What does this research mean for the field?

The DigiHealthCom and DigiComInf instruments demonstrate reliability and factorial validity for assessing healthcare professionals' digital competence across diverse international healthcare contexts and languages. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.METHODOLOGICAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

What question did this study set out to answer?

To conduct cultural and linguistic validation and test the factorial validity of the DigiHealthCom and DigiComInf instruments across 19 countries and healthcare systems.

September 14, 2026International Journal of Medical InformaticsOpen Access

Translation and psychometric validation of instruments assessing healthcare professionals’ digital competence and associated factors – an international multisite study

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

EJErika JarvaUniversity of Oulu MTMarco TomiettoNorthumbria University WTWilson TamNational University of Singapore

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Multisite validation study demonstrates strong psychometric reliability for digital health competence scales in healthcare professionals, highlighting tools for global assessment.

Key Points

To conduct cultural and linguistic validation and test the factorial validity of the DigiHealthCom and DigiComInf instruments across 19 countries and healthcare systems.
International multisite translation, content validity assessment, and survey administration conducted between March 2022 and September 2024 (n = 6,440).
Evaluated healthcare professionals' self-assessed digital competence and related factors using exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis across 19 countries.
Scale-level content validity ranged from 0.83 to 1.00 for DigiHealthCom and from 0.73 to 1.00 for DigiComInf.
Internal consistency was high across instruments (α = 0.95, ω = 0.95), with item-to-total correlations ranging from 0.59 to 0.86.
Factor analysis supported construct validity, showing adequate confirmatory model fit for a five-factor structure in DigiHealthCom and a three-factor structure in DigiComInf.

Cite This Study

Jarva et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6aa7b3440926e14a848b1fdf https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2026.106712

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

September 14, 2026International Journal of Medical InformaticsOpen Access

Translation and psychometric validation of instruments assessing healthcare professionals’ digital competence and associated factors – an international multisite study

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

EJErika JarvaUniversity of Oulu MTMarco TomiettoNorthumbria University WTWilson TamNational University of Singapore

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Multisite validation study demonstrates strong psychometric reliability for digital health competence scales in healthcare professionals, highlighting tools for global assessment.

Key Points

To conduct cultural and linguistic validation and test the factorial validity of the DigiHealthCom and DigiComInf instruments across 19 countries and healthcare systems.
International multisite translation, content validity assessment, and survey administration conducted between March 2022 and September 2024 (n = 6,440).
Evaluated healthcare professionals' self-assessed digital competence and related factors using exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis across 19 countries.
Scale-level content validity ranged from 0.83 to 1.00 for DigiHealthCom and from 0.73 to 1.00 for DigiComInf.
Internal consistency was high across instruments (α = 0.95, ω = 0.95), with item-to-total correlations ranging from 0.59 to 0.86.
Factor analysis supported construct validity, showing adequate confirmatory model fit for a five-factor structure in DigiHealthCom and a three-factor structure in DigiComInf.

Cite This Study

Jarva et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6aa7b3440926e14a848b1fdf https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2026.106712

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark