Computers & Education 146 (2020) 103752

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

journal homepage: [Link]

Digital competencies: A review of the literature and applications

in the workplace
€nder *, Andrea Beinicke, Tanja Bipp
Maren Oberla
Department of Psychology, Julius-Maximilians-University, R€
ontgenring 10, 97070, Würzburg, Germany

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

Keywords: In today’s organisations and politics, there is a growing awareness of the gap between existing
Digital competencies and needed digital competencies of the workforce to master the challenges of the digitalised
Review future at work. Nevertheless, no comprehensive framework or definition of digital competencies
Workplace
at work has been proposed so far. Our aim is to offer a holistic view and broaden the scope of the
Lifelong learning
concept of digital competencies, thereby focussing on applications at work. We combine diverse
methods to integrate different perspectives on digital competencies. By conducting an extensive
literature review about definitions and frameworks of digital competencies that might be appli­
cable at work, we provide an overview of the current state of the art in research on digital
competencies. Additionally, eleven half-structured interviews based on the critical incidents
technique (CIT) were conducted to gain insights into the perspectives of professionals with
expertise in digitalisation processes and digital competencies. Subsequently, researchers with
different educational backgrounds clustered the results from both approaches and agreed on
twenty-five dimensions that constitute digital competencies for white-collar workers with office
jobs, encompassing a large variety of knowledge, skills, and abilities. The results of this research
indicate that even though there is overlapping content, each perspective adds unique content to
the concept of digital competencies at work. By creating a coherent and detailed framework and a
definition, our research enhances the applicability of professional learning and development of
digital competencies at work.

1. Introduction

Beyond the huge impact of the ongoing digitalisation in our society on our everyday life, new technologies also have a tremendous
impact on the way we work (e.g., Murawski & Bick, 2017; Zaphiris & Ioannou, 2016). Devices and software programmes used in
professional contexts are constantly renewed to be more efficient and to facilitate work. These changes call for increasing usage of
digital information and communication technology (ICT) at work. Indeed the majority of employees today use digital ICT at work, as
confirmed by 83% of the participants in a large representative German workforce sample (Arnold, Butschek, & Steffes, 2016). Most
workplaces require at least basic digital competencies (Gallardo-Echenique, de Oliveira, Marques-Molias, & Esteve-Mon, 2015).
Already in 2006, the European Parliament and the Council identified digital competence as one out of eight key competences for
lifelong learning (Ferrari, 2012; van Laar, van Deursen, van Dijk, & de Haan, 2017). In detail, they defined competence as a com­
bination of knowledge, skills and attitudes, and digital competence as “the confident and critical use of Information Society

* Corresponding author. Department of Psychology, Chair in Psychology II, R€

otgenring 10, 97070, Würzburg, Germany.
E-mail address: [Link]@[Link] (M. Oberl€ander).

[Link]
Received 17 June 2019; Received in revised form 18 September 2019; Accepted 6 November 2019
Available online 9 November 2019
0360-1315/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Oberl€
ander et al. Computers & Education 146 (2020) 103752

Technology for work, leisure and communication” (Søby, 2013, p. 135).

Therefore, employees have to engage in lifelong learning, and acquire new competencies to adapt to the constantly increasing
demands of the fast-changing work environment (e.g., Ahmad, Karim, Din, & Albakri, 2013; Carnevale & Smith, 2013; Cascio &
Montealegre, 2016). Indeed, there seems to be a gap between existing and needed digital competencies (DC) of the workforce (e.g.,
Ancarani & Di Mauro, 2018; Janssen et al., 2013). In the study of Arnold and colleagues (2016), over two-thirds of the interviewed
workers indicated that they constantly needed to develop further their competencies at work because of technical innovations. Even
though politics and employers are aware of this issue, scientific research focussing on the DC of workers is still scarce (Murawski &
Bick, 2017).

1.1. Purposes of this article

The goal of this research is to foster the understanding and add essential knowledge about conceptualizations and theories of DC at
work. Therefore, we provide an overview of existing definitions and frameworks with a focus on evaluating their potential applications
at work in a literature review. Afterwards, we aim to address the science-practice gap in this field by developing essential dimensions of
DC for white-collar workers that are not only based on the literature but also on insights of working practitioners.

2. Review of the literature on digital competencies

2.1. Method

2.1.1. Identification of relevant studies and search process

At first, we screened the literature for definitions and frameworks of DC to get an overview of the existing literature. In detail, we
conducted a database search of PsycINFO, SocINDEX, Psyindex, and ERIC using keywords like digital competence, digital literacy, and ICT
literacy. Only publications including the keywords in the publication title or abstract were selected. Then, we looked at the reference
lists of the selected publications and added relevant publications. Additionally, given our focus on the workplace, we screened the top
tier journals in applied psychology according to the SSCI Index (1. quartile) for articles that could add to the clarification of the concept
of DC at work. However, this search strategy led only to a limited number of publications in peer-reviewed journals (n ¼ 5). Therefore,
we decided to use the portal Google Scholar to search for additional literature, and considered non-reviewed references, too (e.g. policy
reports). In total, we found 142 relevant publications that were published before September 2018.

2.1.2. Inclusion criteria for article selection

We screened the 142 identified publications and applied the following inclusion criteria. As we aimed for an overview of existing
definitions and frameworks, articles had to offer either a definition, a model, a concept or a framework of DC. Since only a handful of
the remaining publications met the criteria to be about adult and working people, we included publications about adolescents and non-
working people, too.

2.1.3. Coding of articles

To get a systematic overview and analyse the remaining publications in detail (N ¼ 28), we applied five categories of rating criteria
(terminology used, framework proposed, publication, empirical evidence, sample). First, one of the authors of this article rated all of
the publications on all of the criteria, thereby developing a detailed rating scheme including a description of the criteria and labels.
Afterwards, another author rated the publications independently, following the rating scheme. The initial agreement was very high (e.
g., 89.29% for terminology used). Next, discrepancies and ambiguities in the rating scores were discussed until consensus was reached
and the rating scheme adjusted accordingly.
Terminology used. This criterion lists the terminology that has been used in the publication, as different terms are used to describe
the concept of DC, for example, digital literacy, e-skills, and similar terminology.
Framework proposed. We define framework as any kind of model or description that aims to enhance the conceptual understanding
of DC by suggesting a structure of the concept. This includes a detailed description of DC and breaking down the concept in coherent
categories. A framework could include various elements on different hierarchical levels. The coding scheme differentiates between
publications that propose a self-constructed framework (þ) and those that did not propose any framework at all ( ). Then, we
differentiated further between publications that describe basic frameworks on which the ideas for their self-constructed framework
about DC were based on (þ) and those that proposed new, more complex frameworks with different dimensions and levels that were
described in detail (þþ).
Publication (type, ISI-status)
Type.
The publication type depends on many factors, such as the topic, the methods, and the intended audience of the research. We
identified different publication types and decided on five labels: literature review, policy report, study, conference paper, and encyclo­
paedia. We labelled all the publications literature review that offered a discussion on relevant literature without data collection. Pub­
lications that we labelled study include a data collection process and describe empirical evidence. Publications labelled policy reports
were published by political organisations. All publications that were published at conferences were labelled conference papers. We used
the label encyclopaedia for entries in a reference work or compendium that provides knowledge summaries from the research field.
Furthermore, we added the name of the project that the publication was based on in brackets behind the label if this information was

2
M. Oberl€
ander et al. Computers & Education 146 (2020) 103752

available.
ISI-status.
The International Scientific Indexing (ISI) provides indexing of international scientific journals and conference proceedings and can
be seen as one common quality criterion for the application of scientific standards. We ranked the publications in journals that are
indexed with “þ” and other publications with “-”.
Empirical evidence (qualitative, quantitative)
Qualitative. Qualitative research methods are used to analyse non-numerical data that have been collected from participants during
an empirical data collection process (e.g. interview answers) and are embedded in the research process, which refers to the description,
meaning and clarification of concepts or definitions (Field, Miles, & Field, 2012). We differentiated between publications that present
any kind of empirical qualitative research on definition, framework, or conceptual clarification of DC (þ) and those that did not present
any kind of non-numerical data ( ).
Quantitative.
Quantitative research is the systematic empirical analysis of observable phenomena in form of numerical data by using statistical
methods (Field et al., 2012), for example, data collected in structured interviews using psychophysiological methods or questionnaires.
We differentiated between publications that presented any kind of numerical data and empirical quantitative research methods on the
definition or conceptual clarification of DC (þ) and those that did not ( ).
Publications that lacked a description of the methods in so far as the rating for qualitative and quantitative was impossible to assign,
were labelled as not available (n.a.). The publications that are neither labelled as qualitative nor as quantitative (“-“ on both criteria) are
theoretical publications.
Sample (adults, workers)
Adults. As we focus on DC at work, we were mainly interested in research about the DC of adults. This rating criterion differentiates
between publications that report about a sample that includes adults (þ) or children only ( ).
Workers.
In our definition of workers, we include employees and self-employed workers at any kind of workplace. In Table 1, we differ­
entiated between publications that include workers in a sample (þ) and those that do not ( ).
Publications that did not report about data collection with a sample at all are labelled "y". If the publication lacked a comprehensible
description of the sample, it was labelled “n.a.”.

2.2. Results

Table 1 provides a comprehensible overview of the results of the rating process of the 28 identified publications.
Terminology used. Digital competence was the most frequently used term (n ¼ 20), followed by digital literacy (n ¼ 5). However, the
different terminologies in Table 1 are just examples for the wide variety of terms that are being used to describe the concept of DC in
the literature. For instance, Martin (2005) defined digital literacy as “the awareness, attitude and ability of individuals to appropriately
use digital tools and facilities to identify, access, manage, integrate, evaluate, analyse and synthesize digital resources, construct new
knowledge, create media expressions, and communicate with others, in the context of specific life situations, to enable constructive
social action; and to reflect upon this process” (p. 155). Calvani, Cartelli, Fini, and Ranieri (2008) proposed a very similar definition but
used the term digital competence. Yet not only the terminology varies but also the definitions used to explain DC. Ferrari (2012) defines
DC in a very broad sense in many different aspects of life today’s digital society as “the confident, critical and creative use of ICT to
achieve goals related to work, employability, learning, leisure, inclusion and/or participation in society” (p. 3). With this definition,
she aims to refer to many different aspects of life in today’s digital society. In contrast, Søby (2013) defines DC as a set of skills,
including basic skills such as reading and maths, and advanced ICT skills, like evaluating information and sources. This approach
indicates a very general use of the term skills and DC to be a complex concept. According to Ala-Mutka (2011), DC includes knowledge,
skills and attitudes, referring to Gilster (1997) who first introduced the concept. In this concept, DC does not only include basic skills
such as searching for information online, but also more complex abilities, like the analysis, interpretation, and application of the
information in relevant life contexts. Torres-Coronas and Vidal-Blasco (2011) define DC as the “ability to understand and express by
making analytical, productive and creative use of the information technologies and social software to transform information into
knowledge” (p. 62). According to this definition, students need DC for informed decision-making and collaborative learning with the
help of digital tools, for example. Furthermore, not only the terminology of the construct but also the terminology of the different
hierarchical levels within the different frameworks is very diverse. What we call dimensions as constituting parts of DC on a
medium-sized abstraction level, are called “main areas” (Ala-Mutka, 2011, p. 5) or “types” (Torres-Coronas & Vidal-Blasco, 2011, p.
63), for example.
Framework proposed. Only in four of the publications a new framework of DC was introduced, while in 14 publications adapted
version of existing frameworks were used. Eight of the publications were based on the DigComp framework (a project aimed to develop
and understand the concept of DC for European citizens). Many differences in the proposed frameworks were visible, such as the
number of dimensions (three to twenty-one), hierarchical levels, and level of detail in descriptions. For example, van Laar and col­
leagues (van Laar, van Deursen, van Dijk, & de Haan, 2017) proposed a framework that comprises seven core skills and five conceptual
skills, while Torres-Coronas and Vidal-Blasco (2011) propose a framework with three different types of competencies and various
levels of mastery within each competency.
Publication (type, ISI-status)
Type.

3
M. Oberl€
ander et al. Computers & Education 146 (2020) 103752

Most of the included publications were rated as article (n ¼ 9), literature review (n ¼ 8), or policy report (n ¼ 7). Even though we
decided to narrow down the number of labels for publication type to cluster the results, there is a diversity in styles within these labels.
For example, articles included very different types of research and different levels of quality. While some authors of literature reviews are
merely describing and comparing existing frameworks, others propose new frameworks. Furthermore, the backgrounds of the re­
searchers publishing about definitions and frameworks of DC (ranging from library science to educational technology) are as diverse as
their purposes. The variety of publication types in DC research represents the many different methods, research disciplines, aims, and
intended audiences in this area. Eighteen of the analysed publications underwent a peer-review process, while it remained unclear for
ten publications if there was a peer-reviewing process before publishing. Three of the peer-reviewed publications were published as
conference contributions.
ISI-status.
Ten of the peer-reviewed publications were published in indexed journals or proceedings with an ISI-status. Three of these pub­
lications were indexed, but without a Journal Impact Factor (JIF, Clarivate Analytics, 11.02.2018). Just seven of the analysed pub­
lications met the most stringent requirements and were published in peer-reviewed journals with a JIF.
Empirical evidence (qualitative, quantitative). In just over half of the publications (n ¼ 16), the authors reported clear qualitative
and/or quantitative empirical evidence. The authors of eleven publications did not report about the collection of empirical evidence at
all. Ten of these publications were of theoretical nature. For the policy report of Carretero, Vuorikari, and Punie (2017), it remained
unclear if the authors collected empirical data. Janssen et al. (2013), and Ng (2012) used a mixed methods approach, reporting about
the analysis of both qualitative and quantitative data.
Qualitative.
In seven publications, the authors reported collecting and analysing qualitative data. The authors described the collection of
qualitative data in a wide variety of approaches, for example in form of expert discussions or stakeholder consultation. Many of the
publications lacked a detailed description of the research process including methods, instruments, and analyses (for a checklist, see e.
g., Desrosiers et al., 2007).
Quantitative. In eleven publications, the authors reported about collecting and analysing quantitative data, mostly using self-report
questionnaires. Guzm� an-Sim�on, García-Jim�enez and L� opez-Cobo (2017), for example, asked university students to complete online
self-report questionnaires with a six-point Likert scale about DC and academic literacy.
Sample (adults, workers). In the further evaluation of this criterion, we included solely publications that provided some sort of
empirical evidence and details about the sample, which we labelled with “þ” in at least one subcategory of empirical evidence.
Adults.
From these sixteen publications with data from a sample, less than half of the publications (n ¼ 7) reported results on adults. Even if
adults were included in the sample, in most of these publications younger participants were assessed, too (n ¼ 4). For instance, Sol­
datova and Rasskazova (2014) interviewed adolescents and their parents, whereas Eshet-Alkalai (2004) asked ten university students
and ten adults over the age of 30. Only in three publications, the authors reported results on adult samples (inferred from the fact that
participants were described as researchers and experts). However, we differentiated between the intended target group and the sample
of the research. We define the sample as those participants that contributed qualitative or quantitative data. For instance, even though
the samples in the research of Janssen et al. (2013) and of Mengual-Andr�es, Roig-Vila, and Mira (2016) consisted of adults only, adults
were not the main intended target group.
Workers.
When looking at the seven publications that collected data from adults, even fewer publications report about the workforce as a
target group (n ¼ 4). For instance, the sample from Soldatova and Rasskazova includes pupils along with 1209 parents, probably partly
composed of workers. Nevertheless, the workforce was not an intended target group of their study. At least eleven of the publications
focus on DC in an educational context. While Janssen et al. (2013) asked a panel of experts with various backgrounds on DC of people
of all ages, Mengual-Andr�es et al. (2016) asked 27 university researchers on DC of students in higher education. These examples
illustrate that even though the sample is (partly) composed of workers, the intended target group includes or consists entirely of
non-working people.

2.3. Discussion

In a first step, we aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of existing definitions and frameworks. Reviewing the literature on
DC and their potential applications for the workplace, the following conclusions can be drawn. It is apparent that many different labels
for the concept of DC are prevalent, leading Ferrari, Punie, and Redecker (2012) to call this field a “jargon jungle” (p. 11). Oftentimes,
different terminology is used interchangeably, as synonyms, describing the same concept, but definitions and intended meanings are
rather imprecise and depend on the context of use.
The frameworks and concepts proposed in the literature to describe DC differ considerably in content and scope. Most of the
frameworks vary tremendously in the number of dimensions and basic assumptions of DC, for example. The high sheer number of
different frameworks in Table 1 shows that in the literature there is not only disagreement on the terminology for the same construct,
but also on the structure of the concept behind the same term. Moreover, some articles propose overarching definitions of DC and
therefore lack the precision and level of detail that is needed to provide an applicable definition of DC at work.
Additionally, the publication types of DC are very diverse. The authors stem from different backgrounds, pursue different purposes
and the research aims at diverse audiences. This is represented by the many different publication types that were used to write about
DC (e.g., policy reports, peer-reviewed journal articles, popular scientific articles). As we are interested in DC at work from a scientific

4
M. Oberl€
ander et al. Computers & Education 146 (2020) 103752

perspective, we focussed on scientific peer-reviewed articles that were published in journals with ISI-Status. However, this publication
type is not sufficiently represented in the literature about DC, so far. The result of the analysis supports the aim of this article to follow
the call for more scientific research on DC that meet the highest standards. Especially IO psychologists mostly have neglected DC as a
topic so far, even though they have a lot to contribute to this research field.
In terms of empirical evidence, in most of the publications the documentation of the data collection, instruments used, and data
analysis was insufficient. Limitations of the publications with empirical evidence encompass the sample, instruments, and analysing
methods, among others. Finally, adults and more specifically workers have rarely been included in samples and even if so, they were
asked as experts about DC of another target group and not about their own DC. In particular, the insight view of practitioners about DC
has been neglected so far, despite the fact that practitioners apply DC at work on a daily basis. Furthermore, a link between the
theoretical research and applications in the work context is greatly missing, even though the gap between needed and actual DC of the
workforce has been recognised as an important issue. Therefore, we focus on working adults and include the perspective of practi­
tioners in the development of a framework of DC in the next section of this article.
In sum, we conclude that more scientific methods and rigorous scientific practice are needed to address DC at work. At this stage of
research, on the basis of this literature review, it seems reasonable to combine different methods and include various relevant per­
spectives to shed light on the construct and encourage a focus on the applications of DC at work.

3. Development of a definition and relevant dimensions of DC at work

In this section, we aim to address the science-practice gap with regard to DC by combining qualitative and quantitative research
methods and integrating the view of different stakeholders. First, we lay ground for a common understanding of DC at work among
researchers, practitioners, and politicians by proposing a comprehensible definition of DC at work. Second, we develop a framework
that includes a conclusive description of relevant dimensions of DC at work, which does not only refer to a theoretically well-conceived
basis but also allows applications in practice. For this, we combine the results of the previous literature review with the insight
knowledge of practitioners who experience digitalisation processes at work first-hand.

3.1. Proposed definition of digital competencies at work

So far, there is no agreed-upon definition of DC neither any definition to express a common understanding of DC at work. Based on
our literature review, and in particular on existing definitions of the more general concept of competencies at work (Guzma �n-Simo�n
et al., 2017; Kauffeld & Paulsen, 2018) and the respective central characteristics in terms of knowledge, skills, abilities and other
characteristics (KSAOs, e.g. Aamodt, 2009; Krumm, Mertin, & Dries, 2012), we propose a working definition of DC at work as follows:
Digital competencies at work are a set of basic knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics that enable people at work
to efficiently and successfully accomplish their job tasks regarding digital media at work.
We chose to adopt the term digital competencies from the many diverse terms used in the literature for several reasons. We chose the
term digital, because it is a relatively broad term that includes any kind of ICT and digital media, referring to devices and applications
that are used at work, now and in the future.
By choosing the term competencies over any other terminology (e.g., literacy), we want to stress that we are building on compe­
tencies as a well-established construct in IO research. Building on definitions of competencies, the plural was chosen to highlight that
competencies are generally not unidimensional but composed of different dimensions. According to the KSAO concept, which is often
used interchangeably with the concept of competencies at work (Aamodt, 2009; Krumm et al., 2012), workers need knowledge (K),
skills (S), abilities (A), and other characteristics (O) to effectively and successfully perform at their job (Campion et al., 2011; Spector,
2008). Knowledge is described as the information a worker needs to perform a job task. While skills are defined as the “proficiency to
perform a particular task” (Aamodt, 2009, p. 53) that is learnable, abilities are defined as a “basic capacity for performing a wide range
of different tasks, acquiring knowledge, or developing a skill” (Aamodt, 2009, p. 53) that can only be trained to a certain degree
(Campion et al., 2011; Krumm et al., 2012). Finally, other characteristics refer to personality characteristics, motivation, personal
interests, prior experiences or degrees and certificates that are required for good performance at work, for example (e.g., Krumm et al.,
2012; Spencer & Spencer, 1993). Especially in the work context, a work task usually requires different types of competencies to be
mastered successfully (Kauffeld & Paulsen, 2018; Spencer & Spencer, 1993). Each worker has an individual set of competencies and
each job position requires a combination of different competencies based on the KSAO concept or its variations. Several different
competencies of workers, teams, or organisations have been shown to predict important observable results and are requirements for
good performance at work (Spencer & Spencer, 1993).
Among the various expressions used, we adopted the term digital media as it is thought to include different digital devices and
applications that are used on a regular basis to master typical office tasks at work, for example, mail programmes.
Finally, we focussed on DC at work in the definition proposed as this is a life domain, where people cannot decide for themselves if
they want to use DC, as they may in their leisure time. Not least because of that, people can benefit the most from their DC at work,
where it is important to save resources, act efficiently and fast. We assumed that a majority of the workers at typical office workplaces
spent most of the working time using a digital device, nowadays (Arnold et al., 2016; Gallardo-Echenique et al., 2015). Moreover,
while teams and organisations can also be digitally competent, we focussed on DC from the perspective of an individual worker in the
workforce. Other perspectives, like the organisational or societal ones, are discussed insofar as they contribute to the concept of DC of
the workforce.

5
M. Oberl€
ander et al. Computers & Education 146 (2020) 103752

3.2. Dimensions of digital competencies at work: integrating the literature and practitioners’ view

Even though several concepts of DC have been proposed so far (see Table 1; e.g., Carretero et al., 2017; Eshet-Alkalai, 2004), none
of them builds on all of the facets of the KSAO approach. Furthermore, research about DC at work is still scarce (Ala-Mutka, 2011;
Murawski & Bick, 2017). Therefore, we base our understanding of DC at work on knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics.
To specify relevant dimensions for the workplace, we narrowed down the target group of DC to white-collar workers with office jobs
who spend most of their time at work with digital devices but do not have digital media as the main content of their work tasks (e.g.,
like IT specialists).

3.2.1. Method
The extensive review of the literature about DC in Chapter 2 was complemented by interviews with practitioners about the
definition of DC at work. From both perspectives, descriptions and elements of DC were collected and clustered, with the aim to
develop a comprehensive taxonomy and dimensions of relevant factors of DC at work.
Participants and Procedure. We extracted content-related descriptive units about the definition and concept of DC from the
literature, based on the previously reported literature review, using methods of the inductive content analysis (Elo & Kynga €s, 2008;
Mayring, 2014). The units were chosen to be as small as possible while still adding value in terms of meaningful content. Therefore, the
length of the units varied between one word (e.g., communication) and full sentences (e.g., the ability to make informed judgements
about what is found online, which he equates to ‘the art of critical thinking’). Then, each of the authors clustered the extracted
content-related units of DC from the literature by similarity. The separately obtained results were compared and discrepancies solved
by discussion until consensus was reached. For each cluster, a heading was agreed upon.
Subsequently, we included the view of practitioners about the definition and concept of DC at work. For this end, we developed a
half-structured interview guideline based on the critical incidents technique (Flanagan, 1954). Eleven graduate students with prior
knowledge about definitions and concepts of DC used these interview guidelines to interview practitioners with diverse expertise in
digitalisation processes within the context of work about their definitions of DC at work. To cover a broad range of DC in many diverse
work settings of white-collar workers, we attached importance to the heterogeneity of the sample, particularly with regard to the
educational background, hierarchical level, job position, and the branch of the practitioners. The hierarchical level of the practitioners
varied between general manager (n ¼ 1), upper management (n ¼ 1), middle management (n ¼ 2), lower management (n ¼ 2) and
employee without managerial functions (n ¼ 5). The job positions of the practitioners were as diverse as HRM (n ¼ 4), research and
development (n ¼ 2), IT (n ¼ 2), company management (n ¼ 2) and marketing (n ¼ 1). Also, the branches of their companies were a
heterogeneous mix of industry (n ¼ 5), finance (n ¼ 2), tourism (n ¼ 1), marketing (n ¼ 1), and other branches (n ¼ 2). Additionally, we
chose a mixed sample in terms of age and gender to prevent any biases based on these factors.
The first part of the interview consisted of demographic questions (e.g., What is your job position?), the second part was about the
definition of DC (e.g., Asking in a general way: What do you understand by DC?) and in the third part, we asked the practitioners about
basic and specific DC at work. Except for the first three questions, we used an open-answer format. We aimed to make the practitioners
look at DC from various angles to cover a broad range of behaviours. To generate more diverse answers, we asked the practitioners to
change their perspectives and describe their supervisors’ and subordinates’ perspective on which DC are needed at work, too (e.g.,
Which DC are needed at most workplaces, in your opinion?).
Parallel to the process of extracting and sorting descriptions from the literature, the graduate students extracted content-related
descriptive units about the definition and concept of DC at work from the interviews with the practitioners and sorted these units
by similarity. Then, they chose a heading for each cluster, too.
To combine the insights from the scientific literature with those from the practitioners at work, we combined the two sets of clusters
from the scientific literature and the interviews to formulate dimensions of DC at work with a heading and anchor samples for each
dimension. However, it was not the aim to define a model with distinct categories. Instead, we intended to formulate a comprehensive
and encompassing definition of DC that considers the vast variety of different aspects, aiming at a medium-sized abstraction level.
Finally, we invited five researchers from the field of social sciences with prior knowledge of competencies and digitalisation
processes to validate the dimensions. We asked them to assign units from the literature and the interviews to the headings we chose for
the dimensions. We compared the results with our first allocation of the units to the headings and the dimensions and made adjust­
ments if necessary.

3.2.2. Results
The clustering process resulted in 25 dimensions of DC at work. In total, 946 content-related units describing DC were extracted.
From the literature, we extracted 265 units. The clustering and subsequent discussion of the clusters resulted in twelve clusters of DC
from the literature. From the interviews, the graduate students extracted 681 units and clustered these units into fifteen clusters (with
30 facets). Merging the clusters from the literature with those from the interviews resulted in 25 dimensions of DC at work. Table 2
depicts a summary of the results of the clustering process.
The content of the clusters from the literature and from practice showed a huge overlap. First, we matched the clusters from the
literature and interviews that included the same or very similar wording in the headings (e.g., security, communication) to form one
dimension. Afterwards, we scanned the remaining clusters for similar keywords in the description and examples, marking similar
intended meanings (e.g., data management and organisation of digital information), and matched those clusters to form one
dimension. Nevertheless, the input from the practitioners resulted in nine clusters that were not found in the literature (e.g.,
Networking), while six of the clusters were not mentioned in the interviews but found in the literature (e.g., Creating content: Creative,

6
M. Oberl€
ander et al. Computers & Education 146 (2020) 103752

innovative). Finally, we formed dimensions of these remaining clusters with input, either from the literature (e.g., Ethics and moral) or
the interviews (e.g., Sharing data with others), too.
In the following, the 25 interrelated dimensions are outlined shortly (see detailed descriptions in the supplementary material).
Handling of hardware is the competency to appropriately deal with hardware at work. Handling of software is the competency to use
at least basic software that is relevant for one’s work. At office workplaces, these are typically mail and text programmes as general
applications and more specific programmes depending on the workplace. Programming is the competency to use at least one pro­
gramming language to customise work-relevant programmes, create digital content or maintain systems. Handling of applications is the
competency to know which application and which medium is suitable for which task and have the skills to deal with it. Innovative
capability and creativity is the competency to get creative and promote digital innovation to fix problems and increase efficiency. In­
formation processing: Recognizing one’s own knowledge gaps is the competency to recognise what one does not know or cannot do on one’s
own with digital media. Information processing: Search is the competency to perform an efficient digital information search at work
independently. This includes knowing where to find the required information, working with databases and online search engines, and
selecting suitable search results. Information processing: Data analysis is the competency to systematically analyse and interpret digital
data and information. Information processing: Evaluating is the competence to critically scrutinise and weigh up digital information by
assessing quality, appropriateness and credibility. Data organisation is the competency to archive and organise digital data in a useful,
structured manner. Effective usage combines the basic knowledge, skills, motivation and creative abilities to recognise and use the
potential of digital media and applications to increase efficiency in the workplace. Communication is the competency to use appropriate
digital communication channels to communicate with others at work. Collaboration is the competency to use digital media for business
collaboration, for example with business partners and customers. Networking is the competency of being well-connected in one’s
business environment with the help of digital media. It is getting in touch with relevant people inside and outside one’s company
through digital networks to discuss topics and get help. Netiquette is the awareness that there are certain rules of digital communication
and the competency to comply with them by behaving in the appropriate social manners in work-related digital exchanges. Sharing
data with others is the competency to share data, for example, to work synchronously by using digital media and to be willing to work
online with others. Cultural aspects are the competency to participate in digital intercultural communication, to accept it and to
appreciate diversity in a digital context. Security and law is the competency to respect existing laws in a digital context (e.g., copyright)
and to adequately protect work-related private and corporate data from disclosure. Responsibility is the competency to consider the
consequences of one’s actions in online contexts and to act responsibly in dealing with each other, and with private and corporate data
(e.g., visibility of information to others). It also includes a reflective attitude to the influences of digital media and a sensitive attitude
towards possible problems with the medium used. Goals and motivation is the competency to have the patience to try new digital
applications, pursuing one’s goals perseveringly and making an effort. It also includes the motivation to use digital media at work and
showing endurance when dealing with digital devices and applications. Willingness to learn and openness is the competency to be willing
to learn new things about digital media and applications and to be open to change the workplace through digitalisation. Ethics and
moral is the competency to behave online in accordance with ethical and moral convictions and to observe them in daily work. Au­
tonomy and independence is the competency to be able to make meaningful and profitable use of the flexible framework conditions
through digitalisation at work. Problem-solving is the competency to develop possible solutions to a problem, try it out and apply the
best solution while identifying the core of the problem and preventing it from occurring again. Train others is the competency to
communicate one’s knowledge and thus to strengthen others in their DC.
Our validation approach of these 25 dimensions of DC supports the chosen structure. The content of the units from the literature
review and the interviews were very similar in each of the dimensions Communication, Collaboration, Information processing: Search, and
Willingness to learn and openness. Out of the 946 total extracted units, 774 units were assigned to one dimension unambiguously (e.g.,
“being able to work with MS Office” was assigned to the dimensions Handling of software). Especially the assignment of units to Cultural
aspects was very clear as none of the units assigned to these dimensions was assigned to another dimension. Fifty-five units were
assigned to two different dimensions (e.g., “being able to work together with others using one drive” was assigned to Collaboration and
Sharing data with others). The remaining units were assigned to more than two different dimensions (e.g., “being able to use the internet
responsibly for communicating, socializing and learning” was assigned to Effective usage, Netiquette, Security and law, and Re­
sponsibility). Overall, most of the units were assigned to Handling of software (105 first assignments, 9 second assignments), and least
units were assigned to Cultural aspects (8 first assignments). Many of the units assigned to Communication were also assigned to one or
more of the dimensions Collaboration, Networking, or Netiquette (e.g., “choose the best media for the target group”).

3.3. Discussion

Following the call for clarification of the concept of DC at work, we proposed a definition and framework, based on concepts of
competencies encompassing KSAOs to be applied by researchers, practitioners, and politicians.
While prior research greatly neglected the work context or solely focused on workers from the educational sector (Aesaert, van
Nijlen, Vanderlinde, & van Braak, 2014; Brevik, Gudmundsdottir, Lund, & Strømme, 2019), we managed to integrate two different
perspectives by combining the findings of the literature review with the ideas of practitioners. We identified 25 dimensions of DC at
work that seem to be important in theory and practice. Besides the vast similar content from the literature and the interviews, which
confirms the importance of those dimensions at work, each perspective added unique content, too. While the dimensions that are based
on a cluster from the literature only (e.g., Ethics and moral) represent considerations on a meta-level; other dimensions that are based
on a cluster from the practice only (e.g., Handling of hardware) represent competencies that are important to accomplish daily tasks at

7
M. Oberl€
ander et al. Computers & Education 146 (2020) 103752

work. This results at least partly from the focus on daily tasks that we chose on purpose for the interview questions. The consideration
of both perspectives – a global meta-level and detailed micro-level – is necessary to capture all DC possibly needed at work.
The results of this research indicate that the dimensions of DC at work are composed of a specific combination of knowledge, skills,
abilities, and other characteristics that are needed to perform at today’s digital workplaces. Hence, our suggested framework of DC at
work is in line with the concept of KSAOs. For instance, Handling of Hardware requires basic knowledge about the devices and hardware
at hand, and the physical and cognitive ability to operate them. Additionally, the skills to handle the hardware appropriately and the
motivation to do so are basic requirements for this competency. However, a clear allocation of the dimensions of DC at work to the
KSAO facets is not sensible. Not all of the dimensions include all of the KSAO components. Instead, the importance of the KSAO
components varies between the dimensions. For example, while Information processing: Recognizing one’s own knowledge gaps is based on
the knowledge facet mainly, Goals and motivation is mainly based on other characteristics, like motivation. Otherwise, Problem-solving
and Train others are dimensions of DC at work that integrate all of the KSAO facets.
Although we obtained a comprehensive list of relevant dimensions of DC by our approach, some of the dimensions we obtained still
include greatly overlapping content and cannot be defined distinctly (e.g., Communication, Collaboration). However, our aim was not to
find distinctive dimensions but to outline as many different aspects of the concept of DC at work as possible to contribute to the concept
clarification. Thus, a greater number of dimensions illustrates that the emphasis is on the vast variety of DC at work. With our findings,
we hope to lay ground for future discussion and research on the dimensionality of the construct. Therefore, future research is urged to
empirically test for similarities and differences of DC for different workplaces.
Building upon our results and in line with prior research (Markus, Cooper-Thomas, & Allpress, 2005), we suggest that DC at work
can be divided into basic and specific DC. Basic DC are needed at most office workplaces to accomplish everyday tasks. Examples are
writing e-mails, using text processing programmes or conducting internet research. Additionally, there are DC that are specific for a
workplace, occupational training, or a company, for example, and they are needed by some workers in special positions for specific
tasks only (e.g., using in-house software programmes or communicating results of a workgroup). Following this approach implies that
the required DC of an individual worker also depend on many external factors such as the structure and size of the company or the
specific work tasks. For instance, the dimension Cultural aspects is very important in global companies with an international back­
ground. However, employees in local companies do not necessarily need this competency to accomplish their daily work tasks. There is
probably no job position that requires the maximum of all 25 dimensions of DC at work, but each job position requires a unique set of
basic and specific DC at work.

4. Conclusions and implications

4.1. Conclusions

Our research provides important insights into the construct of DC at work by providing an overview of existing definitions and
frameworks. A thorough analysis of the available literature revealed a lack of scientific research on DC of adults and a neglect of the
work context. However, the large variety of terms and proposed frameworks shows the interest in DC in many different contexts such as
education, politics, or media and communication. While acknowledging the important contributions that these publications can make,
we addressed the science-practice gap by integrating different perspectives in our research. Therefore, in addition to the systematic
literature review, we conducted eleven half-structured interviews with practitioners from the work context. After analysing the results,
we were able to identify and validate 25 dimensions of DC for workers that are not only based on the literature but also on insights of
practitioners. The involvement of many diverse groups of people with different background knowledge and multiple opportunities to
discuss the findings during the analysis supports the objectivity of these dimensions. The findings indicate that even though there are
similarities in the definitions of DC between practitioners and researchers, there were also notable differences, whereas each
perspective added unique content to the framework. For example, practitioners focus more on the details and the application of the
concept at work, while researchers highlight the importance of aspects on a more general level. Furthermore, our results suggest that
the concept of DC is multi-faceted and can be based on knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics. With our research, we
hope to broaden and clarify the scope of the concept of DC and encourage further research that adds to the understanding of the
concept of DC with a focus on adults at work.
Furthermore, our findings contribute to the research field by putting the prior neglected work context in the focus of research about
DC. In comparison to the existing literature (e.g., Janssen et al., 2013), we provide an updated review of the literature on DC, and
combine different methods and approaches, thereby not only focussing on the DC of teachers and students, but on white-collar workers
(e.g., Aesaert et al., 2014; Brevik et al., 2019). Moreover, our framework is based on validated models about competencies from in­
dustrial and organisational psychology. Nevertheless, we enhance the applicability of the findings in the work context by integrating
different perspectives from research and practice. Furthermore, we managed to provide a holistic view of the concept that encompasses
detailed descriptions of the 25 dimensions of DC at work.

4.2. Limitations of the study and implications for future work

Although this research represents a systematic effort to consider different perspectives and combine various research methods,
there are methodological and content-related limitations. For instance, our results do not generalise to the whole workforce and all
workplaces as we focused on a specific group of the working population (white-collar workers) when developing relevant dimensions
of DC. Even though we purposefully chose a broad range of practitioners with different educational backgrounds and job positions, all

8
M. Oberl€
ander et al. Computers & Education 146 (2020) 103752

of them are knowledge workers with office jobs (located in the south of Germany). These restrictions of the target group are needed to
conduct a detailed analysis of DC at specific workplaces leading to specific and applicable results. For instance, by narrowing down the
target group to white-collar workers we obtain a framework that is specific enough to meet the requirements for a job demands
analysis. However, therefore we do not know yet which dimensions of our suggested framework might generalise to other working
populations.
Additionally, we do not know yet how exactly the different suggested dimensions of the framework are interrelated. Future
empirical research needs to address this question to reveal the underlying factor structure of DC at work. Merging similar dimensions,
for example, according to the results of factor analysis could improve the structure of the framework of DC at work. For example, it
appears plausible that the dimensions that refer to interpersonal behaviour (e.g., Communication, Collaboration, Sharing data with others,
and Networking) show more overlapping content than other dimensions (e.g., Handling of hardware, Security and law) and therefore
might form an aggregated factor. Also, dimensions like Problem-solving or Willingness to learn and openness, seem to affect many other
dimensions and might, therefore, be on another level in a competency hierarchy. However, while there is face validity to merge di­
mensions to aggregated factors, a larger number of dimensions has the advantage of highlighting different aspects of DC, which was a
goal of this research. Moreover, future research is encouraged to investigate the nomological network of the competencies we found,
for example, by separating them from other competencies needed at work or more general concepts like motivation, knowledge or
personality factors.
Finally, a limitation of this research revolves around the fast-changing nature of the subject itself. DC are linked to the fast-paced
technological progress very closely as they evolve with the implementation of new tools and applications that change the way we work.
Therefore, the timeliness of the research results and the flexibility of frameworks are crucial to keep them applicable in changing
workplaces (Ala-Mutka, 2011; Bawden, 2001). Dynamic frameworks of DC at work that consider future-oriented job requirements are
needed. Hence, the DC that are needed in the future world of work can be more or less imprecise given that they are based on pre­
dictions. Nevertheless, to prepare the workforce for the demands of their work in the future, the DC that are needed in the long run
have to be trained now.

4.3. Applications and utility

The findings of this research imply several theoretical and practical applications. First, we provide the field with a definition and a
framework of DC at work. By combining multiple perspectives, stemming from literature about DC and insights of practitioners, we
foster the common understanding, broaden the scope of the concept and lay ground for applications in practice. We drew particular
attention on the specifics of the work context, which is a major field of application for this topic.
Practitioners may use our framework of DC to identify the DC needed at specific workplaces. For instance, HR managers may use
our framework to identify the requirements of a job or developmental potential in the current and future workforce. Adding specif­
ically relevant DC for each job profile on basis of our framework could enhance needs analyses in personnel recruiting by providing a
more realistic view of the current level of DC of the workforce (Caldwell & O’Reilly, 1990). Knowing the specific DC that job applicants
need at the workplace they are applying for could enhance the curricula of talent management programmes, for example, and lead to
the development and implementation of more effective and efficient customized training (Chen & Naquin, 2006). Based on our
findings, future research could develop specific models of DC that are adjusted to the requirements of specific workplaces. For these
specific models, for example, the job profile, the prior knowledge and education of the workers could be taken into account. However,
the effectiveness of possible applications of this research in practice has yet to be evaluated.
Furthermore, we recognise the developmental potential of DC at work. Even though the coming generations are referred to as
digital natives, it is wrong to assume that there would be no need to develop DC for adults in the future anymore (e.g., Li & Ranieri,
2010; Ng, 2012). The composition of DC needed at different workplaces is mostly specific. Therefore, the results of this research can be
used as a basis to develop specific training for the individually needed dimensions of DC adjusted to the prior knowledge, time
available, and other individual circumstances of the learner.

Declaration of competing interest

None.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the master students in the seminar “Digital competencies at work” for conducting the interviews with the
practitioners and for helping to cluster the answers. The authors also thank the practitioners who took the time to answer the interview
questions patiently and enrich the research with their insights. Furthermore, we appreciate the help and feedback by the participants of
the Hot-Topic Session “Digital competencies at the workplace” at the Summer School entitled “Reading and Learning in the Digital
World”.

9
M. Oberl€
ander et al. Computers & Education 146 (2020) 103752

Appendix

Table 1
Overview of the publications and rating criteria included in the systematic literature review and results of the rating process.

Author(s) Terminology Framework Publication Empirical Evidence Sample

used proposed
Type ISI- Qualitative Quantitative Adults Workers
Status1

Ala-Mutka (2011) Digital þ Policy Report – þ – n.a. n.a.

Competence (DigComp*)
Bawden (2001) Digital Literacies – Literature Review þ – – y y
Bre�cko and Ferrari (2016) Digital þ Policy Report – þ – n.a. n.a.
Competence (DigCompCons)
Calvani et al. (2008) Digital þ Article – – þ – –
Competence
Carretero et al. (2017) Digital þ Policy Report – n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Competence (DigComp)
Cartelli (2010) Digital þþ Conference Paper – – þ – –
Competence
Eshet-Alkalai (2004) Digital Literacy þþ Literature Review þ – – þ n.a.
Ferrari (2012) Digital þ Policy Report – þ – n.a. n.a.
Competence (DigComp)
Ferrari (2013) Digital þ Policy Report – þ – n.a. n.a.
Competence (DigComp)
Ferrari et al. (2012) Digital þ Conference Paper – – – y y
Competence
Ferrari, Bre�cko, and Punie Digital þ Policy Report – þ – n.a. n.a.
(2014) Competence (DigComp)
Gallardo-Echenique et al. Digital – Literature Review – – – y y
(2015) Competence
Guzm� an-Sim� on, Digital – Article þ – þ þ –
García-Jim�enez, and Competence
L�
opez-Cobo (2017)
Hatlevik (2009) Digital – Article – – þ þ –
Competence
Hatlevik, Ottestad and Digital – Article þ – þ – –
Throndsen (2015) Competence
Hobbs (2010) Digital and – Policy Report – – – y y
Media Literacy (White Paper)
Ilom€
aki, Kantosalo, and Digital – Literature Review – – – y y
Lakkala (2011) Competence
Janssen et al. (2013) Digital þþ Article þ þ þ þ þ
Competence
Maderick, Zhang, Hartley, and Digital Literacy – Article þ – þ þ þ
Marchand (2016)
Martin and Grudziecki (2006) Digital Literacy þ Literature Review – – – y y
(DigEULit)
Mengual-Andr� es et al. (2016) Digital Literacy þ Article – – þ þ þ
Meyers, Erickson, and Small Digital Literacy – Literature Review þ – – y y
(2013)
Ng (2012) Digital þ Article þ þ þ þ –
Competence
Siiman et al. (2016) Digital þ Conference Paper – – þ – –
Competence (DigComp)
Soldatova and Rasskazova Digital þþ Article – – þ þ þ
(2014) Competence
Torres-Coronas and Digital Skills þ Literature Review þ – – y y
Vidal-Blasco (2011)
van Laar, van Deursen, van Digital þ Literature Review þ – – y y
Dijk, & de Haan, 2017 Competence
Vieru (2015) Digital þ Encyclopaedia – – – y y
Competence
Note.
þ ¼ yes, - ¼ no, þþ ¼ new framework was proposed, y ¼ no sample, n.a. ¼ not available.
1
International Scientific Indexing.
*
This project aimed to develop and understand the concept of DC for European citizens.

10
M. Oberl€
ander et al. Computers & Education 146 (2020) 103752

Table 2
Dimensions of digital competencies at work as the result of the clustering process from the literature review and interviews with practitioners.

Dimensions Literature Cluster Practice Cluster

1 Handling of hardware – Handling hardware

2 Handling of software – Handling software/programmes
3 Programming – Programming
4 Handling of applications – Handling Office, Internet
5 Innovative capability and creativity Creating content: Creative, innovative –
6 Information processing: Recognizing one’s – Detecting lack of knowledge
own knowledge gaps
7 Information processing: Search Information processing: Searching and finding Search, research
8 Information processing: Data analysis Information processing: Analysing –
9 Information processing: Evaluating Information processing: Evaluating Data management: filtering
10 Data organisation Data management Storing data
Organising data
11 Effective usage Technical know-how: Ability to effectively use ICT –
12 Communication Communication Communication
13 Collaboration Collaboration Virtual collaboration
14 Networking – Connectivity
Networking
15 Netiquette – Dealing with each other
16 Sharing data with others – Sharing data with others
17 Cultural aspects Cultural aspects –
18 Security and law Security Security: Awareness of danger, knowledge
about security
Legal basics/fundamentals
Privacy
Data security/safety
19 Responsibility Responsibility –
20 Goals and motivation Motivation, goals, self-regulation capabilities, adjust Attitude and motivation
actions to one’s own goals
21 Willingness to learn and openness Learning, adaptability, change Willingness/readiness to learn
Openness
Adaptability
22 Ethics and moral Ethics/moral –
23 Autonomy and independence Autonomy/independence Self-management
24 Problem-solving Problem-solving Problem-solving
Capability to learn
Gather knowledge about problem-solving/
solution strategies
Precaution
Basic knowledge about problem-solving
25 Train/educate others – Train/educate others

Appendix B. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at [Link]

Funding information

This work was funded by the European Union project “Individualisierung Digital” [Fonds 823881 in the Europa €ischer Fonds für
regionale Entwicklung.] The funding source had no involvement in study design, in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data,
in the writing of the report, or in the decision to submit the article for publication.

References

Aamodt, M. G. (2009). Industrial/Organizational Psychology: An applied approach (6th ed.). London: Cengage Learning.
Aesaert, K., van Nijlen, D., Vanderlinde, R., & van Braak, J. (2014). Direct measures of digital information processing and communication skills in primary education:
Using item response theory for the development and validation of an ICT competence scale. Computers & Education, 76, 168–181. [Link]
compedu.2014.03.013.
Ahmad, M., Karim, A. A., Din, R., & Albakri, I. S. M. A. (2013). Assessing ICT competencies among postgraduate students based on the 21st century ICT competency
model. Asian Social Science, 9(16), 32–39. [Link]
Ala-Mutka, K. (2011). Mapping digital competence: Towards a conceptual understanding (JRC 67075). Seville. Retrieved from the Joint Research Centre: Institute for
Prospective Technological Studies website: [Link]
Ancarani, A., & Di Mauro, C. (2018). Successful digital transformations need a focus on the individual: How does digitalization affect the behaviour of purchasers and
team members in related functions? In F. Schupp, & H. W€ ohner (Eds.), Digitalisierung im Einkauf (pp. 11–26). Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.

11
M. Oberl€
ander et al. Computers & Education 146 (2020) 103752

Arnold, D., Butschek, S., & Steffes, S. (2016). Digitalisierung am Arbeitsplatz: Bericht (FB 468). Berlin: jsessionid¼39616914B2E4FE449935BB2BAF6A6A8D. Retrieved
from the Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin website: [Link]
Forschungsberichte-Arbeitsmarkt/[Link].
Bawden, D. (2001). Information and digital literacies: A review of concepts. Journal of Documentation, 57(2), 218–259. [Link]
EUM0000000007083.
Bre�cko, B., & Ferrari, A. (2016). The digital competence framework for consumers (EUR 28133). Luxembourg. Retrieved from the Joint Research Centre for Policy Report
website [Link]
Brevik, L. M., Gudmundsdottir, G. B., Lund, A., & Strømme, T. A. (2019). Transformative agency in teacher education: Fostering professional digital competence.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 86, 102875. [Link]
Caldwell, D. F., & O’Reilly, C. A., III (1990). Measuring person-job fit with a profile-comparison process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 648–657. [Link]
org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.6.648.
Calvani, A., Cartelli, A., Fini, A., & Ranieri, M. (2008). Models and instruments for assessing digital competence at school. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society,
4(3), 183–193. Retrieved from [Link]
Campion, M. A., Fink, A. A., Ruggeberg, B. J., Carr, L., Phillips, G. M., & Odman, R. B. (2011). Doing competencies well: Best practices in competency modeling.
Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 225–262. [Link]
Carnevale, A. P., & Smith, N. (2013). Workplace basics: The skills employees need and employers want. Human Resource Development International, 16(5), 491–501.
[Link]
Carretero, S., Vuorikari, R., & Punie, Y. (2017). DigComp 2.1: The digital competence framework for citizens with eight proficiency levels and examples of use (EUR 28558).
Luxembourg. Retrieved from Joint Research Center website: [Link]
Cartelli, A. (2010). Frameworks for digital competence assessment: Proposals, instruments and evaluation. In Proceedings of informing sciences & IT education conference
(InSITE) (pp. 561–574). [Link]
Cascio, W. F., & Montealegre, R. (2016). How technology is changing work and organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,
3(1), 349–375. [Link]
Chen, H.-C., & Naquin, S. S. (2006). An integrative model of competency development, training design, assessment centre, and multi-rater assessment. Advances in
Developing Human Resources, 8(2), 265–282. [Link]
Clarivate Analytics. (2018). Journal citation reports. Retrieved from [Link] (Accessed 11 February 2018).
Desrosiers, E. I., Sherony, K., Barros, E., Ballinger, G. A., Senol, S., & Campion, M. A. (2007). Writing research articles: Update on the article review checklist. In
S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Blackwell Reference Online. Handbook of research methods in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 459–478). Oxford: Blackwell.
Elo, S., & Kyng€ as, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. [Link]
2648.2007.04569.x.
Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1),
93–106. Retrieved from [Link]
Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital competence in practice: An analysis of frameworks (No. EUR 25351). Seville. Retrieved from Joint Research Centre: Institute for Prospective
Technological Studies website: [Link]
Ferrari, A. (2013). Digcomp: A framework for developing and understanding digital competence in Europe (No. Eur 26035). Seville. Retrieved from the Joint Research
Centre: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies website: [Link]
Ferrari, A., Bre�cko, B. N., & Punie, Y. (2014). DIGCOMP: A framework for developing and understanding digital competence in Europe. Elearning Papers, (38), 1–15.
Retrieved from [Link]/en/elearning_papers.
Ferrari, A., Punie, Y., & Redecker, C. (2012). Understanding digital competence in the 21st Century: An analysis of current frameworks. In A. Ravenscroft,
S. Lindstaedt, C. D. Kloos, & D. Hern� andez-Leo (Eds.), 21st century learning for 21st century skills. EC-TEL 2012. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 7563, pp.
79–92). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. [Link]
Field, A., Miles, J., & Field, Z. (2012). Discovering statistics using R (1st ed.). London: Sage Publication Ltd.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327–358. [Link]
Gallardo-Echenique, E. E., de Oliveira, J. M., Marques-Molias, L., & Esteve-Mon, F. (2015). Digital competence in the knowledge society. MERLOT Journal of Online
Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 1–16. Retrieved from [Link]
Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. New York: Wiley Computer Pub.
Guzm� an-Sim� on, F., García-Jim�enez, E., & L�opez-Cobo, I. (2017). Undergraduate students’ perspectives on digital competence and academic literacy in a Spanish
University. Computers in Human Behavior, 74, 196–204. [Link]
Hatlevik, O. E. (2009). How to identify and understand digital literacy among 9th-grade Norwegian students: Examining the influences from school and home on
students’ digital literacy. Digital Kompetanse, 4(3–4), 159–174. Retrieved from [Link]
Hatlevik, O. E., Ottestad, G., & Throndsen, I. (2015). Predictors of digital competence in 7th grade: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(3),
220–231. [Link]
Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital and media literacy: A plan of action. Washington D.C.: The Aspen Institute Communications and Society Program; Knight Foundation.
Ilom€aki, L., Kantosalo, A., & Lakkala, M. (2011). What is digital competence (pp. 1–11). Linked Portal. from [Link]
Janssen, J., Stoyanov, S., Ferrari, A., Punie, Y., Pannekeet, K., & Sloep, P. (2013). Experts’ views on digital competence: Commonalities and differences. Computers &
Education, 68, 473–481. [Link]
Kauffeld, S., & Paulsen, H. F. K. (2018). Kompetenzmanagement in Unternehmen: Kompetenzen beschreiben, messen, entwickeln und nutzen. In Arbeits-,
Organisations- und Wirtschaftspsychologie (1st ed.). Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer.
Krumm, S., Mertin, I., & Dries, C. (2012). Kompetenzmodelle: Praxis der Personalpsychologie. Praxis der Personalpsychologie (Vol. 27). G€ ottingen: Hogrefe.
Li, Y., & Ranieri, M. (2010). Are ‘digital natives’ really digitally competent? – a study on Chinese teenagers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(6),
1029–1042. [Link]
Maderick, J. A., Zhang, S., Hartley, K., & Marchand, G. (2016). Preservice teachers and self-assessing digital competence. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54
(3), 326–351. [Link]
Markus, L. H., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., & Allpress, K. N. (2005). Confounded by competencies? An evaluation of the evolution and use of competency models. New
Zealand Journal of Psychology, 34(2), 117–126. Retrieved from: [Link]
Martin, A. (2005). DigEuLit – a European framework for digital literacy: a progress report. Journal of eLiteracy, 2, 130–136.
Martin, A., & Grudziecki, J. (2006). DigEuLit: Concepts and tools for digital literacy development. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer
Sciences, 5(4), 249–267. [Link]
Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis. Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Klagenfurt. Retrieved from: [Link]
de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173.
Mengual-Andr�es, S., Roig-Vila, R., & Mira, J. B. (2016). Delphi study for the design and validation of a questionnaire about digital competences in higher education.
International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13(1), 55. [Link]
Meyers, E. M., Erickson, I., & Small, R. V. (2013). Digital literacy and informal learning environments: An introduction. Learning, Media and Technology, 38(4),
355–367. [Link]
Murawski, M., & Bick, M. (2017). Digital competences of the workforce – a research topic? Business Process Management Journal, 23(3), 721–734. [Link]
10.1108/BPMJ-06-2016-0126.
Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59(3), 1065–1078. [Link]

12
M. Oberl€
ander et al. Computers & Education 146 (2020) 103752

Siiman, L. A., M€aeots, M., Pedaste, M., Simons, R.-J., Leijen, A.,
€ Rannikm€ ae, M., et al. (2016). An instrument for measuring students’ perceived digital competence
according to the DIGCOMP framework. In P. Zaphiris, & A. Ioannou (Eds.), Learning and collaboration technologies (pp. 233–244). Cham: Springer International
Publishing. [Link]
Søby, M. (2013). Learning to be: Developing and understanding digital competence. The Norwegian context, 8(3), 134–138. Retrieved from [Link]
Soldatova, G. V., & Rasskazova, E. I. (2014). Assessment of the digital competence in Russian adolescents and parents: Digital Competence Index. Psychology in Russia:
State of the Art, 7(4), 65–74. [Link]
Spector, P. E. (2008). Industrial and organizational psychology: Research and practice (5th ed.). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Spencer, L. M., Jr., & Spencer, S. M. (1993). Competence at work: Models for superior performance. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Torres-Coronas, T., & Vidal-Blasco, M. A. (2011). Adapting a face-to-face competence framework for digital competence assessment. International Journal of
Information and Communication Technology Education, 7(1), 60–69. [Link]
van Laar, E., van Deursen, A. J. A. M., van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & de Haan, J. (2017). The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature
review. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 577–588. [Link]
Vieru, D. (2015). Towards a multi-dimensional model of digital competence in small- and medium-sized enterprises. In D. B. A. M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
information science and technology (3rd ed., pp. 6715–6725). IGI Global. [Link]
Zaphiris, P., & Ioannou, A. (2016). Learning and collaboration technologies (Vol. 9753). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

13