confirming the factor structure of each dimension separately,
settings.
EK04_05 I can use digital technologies in a healthy 3.70 1.06 .60 .57
we tested a series of CFA models in which all dimensions were modeled
and environmentally responsible way. simultaneously (see Fig. 2). In Model 1, we specified a unidimensional
Problem solving (PROBL) model, which represented one single factor ‘teachers’ basic ICT
Subscale 1: Operation and usage competence beliefs’ explained by all items. In Model 2, we tested the
EK05_01 I can use digital tools and platforms 4.23 0.82 .85 .80
previously proposed six-factor structure with related subfactors derived
according to my needs.
EK05_02 I can adapt digital tools for personal use. 4.12 0.95 .85 .78 from the EFA modeling procedure (Rubach & Lazarides, 2019). In Model
EK05_03 I can independently use digital learning 4.27 0.86 .87 .81 3, we included a g-factor into Model 2. We tested the g-factor model
opportunities and appropriate tools. because a general factor (g-factor) of domain-specific competence be­
EK05_04 I can organize digital learning resources 3.99 1.05 .82 .76 liefs is described in various theoretical models (Bong & Skaalvik, 2003).
independently.
We used the full information maximum likelihood algorithm (FIML)
Subscale 2: Comprehension and
development to handle missing data (Schafer & Graham, 2002). All analyses were
EK05_05 I can develop solutions for technical 3.57 1.22 .82 .74 conducted using the maximum likelihood with robust standard errors
problems. (MLR) estimation in Mplus 8.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2016). To
EK05_06 I know about the functioning and basic 3.92 1.08 .91 .78
evaluate the goodness of model fit, the following indicators were used:
principles of digital systems.
EK05_07 I identify algorithmic structures in the 3.03 1.42 .74 .69 the robust χ2 test statistic, comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker and Lewis
tools I use. index (TLI), root mean square of approximation (RMSEA), standardized
Analyzing and reflecting (ANALY) root mean residual (SRMR), Akaike information criterion (AIC),
Subscale 1: Analysis of distribution and risks Bayesian information criterion (BIC), and Akaike’s Bayesian informa­
EK06_01 I can analyze the effect of media in digital 3.72 1.01 .79 .70
tion criterion (ABIC). TLI and CFI values greater than 0.90, RMSEA, and
environments.
SRMR values lower than 0.08 were accepted as indicators of an
acceptable model fit (Brown, 2015; Hu & Bentler, 1999). A lower value

6
C. Rubach and R. Lazarides
Fig. 2. Specified Measurement Models of Teachers’ Basic ICT Competence Beliefs. Notes. Model 1 = one-factor model, Model 2 = higher-order model with 3 second-order
factors and nine first-order factors, Model 3 = g-factor model with 3 second-order factors and nine first-order factors.
in AIC, BIC, and ABIC suggested better-fitting models. Furthermore,
under consideration of Greiff and Heene (2017) and Ropovik (2015), we
inspected misspecification by using the software Judgement Rule (Jrule;
Saris, Satorra, & van der Veld, 2009; Van der Veld, Saris, & Satorra,
2008) of the final model, e.g., cross-loadings, factor correlations, or
error correlations. The specified misspecifications test in Jrule uses in
Mplus provided information (Expected Parameter Change [EPC];
Modification Index [MI]) of the identified misspecification.
As the last step of CFA, we examine the measurement invariance
across gender and across teachers who were teaching computer science
or not. The configural, metric, and scalar invariance was investigated by
systematically constraining the factor loadings, item intercepts, and
factor means to equality across groups. As cutoff criteria to indicate
insignificant changes in the more restrictive model, we considered
values of ΔCFI ≤ − .010, ΔRMSEA ≤ 0.015, and ΔSRMR ≤ 0.030 for step
1 and values of ΔCFI ≤ − 0.010, ΔRMSEA ≤ 0.015, and ΔSRMR ≤ 0.010
for step 2 and step 3 (Chen, 2007).
As the last step, we examined the construct validity of the final model
by examining latent correlations with theoretically anticipated related
factors (ICT benefit value, ICT cost value, ICT use, ICT teaching prac­
tices, socio-demographic characteristics).
4. Results
4.1. Exploratory factor analysis
Exploratory factor analyses were obtained in separate models for
each of the six dimensions to test the theoretically assumed second-order
structure. Since there is the overall theoretical assumption of sub facets
in the six competence dimensions but no agreement on the number of
sub facets, we tested theoretically driven exploratory factor analyses in
each dimension, but not for all items in one model.
The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin coefficient (KMO = 0.93) and Bartlett’s Test
of Sphericity (χ2 [1378] = 9290.98, p < .0001) indicated that explor­
atory factor analysis could be applied to the data. The series of EFA
models that were carried out for each competence dimension indicated a
one-factor structure of the dimensions ‘digital content creation’ and
7
Computers in Human Behavior 118 (2021) 106636
‘safety and security’ as the best factorial solution. For the competence
dimensions ‘information and data literacy,’ ‘problem solving,’ and
‘analyzing and reflecting,’ model fit criteria and χ2 tests indicated a two-
factor structure as the best solution. Also, taking into account theoretical
considerations, a one-factor solution was identified as best-fitting for the
dimension ‘communication and collaboration.’ Fit indices and re­
liabilities of these EFA models are reported in Table 2.
4.2. Confirmatory factor analysis
Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted for each competence
area separately in the next step. The CFA models confirmed the previ­
ously identified factorial structure of all competence dimensions and
showed acceptable to good internal consistencies for all scales measured
by McDonald’s ω. Fit indices and reliabilities of these CFA models are
reported in Table 3.
As a next step, we conducted several CFA models that included all
competence dimensions in one CFA model. Two residual covariances
had to be correlated in the measurement model.1 The model fit indices of
the tested CFA models are displayed in Table 3. All tested models are
depicted in Fig. 2.
First, we specified a unidimensional model in which all items loaded
onto one factor (teachers’ basic ICT competence beliefs; Model 1). The
model fit indices indicated that the model did not fit well to the data. In a
next step, we tested a six-factor model in which three factors (infor­
mation and data literacy, problem solving, and analyzing and reflecting)
had a second-order structure (Model 2). Finally, we additionally speci­
fied a higher-order g-factor “teachers’ basic ICT competence beliefs”
(Model 3).
Considering the information criteria across the three models tested in
this study, Model 2 had the best model fit and the lowest AIC, BIC, and
ABIC values, indicating that a model with six factors, three of them with
1
Residual correlations were included for item error terms EK04_02 and
EK01_04 (0.29 ≥ r ≤ 0.31) as well as for item error terms EK03_04 and EK02_07
(− 0.29 ≥ r ≤ − 0.31). The item wording of these items is displayed in Table 1.
C. Rubach and R. Lazarides Computers in Human Behavior 118 (2021) 106636

Table 2
Results of Exploratory Factor Analyses (EFA) for Each Basic ICT Competence Dimension.
Basic ICT competence dimension Model solution N χ2 RMSR RMSEA Model-comparison χ2
Value df Value df

1 Information and data literacy one-factor model 371 73.53** 9 .08 .14 – – –
two-factor model 371 11.72* 4 .03 .07 1 versus 2 61.81** 5
three-factor model 371 0.00 0 .00 .00 2 versus 3 11.72* 4
2 Communication and collaboration one-factor model 370 13.54 9 .03 .04 – – –
two-factor model 370 1.88 4 .01 .00 1 versus 2 11.66* 5
three-factor model 370 0.00 0 .00 .00 2 versus 3 1.88 4
3 Digital content creation one-factor modela 364 1.12 2 .01 .00 – – –
4 Safety and security one-factor modela 365 1.38** 2 .01 .00 – – –
5 Problem solving one-factor model 345 165.53** 14 .07 .18 – – –
two-factor modela 345 11.58 8 .01 .04 1 versus 2 153.95* 6
6 Analyzing and reflecting one-factor model 342 151.78** 5 .10 .29 – – –
two-factor modela 344 0.13 1 .00 .00 1 versus 2 151.65** 4

Notes. *p < .05 **p < .01.

a
The extraction of more factors was limited to the displayed factor solutions.

Table 3
Results of Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) for the Six Competence Dimensions of Teachers’ Basic ICT Competence Beliefs.
Basic ICT competence dimensions Model solution χ2 CFI TLI SRMR RMSEA Subscale McDonald’s ω

Value df

1 Information and data literacy two-factor model 15.34 8 0.98 0.96 .03 .05 Searching .81
Storing and organizing .63
2 Communication and collaboration one-factor model 5.93 9 1.00 1.01 .02 .00 – .86
3 Digital content creation one-factor model 0.58 2 1.00 1.01 .01 .00 – .91
4 Safety and security one-factor model 27.84 5 0.96 0.92 .03 .11 – .87
5 Problem solving two-factor model 18.79 13 1.00 0.99 .02 .04 Operation and usage .91
Comprehension and development .85
6 Analyzing and reflecting two-factor model 5.46 3 0.99 0.99 .05 .02 Analysis of distribution and risks .86
Analysis of business activities .93

a second-order structure, best represented the factorial structure of our
measure. Fit indices are reported in Table 4. The fit indices of Model 2
showed a good fit of the theoretically assumed structure to the empirical
data, χ2 = 654.729, df = 441, p < .05, CFI = 0.960, TLI = 0.955,
RMSEA = 0.036, SRMR = 0.044, AIC = 21671.914, BIC = 22138.262.
Factor loadings of the included factors ranged between λ = 0.58, and
λ = 0.92 (see Fig. 3).
With Jrule (Saris et al., 2009; Van der Veld et al., 2008), critical
misspecifications of four items were identified. These suggested cor­
rections are theoretically not recommended since all items are clearly
assigned to only one competence dimension. Therefore, in accordance
with Van der Veld et al. (2008), we compared the model fit indices of our
original model and a model without those items that were cross-loaded.
The model without the cross-loaded items showed a marginally better fit
to the empirical data (see Appendix Table A2 and Table A3). However,
the χ2 test was still non-significant, and factor loading, as well as
inter-item correlations, did not differ across both models, indicating that
the exclusion of the items did not change the factor structure substan­
tially. We, therefore, decided to continue with the model that included
all items.
Next, we tested the comparability of the factor structure across
gender and computer science as taught subject (see Tables 5 and 6).
Toward the ΔCFI, ΔRMSEA, and the ΔSRMR values for the model
restrictive model, we concluded that the factor structure is invariant
across gender (scalar invariance: invariance of factor loadings and item
intercepts) and partial invariant (partial invariance of item intercepts;
full invariance of factor loadings) across teachers who were or were not
teaching computer science.
4.3. Factorial structure of teachers’ basic ICT competence beliefs
The six dimensions of teachers’ basic ICT competence beliefs
included the competence dimension ‘information and data literacy’
defined by two subfactors: (i) searching and (ii) storing and organizing.
The subfactor ‘searching’ implies the skills to search for information
online and to search in a goal-oriented manner, also referring to critical
reflection on the information that is available online. The subfactor
‘storing and organizing’ refers to skills related to storing, retrieving, and
relocating files and data.
The second competence dimension ‘communication and collaboration’
is defined by skills that enable teachers to use digital technology to
communicate and collaborate with others, also considering etiquette
and ethical principles in digital environments and participating in social
networks.
The third competence dimension ‘digital content creation’ describes
skills that enable teachers to use digital technology to create, edit, and
merge digital content and data in different formats.
The fourth competence dimension ‘safety and security’ refers to skills
that enable teachers to understand and reflect on positive and negative
aspects of digital environments and to use strategies to protect their own
health and privacy, as well as to use ICT in an environmentally sensitive
way.
The fifth competence dimension ‘problem solving’ is explained by two
factors: (i) operation and usage and (ii) comprehension and develop­
ment. The subfactor ‘operation and usage’ refers to skills related to use,
deploy, and adapt digital tools according to different individual re­
quirements. The subfactor ‘comprehension and development’ refers to
skills and knowledge about architectural principles and functions that
underlie digital technologies and knowledge-based solutions to tech­
nical problems.
The sixth competence dimension ‘analyzing and reflecting’ consists of
two competence subfacets: (i) analysis of distribution and risks and (ii)
analysis of business activities. The first sub-factor “analysis of distribu­
tion and risks” implies skills about reflecting on the impact and
dissemination of digital media in general as well as specific content. The
second subfactor “analysis of business activities” refers to the proactive

8
C. Rubach and R. Lazarides
Table 4
Fit Statistics of Tested CFA Models.
Model Specification χ2 RMSEA
Value df Value
1 one-dimensional model 2316.11** 525 .10
2 higher-order model with 3 s-order 654.73** 441 .04
factors and nine first-order factors
3 g-factor model with 3 s-order factors 840.56** 512 .04
and nine first-order factors
Notes. N = 372. TRD refers to the Satorra-Bentler scaled χ2 difference value (Satorra & Bentler, 2010).
*p < .05 **p < .01.
analysis of business activities in digital environments.
4.4. Results for construct validity
Correlations among the six identified basic ICT competence beliefs of
teachers and their ICT attitudes (ICT benefit value, ICT cost value), ICT
use, ICT teaching practices, and socio-demographic characteristics are
reported in Table 7. All dimensions of teachers’ basic ICT competence
beliefs were positively and significantly associated with each other. The
lowest correlations were found between ‘analyzing and reflecting’ and
‘communication and collaboration,’ as well as between ‘analyzing and
reflecting’ and ‘digital content creation.’ The strongest associations were
shown for ‘problem solving’ and ‘digital content creation,’ as well as for
‘information and data literacy’ and ‘communication and collaboration.’
Male teachers reported higher basic ICT competence beliefs, i.e.,
regarding the competence dimensions ‘digital content creation,’ ‘safety
and security,’ ‘problem solving,’ and ‘analyzing and reflecting’
compared to female teachers. No gender differences were found for the
dimensions ‘information and data literacy’ and ‘communication and
collaboration.’ Furthermore, the teachers’ years of experience in school
were not significantly associated with their basic ICT competence be­
liefs. The more digital media teachers used on average in their day-to-
day life and in classrooms, the higher teachers perceived their own
basic ICT competence in all six competence dimensions. Positive cor­
relations were also found between teachers’ subjective benefit values of
using digital technology in their classrooms and their basic ICT
competence beliefs in all six dimensions (0.24 ≥ r ≤ 0.51). In other
words, the more interesting, important, and useful they perceived digital
technology to be for their profession, the more competent they
perceived themselves in using it. Additionally, as expected, small
negative correlations were indicated between teachers’ subjective cost
values of using digital media in their professional environment and all
six basic ICT competence dimensions (− 0.31 ≥ r ≤ − 0.18).
With a focus on different ICT teaching practices, ICT individualized
instruction, cognitive activation, and autonomy support were weakly or
moderately correlated with each of the six teachers’ basic ICT compe­
tence beliefs (0.23 ≥ r ≤ 0.48). This suggested that teachers with greater
convictions about their basic ICT competence in all six dimensions also
tended to use ICT for individualized instruction, cognitive activation,
and autonomy support in their classes.
5. Discussion
This study aimed to develop and validate an instrument that assesses
teachers’ basic ICT competence beliefs. The study extends previous
research, which has focused mainly on teachers’ pedagogical ICT
competence beliefs and rarely considered the multidimensionality of
teachers’ basic ICT competence beliefs (Elstad & Christophersen, 2017;
Herzig & Martin, 2018; Knezek & Christensen, 2016). By considering
theoretical work on the multidimensionality of teachers’ basic ICT
competence beliefs (Ferrari, 2013; Kultusministerkonferenz, 2016; Law
et al., 2018; Siddiq et al., 2016), the present study addresses the
Computers in Human Behavior 118 (2021) 106636
CFI TLI SRMR AIC BIC aBIC TRd (Δdf)
95% CI Reference:
Model 1
[.09; .10] .69 .66 .09 25,027.55 25,435.12 25,105.16
[.03; .04] .96 .96 .04 21,671.91 22,138.26 21,760.71 1606.71 (84)*
[.04; .05] .94 .94 .06 23,123.67 23,582.18 23,210.98 884.74 (13)*
multidimensional nature and hierarchical structure of teachers’ basic
ICT competence beliefs. The developed measure is relevant because it
enables researchers to examine whether different dimensions of basic
ICT competence beliefs are differently related to ICT teaching practices.
Moreover, Cox and colleagues (Cox, 2008; Cox et al., 2013) underline
that, especially in times of rapid digital developments, accurate mea­
surement is of great importance for understanding current ICT pro­
cesses. Therefore, it should also be emphasized that the developed
instrument has operationalized competency beliefs along a broad spec­
trum of 21st-century ICT competence.
5.1. Factorial structure of teachers’ basic ICT competence beliefs
Although teachers’ basic ICT competence beliefs are essential ante­
cedents of their ICT implementation in class (Hatlevik, 2017; Pareja
Roblin et al., 2018), the operationalization of this construct has been
fuzzy and not consistent with theoretical and empirical approaches
about basic ICT competence (Ferrari, 2013; Law et al., 2018; Siddiq
et al., 2016). This study considered a broad range of ICT competence
beliefs related to essential 21st-century digital competencies (Ferrari,
2013; Kultusministerkonferenz, 2016; Law et al., 2018; Siddiq et al.,
2016). As expected (Hypothesis 1), we were able to empirically distin­
guish between the following six factors: ‘information and data literacy,’
‘communication and collaboration,’ ‘digital content creation,’ ‘safety
and security,’ ‘problem solving,’ and ‘analyzing and reflecting.’ The
factorial structure fits the data well, and the overall model showed good
psychometric qualities. With respect to previous assumptions (Bong &
Skaalvik, 2003; Knezek & Christensen, 2016; Krumsvik, 2014; Mishra &
Koehler, 2006), we can reject the hypothesis that the basic ICT compe­
tence beliefs of teachers can be explained by a general factor.
Interestingly, our results showed that the three dimensions
‘communication and collaboration,’ ‘digital content creation,’ and
‘safety and security’ of teachers’ basic ICT competence beliefs had a one-
order structure. In contrast, the three dimensions ‘information and data
literacy,’ ‘problem solving,’ and ‘analyzing and reflecting’ were multi­
faceted and best represented by a second-order factorial structure. By
testing the factorial structure of the sub facets of teachers’ basic ICT
competence beliefs, our research contributes to a better understanding
of the theoretical construct ‘basic ICT competence beliefs’ of teachers.
Chen, Sousa, and West (2005) point out that testing second-order
structures is particularly important to understand the association be­
tween specific factors and external criteria. Specifically, knowledge
about the multifaceted structure of theoretical constructs allows a
fine-grained analysis of its relations to other factors (McInerney & Ali,
2006). For example, in order to examine the process of teachers prepare
instructions with ICT, the competence beliefs of the higher-order factor
‘information and data literacy’ might explain teachers’ behavior
because it involves both searching for and storing information and
material online. When investigating teachers’ selection of online mate­
rial or their use of search processes in class, the competence beliefs in the
specific dimension ‘searching’ might be a better predictor. Our study
highlights that it is important to go beyond one-dimensional models of
9
C. Rubach and R. Lazarides Computers in Human Behavior 118 (2021) 106636

Fig. 3. Final Empirical Measurement Model of Teachers’ Basic ICT Competence Beliefs.

10
C. Rubach and R. Lazarides Computers in Human Behavior 118 (2021) 106636

Table 5
Measurement invariance of the final factor model describing the structure of teachers’ self-evaluated technology-related skills across gender.
Step χ2 df CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR Δmodel ΔCFI ΔRMSEA ΔSRMR

0 1256.34 880 .935 .927 .048 .056

1 1309.89 906 .931 .924 .049 .080 1–2 .004 .001 .024
2 1356.45 931 .927 .922 .050 .083 2–3 .004 .001 .003
3 1394.68 937 .921 .917 .051 .090 3–4 .006 .001 .007

Notes. 1 = none parameters constrained to be invariant, 2 = Factor loadings constrained to be invariant, 3 = +intercept constrained to be invariant, 4 = + factor means
constrained to be invariant.

Table 6
Measurement invariance of the final factor model describing the structure of teachers’ self-evaluated technology-related skills across teaching computer science.
Step χ2 df CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR Δmodel ΔCFI ΔRMSEA ΔSRMR

1 1274.569 879 .932 .923 .049 .055

2 1316.777 905 .929 .922 .049 .077 1–2 .003 .000 .022
3 1426.094 932 .915 .910 .053 .085 2–3 .014 .004 .008
3a 1388.401 930 .921 .916 .051 .083 2‒3a .008 .002 .006
4 1421.886 936 .916 .911 .053 .093 3a‒4 .005 .002 .010

Notes. 1 = none parameters constrained to be invariant, 2 = Factor loadings constrained to be invariant, 3 = +intercept constrained to be invariant, 3a = exclusion of
an equation of intercepts across groups; 4 = + factor means constrained to be invariant.

Table 7
Means, standard deviation, latent correlations and standard errors (obtained in Mplus) of teachers’ basic ICT competence beliefs and all validation variables.
M SD INFO COMM CREA SAFE PROBL ANALY

r SE r SE r SE r SE r SE r SE

1 INFO 4.50 0.54 1.00 – .95** .04 .68** .06 .81** .05 .74** .06 .71** .06
2 COMM 4.51 0.55 1.00 – .66** .05 .67** .05 .66** .05 .62** .05
3 CREA 4.32 0.77 1.00 – .72** .04 .88** .03 .53** .06
4 SAFE 3.99 0.77 1.00 – .76** .04 .70** .05
5 PROBL 3.87 0.87 1.00 – .67** .05
6 ANALY 3.80 0.82 1.00 –
7 MALE – – .11 .06 .03 .06 .13** .05 .14** .05 .30** .05 .18* .06
8 EXPER 13.75 9.77 .07 .07 .01 .05 .03 .06 .11 .06 .04 .06 -.03 .07
9 USE_PRIV 2.45 0.45 .27** .06 .32** .05 .21** .05 .24** .06 .30** .05 .19** .06
10 USE_CLAS 1.45 0.53 .29** .07 .28** .06 .20** .06 .25** .06 .37** .05 .26** .06
11 BENE 4.48 0.64 .51** .08 .47** .08 .35** .08 .24** .08 .46** .08 .27** .08
12 COST 2.50 0.92 -.24* .09 -.31** .08 -.24* .10 -.22* .09 -.26** .09 -.18* .09
13 AUTO 3.04 0.83 .35** .07 .27** .06 .23** .06 .38** .06 .40** .05 .36** .06
14 INDI 2.66 0.94 .34** .07 .29** .06 .30** .06 .37** .06 .48** .05 .28** .07
15 COGAC 2.64 0.93 .29** .07 .28** .06 .27** .05 .30** .06 .45** .05 .33** .06

Notes. N = 372, INFO = information and data literacy, COMM = communication and collaboration, CREA = digital content creation, SAFE = safety and security,
PROBL = problem solving, ANALY = analyzing and reflecting, EXPER = job experiences in years, USE_PRIV = ICT use in private environments, USE_CLAS = ICT use in
professional environments, BENE = ICT benefit values (interest, attainment, and utility), COST = ICT cost values, AUTO = autonomy support, INDI = individualized
instruction, COGAC = cognitive activation. *p < .05 **p < .01.

ICT competence beliefs that neglect the multidimensionality of such
constructs. Our findings contribute to theory development in the field of
teachers’ basic ICT skills and competency beliefs (Krumsvik, 2014;
Mishra & Koehler, 2006) by identifying six specific dimensions of basic
ICT competence beliefs.
5.2. Relations between teachers’ ICT competence beliefs, attitudes, and
use of ICT
The results of this study are consistent with the existing literature,
which demonstrates significant associations between teachers’ ICT use
and their basic ICT competence beliefs (Drossel et al., 2017; Ertmer
et al., 2012; Pareja; Petko, 2012; Pareja Roblin et al., 2018). In line with
our assumptions (Hypothesis 2), teachers who have higher basic ICT
competence beliefs in all six dimensions also report on average frequent
use of multiple digital technologies in both day-to-day life and their
professional environment. These findings are in line with theoretical
assumptions of the will, skill, tool model of technology integration
(Knezek & Christensen, 2016). Previous research (Alt, 2018; Pareja
Roblin et al., 2018) has supported this argument, as it indicates that
teachers need experience integrating ICT in class, e.g., opportunities to
experiment and become familiar with digital media, in addition to their
usual, everyday practices.
The current study also demonstrates significant associations between
teachers’ basic ICT competence beliefs and ICT teaching practices that
are worth noting. As expected (Hypothesis 3), student-centered ICT
teaching practices were significantly positively related to teachers’ basic
ICT competence beliefs in the dimensions ‘information and data liter­
acy,’ ‘communication and collaboration,’ ‘digital content creation,’ and
‘problem solving.’ Thus, we can confirm expectations about associations
drawn from qualitative research within a quantitative setting (Ertmer
et al., 2012). Because teachers’ basic ICT competence beliefs have been
identified as an antecedent of ICT implementation in class (Alt, 2018;
Hatlevik, 2017; Knezek & Christensen, 2016; Pareja Roblin et al., 2018),
our findings suggest that basic ICT competence beliefs in the dimensions
‘information and data literacy,’ ‘problem solving,’ ’communication and
collaboration,’ and ‘digital content creation’ are particularly important
for applying student-centered ICT teaching practices.
Unexpectedly, competence beliefs in the dimension ‘safety and se­
curity’ and ‘analyzing and reflecting’ were also significantly related to

11
C. Rubach and R. Lazarides
the student-centered ICT teaching practices. These findings might be
explained by teachers’ need to feel familiar and comfortable with ICT
practices (Pareja Roblin et al., 2018). Teachers’ basic ICT competence
beliefs have been indicated as one of the most influential factors of ICT
use in class (Ertmer et al., 2012). For student-centered teaching practices
compared to teacher-centered pedagogical approaches, previous find­
ings indicate that teachers need to be more competent using ICT because
this applies a broader range of ICT usage (Ertmer et al., 2012; Prasse
et al., 2017). Our results might indicate that ICT teaching practices
included in this study (individualized instruction, cognitive activation,
autonomy support) do not require a specific set of competence beliefs. It
might be assumed that teachers who feel generally competent in their
use of ICT will implement student-centered methods using ICT. Never­
theless, it is possible to suspect a ranking of more and less important
basic ICT competence beliefs. All three student-centered ICT strategies
are strongly associated with competence beliefs in the dimension
‘problem solving’, whereas ICT competence beliefs in ‘digital content
creation’ are less associated with these student-centered ICT strategies.
Additional Wald χ2 tests underlined the assumed stronger associations
(see Appendix Table A4).
Future research should focus in more detail on the ranked impor­
tance of the dimensions of basic ICT competence beliefs for student-
centered ICT teaching practices. Also interesting is the question of the
ranked importance of the dimensions of basic ICT competence beliefs for
teachers-centered ICT teaching practices, which have been shown to be
related to specific competence beliefs, such as perceived competence in
the dimension ‘information and data literacy’ (Ertmer et al., 2012). It
might also be possible that depending on ICT teaching practices,
different combinations of teachers’ basic ICT competence beliefs are
important for ICT implementation in class. Being one of the first studies
that analyzed multiple dimensions of teachers’ basic ICT competence
beliefs and their variously strong relations to ICT teaching practices, our
findings might contribute to a better understanding of the importance of
dimensions of basic ICT competence beliefs, in particular of the di­
mensions ‘problem solving’ and ‘safety and security’ for
student-centered ICT teaching practices. For future research, it is
important to examine the directionality of effects between basic ICT
competence beliefs and ICT teaching practices. It is also relevant to
examine whether ICT competence beliefs in particular dimensions are of
particular importance for the implementation of specific
student-centered teaching practices, which would be possible by
including a broader range of teaching practices in future studies.
Consistent with our expectations (Hypothesis 4) and previous
research (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Petko, 2012; Rubach &
Lazarides, 2019), the current study demonstrates a significant associa­
tion between teachers’ basic ICT competence beliefs and their attitudes
towards ICT. As described in situated expectancy-value theory (Eccles &
Wigfield, 2020), benefit values (interest value, attainment value, and
utility value of ICT) are positively correlated with all six dimensions of
teachers’ basic ICT competence beliefs, most strongly with ‘information
and data literacy’ and ‘communication and collaboration.’ In contrast,
cost values are negatively associated with teachers’ basic ICT compe­
tence beliefs, most strongly with ‘communication and collaboration’ and
‘digital content creation.’ Whereas Pareja Roblin et al. (2018) describe
the perceived costs and benefits of ICT as antecedents of teachers’ ICT
use in class, we can also conclude that cost and benefit values are related
to competence beliefs. The will, skill, tool model of technology inte­
gration (Knezek & Christensen, 2016) highlights attitudes and compe­
tence beliefs as essential antecedents of teachers’ ICT use in class. Our
results show that these factors are not independent of one another. In
accordance with SEVT (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020), the next step might be
to analyze whether competence beliefs and attitudes (value beliefs)
interact in predicting teachers’ ICT teaching practices.
12
Computers in Human Behavior 118 (2021) 106636
5.3. Relations between individual characteristics and basic ICT
competence beliefs
Our fifth hypothesis about the negative correlation between teach­
ers’ ICT competence beliefs and their years of teaching experience was
not confirmed. Surprisingly, we found no evidence that teachers with
more years of teaching experience felt less competent than teachers with
fewer years of teaching experience. Previous studies have shown that
teachers with more years of teaching experience are more anxious and
concerned about ICT in school (Fransson, Holmberg, Lindberg, &
Olofsson, 2019; Rahimi & Yadollahi, 2011) and that teachers, in general,
have little knowledge about privacy laws or important methods of
applying ‘safety and security’ in digital environments (Šimandl, 2015;
Šimandl & Vaníček, 2017). Consequently, one might assume that espe­
cially older teachers would make efforts to become competent in this
particular area in order to actively counteract their fears of dealing with
this issue.
When interpreting our findings, it needs to be considered that
teachers with fewer than 20 years of teaching experience were over­
represented in our sample.2 Since we used online surveys to collect data,
participating teachers might already have experience in ICT use. That
might be one reason for the missing age-specific associations, and no
evidence has been found that supports the discussion about digital na­
tives and digital immigrants (Prensky, 2001). Another point might be
the type of relationship: Previous research has indicated no linear
relation between teachers’ age or years of experience, but there are hints
on a curvilinear relationship (Cavas, Cavas, Karaoglan, & Kisla, 2009).
For future studies, it might be important (a) to examine the associations
between age and ICT competence beliefs in a larger representative
sample and (b) to test whether these associations are curvilinear.
The present study contributes to the debate on gender differences in
teachers’ ICT competence beliefs. Previous research has shown incon­
sistent results concerning gender differences (Gebhardt et al., 2019;
Kaarakainen et al., 2018; Lorenz et al., 2016; Yuen & Ma, 2002). The
present study adds to the debate by analyzing gender differences in six
different dimensions of teachers’ basic ICT competence beliefs. The re­
sults support our hypothesis (Hypothesis 6) that male teachers will
perceive themselves as more competent in ‘analyzing and reflecting,’
and ‘digital content creation.’ Additionally, our findings show unex­
pected higher competence beliefs for male teachers than for female
teachers in the dimensions ‘safety and security’ and ‘problem solving.’ A
variety of previous studies have argued that gender differences in ICT
competence beliefs are related to men’s positive attitudes toward ICT,
and to their higher tendency to use ICT (Gebhardt et al., 2019; Punter,
Meelissen, & Glas, 2017). Another explanation of the gender-specific
association might be gender stereotypes about ICT (Clayton, Hellens,
& Nielsen, 2009). The ICT domain is defined as masculine and as related
to mathematical, technical, and logical skills (for an overview, see
Clayton et al., 2009). Such stereotypes might also lead to gender dif­
ferences between male and female teachers in their basic ICT compe­
tence beliefs in the ICT domain (Margolis & Fisher, 2002; Wöhler &
Knolauch, 2013). In addition to teachers’ basic ICT competency beliefs,
research has shown gender differences in pedagogical ICT competency
beliefs (Jang & Tsai, 2013; Scherer et al., 2017). We strongly recom­
mend linking teachers’ basic and pedagogical ICT literacy beliefs with
their ICT implementation in class, as well as integrating gender and
stereotypes about ICT as explanatory factors. Such an analysis would
enable researchers to understand the interplay between ICT competence
beliefs, gender, and ICT implementation in the classroom.
2
In comparison to teachers with more than 21 years of teaching experience
(n = 78), in our sample, teachers with fewer than 20 years of teaching experi­
ence were overrepresented (n = 291, missing: n = 3).
C. Rubach and R. Lazarides
5.4. Limitations and future direction
Although this study presents several significant findings in the
context of teachers’ ICT competence beliefs, some limitations need to be
considered. First, since the aim of our study was to develop and validate
an instrument to assess teachers’ basic ICT competence beliefs, we used
a cross-sectional design. Therefore, a major limitation is that we did not
examine the longitudinal relationships and thus the changes in the
factorial structure between ICT literacy beliefs over time, nor did we
consider the longitudinal relationships between teachers’ basic ICT lit­
eracy beliefs and ICT attitudes and behavior. Such an analysis would
make it possible to test the assumptions of the will, skill, tool model of
technology integration (Knezek & Christensen, 2016) regarding the
directionality of effects.
Second, teachers’ pedagogical ICT beliefs were not considered as
additional validation variables. As the next step, future research should
analyze the association between the two types of ICT competence beliefs
in order to test the theoretical assumption that basic ICT competence
beliefs are antecedents of pedagogical ICT competence beliefs (Mishra &
Koehler, 2006; Redecker, 2017).
Since the majority of studies comparing self-reported competence
beliefs of ICT competence with actual performance report only low
correlation for students (Siddiq et al., 2016) or moderate correlation for
teachers (Hatlevik, 2017), it should be investigated further how and
through which mechanisms teachers’ ICT competence beliefs and
teachers’ ICT competence are interrelated.
Fourth, data from the participating teachers were assessed using an
online survey. Consequently, only those teachers might have partici­
pated voluntarily in our study who are already interested in ICT usage in
schools, and who already are to a certain level, competent in using ICT.
Furthermore, a high percentage of teachers in our sample are teachers in
ICT-related fields. Due to validate the findings of our study, it would
therefore be needed to test the examined relations in a representative
teacher sample.
Lastly, in our study, we have used a German sample of teachers.
Consequently, our findings are limited to the context of the German
Appendix
Table A1
Translation of All Items for Each Basic ICT Competence Dimension.
ITEM WORDING IN ENGLISH
Information and data literacy (INFO)
I can identify and use appropriate sources in digital environments based on my
information needs.
I can use my search strategies in digital environments.
I am critical about information, sources and data in digital environments.
I can store digital information and data securely.
I can retrieve the information that I have stored.
I can retrieve information that I have stored from different environments.
Communication and collaboration (COMM)
I can communicate using different digital media.
I can cite information and files from digital environments.
I can edit files and documents collaboratively with others using digital media.
I can apply behavioral rules in digital interactions and collaborations.
I can actively participate in society using digital media.
I can share my experiences with digital media in interactions with others.
Digital content creation (CREAT)
I can use familiar apps and programs according to my needs.
I can design my digital products in various formats.
I can edit and merge digital content in different formats.
I can present digital content in different formats.
Safety and security (SAFE)
I know about the dangers and risks in digital environments and consider them.
I can protect my privacy in digital environments through appropriate measures.
I can regularly update my security settings.
I can use digital technologies in a healthy and environmentally sound way.
Computers in Human Behavior 118 (2021) 106636
educational system and should be replicated in the international
context. It is essential to investigate whether the factorial structure can
also be identified in other school systems and countries to validate our
findings further. Therefore, and in consideration of the discussed limi­
tations above, we want to suggest for future research to analyze mea­
surement invariance for teachers across different countries.
6. Conclusions
Guided by various theories and frameworks (Ferrari, 2013; Kultus­
ministerkonferenz, 2016; Law et al., 2018; Siddiq et al., 2016), we are
the first study to analyze the multidimensionality of teachers’ basic ICT
competence beliefs. We understand our study as a first step toward
investigating teachers’ basic ICT competence beliefs about a broad range
of 21st-century skills. As expected, we identified six dimensions of
teachers’ basic ICT competence beliefs (information and data literacy,
communication and collaboration, digital content creation, safety and
security, problem solving, and analyzing and reflecting), of which three
dimensions had a second-order structure.
Given the fact that teachers’ need to implement ICT in their classes to
foster students’ digital competence (Kultusministerkonferenz, 2016;
Redecker, 2017) and competence beliefs are antecedents of teachers’
ICT use (Hatlevik, 2017; Knezek & Christensen, 2016; Pareja Roblin
et al., 2018), the need for a validated instrument assessing a broad range
of teachers’ basic ICT competence beliefs is paramount. Therefore, the
present study’s findings provide research and educational practice with
a validated instrument to identify teachers’ needs for further education
and support that can be applied in teacher training programs.
Credit author statement
Charlott Rubach: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis,
Validation, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Project
administration. Rebecca Lazarides: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Resources,
Project administration.
ITEM WORDING IN GERMAN
Ich kann auf Grundlage meiner Suchinteressen relevante Quellen in digitalen Umgebungen
identifizieren und nutzen.
Ich kann Suchstrategien im digitalen Raum nutzen.
Ich kann Informationen, Informationsquellen und Daten im digitalen Raum kritisch bewerten.
Ich kann digital Informationen und Daten sicher speichern.
Ich kann Informationen, die ich gespeichert habe, wiederfinden.
Ich kann Informationen, die ich gespeichert habe, von verschiedenen Orten abrufen.
Ich kann mit Hilfe verschiedener digitaler Medien kommunizieren.
Ich kann Informationen und Dateien aus dem digitalen Raum zitieren.
Ich kann digitale Medien nutzen, um gemeinsam mit anderen Dateien und Dokumente zu
bearbeiten.
Ich kann Verhaltensregeln bei digitalen Interaktionen und Kooperationen anwenden.
Ich kann mit Hilfe digitaler Medien aktiv an der Gesellschaft teilhaben.
Ich kann meine Medienerfahrungen in Interaktion mit anderen weitergeben.
Ich kann mir bekannte Apps und Programme bedarfsgerecht anwenden.
Ich kann eigene digitale Produkte in verschiedenen Formaten gestalten.
Ich kann digitale Inhalte in verschiedenen Formaten bearbeiten und zusammenführen.
Ich kann digitale Inhalte in verschiedenen Formaten präsentieren.
Ich kenne die Gefahren und Risiken in digitalen Umgebungen und berücksichtige diese.
Ich kann meine Privatsphäre in digitalen Umgebungen durch geeignete Maβnahmen schützen.
Ich kann meine Sicherheitseinstellungen regelmäßig aktualisieren.
Ich kann digitale Technologien gesundheits- und umweltbewusst nutzen.
(continued on next page)
13
C. Rubach and R. Lazarides Computers in Human Behavior 118 (2021) 106636

Table A1 (continued )
ITEM WORDING IN ENGLISH ITEM WORDING IN GERMAN

Problem sSolving (PROBL)

I can use digital tools and platforms according to my needs.
I can adapt digital tools for personal use.
I can independently use digital learning opportunities and appropriate tools.
I can organize digital learning resources independently.
I can develop solutions for technical problems.
I know about the functioning and basic principles of digital systems.
I identify algorithmic structures in the tools I use.
Analyzing and reflecting (ANALY)
I can analyze the effect of media in digital environments.
I can evaluate interest-driven dissemination and the dominance of topics in
digital space.
I can reflect on the opportunities and risks of media use for my own media use.
I can analyze the benefits of business activities and services in digital
environments.
I can analyze the risks of business activities and services in the digital space.
Ich kann digitale Werkzeuge, Tools und Plattformen bedarfsgerecht einsetzen.
Ich kann digitale Werkzeuge zum persönlichen Gebrauch anpassen.
Ich kann digitale Lernmöglichkeiten und dafür geeignete Tools selbstständig nutzen.
Ich kann digitale Lernressourcen selbstständig organisieren.
Ich kann Lösungen für technische Probleme entwickeln.
Ich kenne Funktionsweisen und grundlegende Prinzipien des digitalen Raumes.
Ich erkenne algorithmische Strukturen bei genutzten Tools.
Ich kann die Wirkung von Medien im digitalen Raum analysieren.
Ich kann eine interessengeleitete Verbreitungen und die Dominanz von Themen im digitalen
Raum beurteilen.
Ich kann Chancen und Risiken des Mediengebrauchs für meinen eigenen Mediengebrauch
reflektieren.
Ich kann Vorteile von Geschäftsaktivitäten und Services im digitalen Raum analysieren.
Ich kann Risiken von Geschäftsaktivitäten und Services im digitalen Raum analysieren.

Table A2
Comparisons of model fit indices and factor loadings.

Model A (MA = without indicated misspecification) Model B (MB = without indicated misspecification)

Fit indices
Chi2 (df) 654.729 (441)* 437.961 (329)*
SRMR .044 .030
RMSEA .036 .040
CFI .960 .976
TLI .955 .972
AIC 21671.914 18934.422
BIC 22138.262 19345.906
Factor loadings
EK01_01 .75 .75
EK01_02 .86 .84
EK01_03 .71 .72
EK01_04 .69 excluded
EK01_05 .66 .57
EK01_06 .51 .59
EK02_01 .66 .66
EK02_02 .67 .66
EK02_03 .69 .70
EK02_04 .72 .75
EK02_05 .73 .75
EK02_06 .78 excluded
EK03_01 .67 .68
EK03_02 .85 excluded
EK03_03 .91 .89
EK03_04 .88 .89
EK04_01 .75 .79
EK04_02 .84 .83
EK04_03 .81 .79
EK04_05 .60 .56
EK05_01 .85 .86
EK05_02 .85 .85
EK05_03 .87 .86
EK05_04 .82 .82
EK05_05 .82 .81
EK05_06 .91 .92
EK05_07 .74 .74
EK06_01 .79 excluded
EK06_02 .90 .85
EK06_03 .74 .86
EK06_04 .93 .93
EK06_05 .94 .94

Table A3
Comparisons of Intercorrelations in Model A and Model B.

INFO COMM CREA SAFE PROBL ANALY

MA MB MA MB q MA MB q MA MB q MA MB q MA MB q
a
INFO 1.00 1.00 .95** 1.00** >1.00 .68** .73** 0.10 .81** .83** 0.06 .74** .76** 0.05 .71** .71** 0.00
COMM 1.00 1.00 .66** .69** 0.06 .67** .67** 0.00 .66** .70** 0.07 .62** .62** 0.00
CREA 1.00 1.00 .72** .72** 0.00 .88** .87** 0.04 .53** .51** 0.03
(continued on next page)

14
C. Rubach and R. Lazarides Computers in Human Behavior 118 (2021) 106636

Table A3 (continued )
INFO COMM CREA SAFE PROBL ANALY

MA MB MA MB q MA MB q MA MB q MA MB q MA MB q

SAFE 1.00 1.00 .76** .76** 0.00 .70** .69** 0.02

PROBL 1.00 1.00 .67** .63** 0.07
Notes. MA = Model A (model with misspecifications), MB = Model B (model without misspecifications); INFO = information and data literacy, COMM = communi­
cation and collaboration, CREA = digital content creation, SAFE = safety and security, PROBL = problem solving, ANALY = analyzing and reflecting. q = Cohen’s q
(effect size) that indicated significant differences between intercorrelation (Cohen, 1988).
a
Cohen’s q > .1 (significant different intercorrelation between MA and MB).

Table A4
Addional tested difference in correlations (rΔ ≥ .15) between student_centered ICT practices and basic ICT competence beliefs.

r Wald Chi2 df p

Autonomy support
AUTO with PROBL .40 (.05) 11.18 1 .00
CREA .23 (.06)
AUTO with SAFE .38 (.05) 9.29 1 .00
CREA .23 (.06)
Cognitive activation
COGAC with PROBL .45 (.05) 11.27 1 .00
CREA .27 (.05)
COGAC with PROBL .45 (.05) 11.22 1 .00
INFO .29 (.07)
COGAC with PROBL .45 (.05) 21.07 1 .00
COMM .28 (.06)
COGAC with PROBL .45 (.05) 0.55 1 .46
SAFE .30 (.06)
Individualized instruction
INDI with PROBL ANALY .48 (.05) 2.44 1 .12
.28 (.07)
INDI with PROBL .48 (.05) 18.72 1 .00
COMM .29 (.06)
INDI with PROBL .48 (.05) 10.44 1 .01
CREA .30 (.06)
Notes. COMM = communication and collaboration, CREA = digital content creation, SAFE = safety and security, PROBL = problem solving, ANALY = analyzing
and reflecting, AUTO = autonomy support, INDI = individualized instruction, COGAC = cognitive activation.

References Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Handron, C., & Hudson, L. (2013). The stereotypical computer
scientist: Gendered media representations as a barrier to inclusion for women. Sex
Roles, 69(1–2), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0296-x
Aesaert, K., Voogt, J., Kuiper, E., & van Braak, J. (2017). Accuracy and bias of ICT self-
Clausen, M. (2002). Unterrichtsqualität: Eine Frage der Perspektive? Empirische Analysen zur
efficacy: An empirical study into students’ over- and underestimation of their ICT
Übereinstimmung, Konstrukt- und Kriteriumsvalidität. Waxmann.
competences. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Clayton, K. L., Hellens, L. A. von, & Nielsen, S. H. (2009). Gender stereotypes prevail in
chb.2017.05.010
ICT. In N. Power, K. Kaiser, J. Downey, & D. Joseph (Eds.), Proceedings of the special
Alt, D. (2018). Science teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning, ICT efficacy, ICT
interest group on management information system’s 47th annual conference on Computer
professional development and ICT practices enacted in their classrooms. Teaching
personnel research - SIGMIS-CPR ’09 (p. 153). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.
and Teacher Education, 73, 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.03.020
https://doi.org/10.1145/1542130.1542160.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2. ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How
Erlbaum.
different are they really? Educational Psychology Review, 15(1), 1–40. https://doi.
Cox, M. J. (2008). Researching IT in education. In J. Voogt, & G. Knezek (Eds.),
org/10.1023/A:1021302408382
International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education
Brandhofer, G. (2017). Lehr-/Lerntheorien und mediendidaktisches Handeln: Eine Studie zu
(pp. 965–981). Boston, MA: Springer US.
den digitalen Kompetenzen von Lehrenden an Schulen. Tectum.
Cox, M. J., Niederhauser, D. S., Castillo, N., McDougall, A. B., Sakamoto, T., & Roesvik, S.
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. In Methodology in
(2013). Researching IT in education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(5),
the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York, London: The Guilford Press.
474–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12035
Buchmüller, S., Joost, G., Bessing, N., & Stein, S. (2011). Bridging the gender and
Drossel, K., Eickelmann, B., & Gerick, J. (2017). Predictors of teachers’ use of ICT in
generation gap by ICT applying a participatory design process. Personal and
school – the relevance of school characteristics, teachers’ attitudes and teacher
Ubiquitous Computing, 15(7), 743–758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-011-0388-y
collaboration. Education and Information Technologies, 22(2), 551–573. https://doi.
Carretero, S., Vuorikari, R., & Punie, Y. (2017). DigComp 2.1: The Digital Competence
org/10.1007/s10639-016-9476-y
Framework for Citizens with eight proficiency levels and examples of use. EUR 28558 EN.
Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the eccles et al. model of achievement-
Cavas, B., Cavas, P., Karaoglan, B., & Kisla, T. (2009). A study on science teachers’
related choices. In A. J. Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and
attitudes toward information and communications technologies in education.
motivation (pp. 105–121). New York: Guilford.
Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8(2).
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-
Chai, C. S., Ng, E. M. W., Li, W., Hong, H.-Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2013). Validating and
value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on
modelling technological pedagogical content knowledge framework among Asian
motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101859. https://doi.org/
preservice teachers. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(1). https://
10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859
doi.org/10.14742/ajet.174
Eid, M., Gollwitzer, M., & Schmitt, M. (2017). Statistik und Forschungsmethoden [statistics
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement
and research methods (5th ed.). Weinheim; Basel: Beltz.
invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504.
Eid, M., & Schmidt, K. (2014). Testtheorie und Testkonstruktion. [test theory and
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
development] Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Chen, F. F., Sousa, K. H., & West, S. G. (2005). Teacher’s corner: Testing measurement
Elstad, E., & Christophersen, K.-A. (2017). Perceptions of digital competency among
invariance of second-order factor models. Structural Equation Modeling: A
student teachers: Contributing to the development of student teachers’ instructional
Multidisciplinary Journal, 12(3), 471–492. https://doi.org/10.1207/
self-efficacy in technology-rich classrooms. Education Sciences, 7(1), 27. https://doi.
s15328007sem1203_7
org/10.3390/educsci7010027

15
C. Rubach and R. Lazarides
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15391523.2010.10782551
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012).
Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship.
Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compedu.2012.02.001
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the
use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4
(3), 272–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
Ferguson, E., & Cox, T. (1999). Exploratory factor Analysis: A Users’Guide. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 1(2), 84–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2389.1993.tb00092.x
Ferrari, A. (2013). Digcomp: A framework for developing and understanding digital
competence in Europe. EUR, scientific and technical research series (Vol. 26035).
Luxembourg: Publications Office.
Ferreira, E. (2017). November). Gender and ICT: School and gender stereotypes. 2017
International symposium on computers in education (SIIE). IEEE. https://doi.org/
10.1109/SIIE.2017.8259672
Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Gebhardt, E. (2014). Preparing for life
in a digital age. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-319-14222-7
Fransson, G., Holmberg, J., Lindberg, O. J., & Olofsson, A. D. (2019). Digitalise and
capitalise? Teachers’ self-understanding in 21st-century teaching contexts. Oxford
Review of Education, 45(1), 102–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03054985.2018.1500357
Gebhardt, E., Thomson, S., Ainley, J., & Hillman, K. (2019). Gender differences in computer
and information literacy (Vol. 8). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26203-7
Gil-Flores, J., Rodríguez-Santero, J., & Torres-Gordillo, J.-J. (2017). Factors that explain
the use of ICT in secondary-education classrooms: The role of teacher characteristics
and school infrastructure. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 441–449. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.057
Gobbo, C., & Girardi, M. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs and integration of information and
communications technology in Italian schools. Journal of Information Technology for
Teacher Education, 10(1–2), 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759390100200103
Greiff, S., & Heene, M. (2017). Why psychological assessment needs to start worrying
about model fit. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 33(5), 313–317.
https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000450
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hatlevik, O. E. (2017). Examining the relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy, their
digital competence, strategies to evaluate information, and use of ICT at school.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 61(5), 555–567. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00313831.2016.1172501
Hatlevik, O. E., Throndsen, I., Loi, M., & Gudmundsdottir, G. B. (2018). Students’ ICT
self-efficacy and computer and information literacy: Determinants and relationships.
Computers & Education, 118, 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compedu.2017.11.011
Herzig, B., & Martin, A. (2018). Lehrerbildung in der digitalen Welt: Konzeptionelle und
empirische Aspekte. In S. Ladel, J. Knopf, & A. Weinberger (Eds.), Digitalisierung und
Bildung (pp. 89–113). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
Hobbs, R. (2017). Measuring the digital and media literacy competencies of children and
teens. In F. C. Blumberg, & P. J. Brooks (Eds.), Cognitive development in digital contexts
(pp. 253–274). Academic Press.
Hu, L., & 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.
Jang, S.-J., & Tsai, M.-F. (2013). Exploring the TPACK of Taiwanese secondary school
science teachers using a new contextualized TPACK model. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 29(4). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.282
Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct
indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1086/
376806
Kaarakainen, M.-T., Kivinen, O., & Vainio, T. (2018). Performance-based testing for ICT
skills assessing: A case study of students and teachers’ ICT skills in Finnish schools.
Universal Access in the Information Society, 17(2), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10209-017-0553-9
Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job
satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 102(3), 741–756. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019237
Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2016). Extending the will, skill, tool model of technology
integration: Adding pedagogy as a new model construct. Journal of Computing in
Higher Education, 28(3), 307–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-016-9120-2
Knezek, G., Christensen, R., & Furuta, T. (2019). Validation of a teacher educator
technology competencies survey. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 27(4),
465–498. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/207633.
Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C.-C. (2013). Examining practicing teachers’ perceptions
of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) pathways: A structural
equation modeling approach. Instructional Science, 41(4), 793–809. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11251-012-9249-y
Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C.-C. (2014). Demographic factors, TPACK constructs,
and teachers’ perceptions of constructivist-oriented TPACK. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society, 17(1), 185–196.
16
Computers in Human Behavior 118 (2021) 106636
Krumsvik, R. J. (2014). Teacher educators’ digital competence. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, 58(3), 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00313831.2012.726273
Kultusministerkonferenz. (2016). Bildung in der digitalen Welt: Strategie der
Kultusministerkonferenz [Education in digital environment: Strategy of the
Kultusministerkonferenz] Retrieved from https://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien
/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/2018/Strategie_Bildung_in_der_digitalen_Welt_id
F._vom_07.12.2017.pdf. (Accessed 9 December 2020).
Kunter, M., Tsai, Y.-M., Klusmann, U., Brunner, M., Krauss, S., & Baumert, J. (2008).
Students’ and mathematics teachers’ perceptions of teacher enthusiasm and
instruction. Learning and Instruction, 18(5), 468–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2008.06.008
Law, N., Woo, D., La Torre, J. de, & Wong, G. (2018). A global framework of reference on
digital literacy skills for indicator 4.4.2. Information Paper No. 51 (UIS/2018/ICT/IP/
51). Montreal, Quebec.
López-Vargas, O., Duarte-Suárez, L., & Ibáñez-Ibáñez, J. (2017). Teacher’s computer self-
efficacy and its relationship with cognitive style and TPACK. Improving Schools, 20
(2), 264–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480217704263
Lorenz, R., Gerick, J., Wendt, H., & Weischenberg, J. (2016). Einschätzung von
Sekundarstufenlehrkräften zu ihren Kompetenzen im Umgang mit neuen
Technologien in Lehr- und Lernprozessen [Secondary school teachers’ self-percieved
ICT competence in teaching- und learning settings]. In B. Eickelmann, J. Gerick,
K. Drossel, & W. Bos (Eds.), ICILS 2013: Vertiefende Analysen zu computer- und
informationsbezogenen Kompetenzen von Jugendlichen (pp. 119–142). New York:
Waxmann: Münster.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Construct measurement
and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and
existing techniques. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 293–334.
Malhotra, N. K. (1999). Marketing research: An applied orientation (3rd ed.). New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Margolis, J., & Fisher, A. (2002). Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing.
Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McInerney, D. M., & Ali, J. (2006). Multidimensional and hierarchical assessment of
school motivation: Cross-cultural validation. Educational Psychology, 26(6), 717–734.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500342559
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A
framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Moosbrugger, H. (2012). Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion [Test theory and
questionnaire’ development (2nd ed.). Berlin: Springer.
Muenks, K., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2018). I can do this! the development and
calibration of children’s expectations for success and competence beliefs.
Developmental Review, 48, 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2018.04.001
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2016). Mplus 8.1 [computer software]. Los Angeles,
CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Generation internet: Die digital natives: Wie sie leben, was sie
denken, wie sie arbeiten [Generation internet: Digital natives: How they live, how they
think, how they work]. München: Hanser.
Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., Voogt, J., Bruggeman, B., Mathieu, G., & van Braak, J.
(2018). Practical considerations informing teachers’ technology integration
decisions: The case of tablet PCs. Technology. Pedagogy and Education, 27(2),
165–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2017.1414714
Petko, D. (2012). Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their use of digital media in
classrooms: Sharpening the focus of the ‘will, skill, tool’ model and integrating
teachers’ constructivist orientations. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1351–1359.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.013
Petko, D., Prasse, D., & Cantieni, A. (2018). The interplay of school readiness and teacher
readiness for educational technology integration: A structural equation model.
Computers in the Schools, 35(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/
07380569.2018.1428007
Prasse, D., Döbeli Honegger, B., & Petko, D. (2017). Digitale Heterogenität von
Lehrpersonen – Herausforderung oder Chance für die ICT-Integration in Schulen?
Beiträge Zur Lehrerinnen- Und Lehrerbildung, 35(1), 219–233.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants (Vol. 9, pp. 1–6). NCB University
Press, 5.
Prior, D. D., Mazanov, J., Meacheam, D., Heaslip, G., & Hanson, J. (2016). Attitude,
digital literacy and self efficacy: Flow-on effects for online learning behavior. The
Internet and Higher Education, 29, 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
iheduc.2016.01.001
Punter, R. A., Meelissen, M. R. M., & Glas, C. A. W. (2017). Gender differences in
computer and information literacy: An exploration of the performances of girls and
boys in ICILS 2013. European Educational Research Journal, 16(6), 762–780. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1474904116672468
Rahimi, M., & Yadollahi, S. (2011). Computer anxiety and ICT integration in English
classes among Iranian EFL teachers. Procedia Computer Science, 3, 203–209. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2010.12.034
Rakoczy, K., Buff, A., & Lipowsky, F. (2005). Dokumentation der Erhebungs- und
Auswertungsinstrumente zur schweizerisch-deutschen Videostudie. “Unterrichtsqualität,
Lernverhalten und mathematisches Verständnis”. 1. Befragungsinstrumente. (Band 13,
Materialien zur Bildungsforschung). Frankfurt, Main: GFPF u.a.
Ramírez-Montoya, M.-S., Mena, J., & Rodríguez-Arroyo, J. A. (2017). In-service teachers’
self-perceptions of digital competence and OER use as determined by a xMOOC
training course. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 356–364. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.010
C. Rubach and R. Lazarides
Redecker, C. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators.
DigCompEdu (EUR, Scientific and technical research series, Bd. 28775).
Luxembourg: Publications Office.
Rohatgi, A., Scherer, R., & Hatlevik, O. E. (2016). The role of ICT self-efficacy for
students’ ICT use and their achievement in a computer and information literacy test.
Computers & Education, 102, 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compedu.2016.08.001
Ropovik, I. (2015). A cautionary note on testing latent variable models. Frontiers in
Psychology, 6, 1715. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01715
Rubach, C., & Lazarides, R. (2019). Eine Skala zur Selbsteinschätzung digitaler
Kompetenzen bei Lehramtsstudierenden: Entwicklung eines Instrumentes und die
Validierung durch Konstrukte zur Mediennutzung und Werteüberzeugungen zur
Nutzung digitaler Medien im Unterricht [A scale for self-percieved digital
competence for student teachers: Development and validation with constructs like
ICT, ICT values]. Zeitschrift Für Bildungsforschung, 2(78), 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s35834-019-00248-0
Rubach, C., Lazarides, R., Brendel, N., & Krauskopf, K. (2019). Learning by doing: Eine
explorative Erhebung zur Förderung digitaler Kompetenzeinschätzungen durch die
Verwendung digitaler Medien in der Hochschuldidaktik [An pilot study to promote
digitale competence by using ICT in higher education]. In T. Ehmke, P. Kuhl, &
M. Pietsch (Eds.), Lehrer. Bildung. Gestalten: Beiträge zur empirischen Forschung in der
Lehrerbildung (pp. 164–175). Weinheim: Juventa Verlag ein Imprint der Julius Beltz
GmbH & Co. KG.
Saris, W. E., Satorra, A., & van der Veld, W. M. (2009). Testing structural equation
models or detection of misspecifications? Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(4), 561–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10705510903203433
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference Chi-
square test statistic. Psychometrika, 75(2), 243–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11336-009-9135-y
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art.
Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147
Schaumburg, H., Prasse, D., Tschackert, K., & Blömeke, S. (2007). Lernen in Notebook-
Klassen: Endbericht zur Evaluation des Projekts „1000mal1000: Notebooks im
Schulranzen“. Analysen und Ergebnisse. Schulen ans Netz e. V. [Learning in notebook-
classes ‒ Final report about the evaluation of the project ’1000 X 1000: Notebooks in
my satchel’] Retrieved from Humboldt vUniversität zu Berlin website: https://www.
willigis-online.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/n21evaluationsbericht.pdf.
(Accessed 9 December 2020).
Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Teo, T. (2015). Becoming more specific: Measuring and
modeling teachers’ perceived usefulness of ICT in the context of teaching and
learning. Computers & Education, 88, 202–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compedu.2015.05.005
Scherer, R., Tondeur, J., & Siddiq, F. (2017). On the quest for validity: Testing the factor
structure and measurement invariance of the technology-dimensions in the
Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) model. Computers &
Education, 112, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.012
17
Computers in Human Behavior 118 (2021) 106636
Siddiq, F., Hatlevik, O. E., Olsen, R. V., Throndsen, I., & Scherer, R. (2016). Taking a
future perspective by learning from the past – a systematic review of assessment
instruments that aim to measure primary and secondary school students’ ICT
literacy. Educational Research Review, 19, 58–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
edurev.2016.05.002
Šimandl, V. (2015). ICT teachers and technical E-safety: Knowledge and routines.
International Journal of Information and Communication Technologies in Education, 4
(2), 50–65. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijicte-2015-0009
Šimandl, V., & Vaníček, J. (2017). Influences on ICT teachers knowledge and routines in
a technical e-safety context. Telematics and Informatics, 34(8), 1488–1502. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.06.012
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Allyn &
Bacon/Pearson Education.
Tourón, J., Martín, D., Navarro Asencio, E., Pradas, S., & Íñigo, V. (2018). Validación de
constructo de un instrumento para medir la competencia digital docente de los
profesores (CDD) | Construct validation of a questionnaire to measure teachers’
digital competence (TDC). Revista Espanola de Pedagogia, 76(269). https://doi.org/
10.22550/REP76-1-2018-02
Vanderlinde, R., & van Braak, J. (2010). The e-capacity of primary schools: Development
of a conceptual model and scale construction from a school improvement
perspective. Computers & Education, 55(2), 541–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compedu.2010.02.016
Van der Veld, W. M., Saris, W. E., & Satorra, A. (2008). JRule 2.0: User manual:
Unpublished document.
Watt, H. M. G., & Richardson, P. W. (2015). A motivational analysis of teacher beliefs. In
H. Fives, & M. G. Gill (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs (pp.
191–211). New York, NY: Routledge.
Wei, L. M., Piaw, C. Y., Kannan, S., & Moulod, S. A. (2016). Relationship between teacher
ICT competency and teacher acceptance and use of school management system
(SMS). Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(4), 36–52.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A
theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12(3), 265–310. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0273-2297(92)90011-
Williams, B., Onsman, A., & Brown, T. (2014). Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step
guide for novices. Australasian Journal of Paramedicine, 8(3). https://doi.org/
10.33151/ajp.8.3.93
Wöhler, K., & Knolauch, C. (2013). Wie Frauen von der digitalen Entwicklung profitieren
könn(t)en – empirische Befunde zur weiblichen und männlichen Internetnutzung
[How women can benefit from digital development - empirical evidence on female
and male Internet use]. In B. Kampmann, B. Keller, M. Knippelmeyer, & F. Wagner
(Eds.), Die Frauen und das Netz (pp. 3–18). Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag.
Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. (2006). Implementing computer technologies:
Teachers’ perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14
(1), 173–207.
Yuen, A. H., & Ma, W. W. (2002). Gender differences in teacher computer acceptance.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(3), 365–382.