The DIGISOC instrument was developed through a literature review, dimension and item construction, and validity and reliability assessment¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · designr2·q1
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q1 i? The instrument's development process involved a literature review, designing and constructing the dimensions and items of the questionnaire, and assessing content and construct validity as well as reliability. → Peart 2020
Evidence¶
Peart 2020¶
Peart, M., Gutiérrez-Esteban, P., and Cubo-Delgado, S. (2020). Development of the digital and socio-civic skills (DIGISOC) questionnaire. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, pp. 3327-3351. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11423-020-09824-Y
q1 · i? · design · r2
Descriptive statement of the instrument development procedure as printed in the article's abstract: a literature review, then dimension and item construction, then assessment of "the content and construct validity as well as the reliability of the instrument."
"The development process of the instrument involves a literature review, designing and constructing the dimensions and items of the questionnaire and finally, assessing the content and construct validity as well as the reliability of the instrument."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Available AI-dependence and attachment instruments follow three non-interchangeable measurement logics and do not converge on one stable construct — related
- The post-interaction reflection instrument showed satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach's α = .863) — related
- TAILS dimensions show high internal consistency, with Cronbach's alpha values above 0.90 — related
- Questionnaire constructs showed acceptable to strong internal consistency (α = 0.740 to 0.945) — related
- The GenAI-SRL scale shows satisfactory reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity across its six dimensions — related
- CTAT shows robust psychometric properties for higher education CS/AI students, with reliable internal consistency and adequate IRT item parameters — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
digisoc-development-process |
title |
The DIGISOC instrument was developed through a literature review, dimension and item construction, and validity and reliability assessment |
description |
The DIGISOC instrument was developed through a literature review, dimension and item construction, and validity and reliability assessment |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2020 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-28 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — peart-2020 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.