Older People’s Technophilia and Technophobia: Methodological Research on the Psychometric Evaluation of the TechPH Scale among an Iranian Population

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4024096/v1

Background and Aim:

Considering the aging of the population, the emergence of numerous technologies and the potential effects that these technologies have on the lives of people, especially elderly people, access to an instrument to measure attitudes toward technology among elderly people is essential. Therefore, the present study was conducted with the aim of psychometrically evaluating the scale for measuring attitudes toward technology (TechPH) in Iranian older people.

Methods

This methodological study was conducted on 420 older people (60 years old and above) in Tehran in 2024 for a psychometric test of attitudes toward technology scale (TechPH). Validation was carried out through translation validity methods in the form of translation-back translation with bilingual experts (n = 2), face validity with a sample of the older population (n = 10), content validity with a panel of 11 experts and construct validity with EFA and CFA (n = 420). Instrument reliability was determined through test-retest and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) methods with a sample of older people (n = 20). SPSS version 16 and EQS 6.4 software were used for the data analysis.

Results

A comparison of Farsi and English translations revealed acceptable translation validity and cultural adaptability for the scale. Each item's Content Validity Index (CVI) and Content Validity Ratio (CVR) were determined, and the total average CVI was 0.95. The results of the EFA obtained from the KMO showed the adequacy of the sample size (KMO = 0.754) and the Bartlett's sphericity test showed a significant correlation between the items (χ2 = 221.819, df = 15, P < 0.0001). EFA indicated that 2 extracted factors explained 41.002% and 18.111% of the total variance. Also, CFA of the items resulted in a suitable estimate based on the general fit indices of the model (RMSEA = 0.061, IFI = 0.979, GFI = 0.983, CFI = 0.978 CMIN/DF = 1.769, MFI = 0.989, AGFI = 0.942). In evaluating the test-retest stability and internal consistency, the values of Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and Cronbach's α were 0.922 and 0.765, respectively, which indicated the appropriate reliability of the scale.

Conclusion

IR.TechPH, the first Persian version of the scale for measuring technophilia and technophobia among Iranian older people, has favorable psychometric properties and can be used as a standard tool to measure older people’s attitudes toward technology in different studies.

Older people

Technology

Attitude

Psychometrics

Validity

Reliability

According to a report from the World Health Organization (WHO), the share of the population aged 60 and over in 2020 was one billion people [1], and considering that the growth of the elderly population is greater than that of other age groups [2], it is expected that by 2050, the world's elderly population will double and reach 2.1 billion people [1]. Improvements in health levels as well as treatment methods, decreased mortality rates, birth control policies, and increases in life expectancy have caused the increasing growth of the world's elderly population [3]. Iranian society is no exception to this rule. According to census statistics from 2016, the old age index was equal to 9.3% [4]. Statistical information shows that by 2050, in less than three decades, more than 30% of the country's population will be elderly [5, 6]. The data on the population aging rate show that Iran is the second fastest-growing country in the world in terms of aging [6].

The emergence and expansion of various technologies have provided great potential to societies so that they can simplify many difficult problems and goals by using them [7]. According to a survey by the Pew Research Center, 67% of American older people use the Internet. In New Zealand, between 2001 and 2013, Internet access increased from 21–75% in the 65–74 age group [8, 9]. Based on information related to the amount of information and communication technology tool usage by Iranian households, despite the increase in the penetration rate of these tools among different age groups, this growth is very limited for older age groups. For example, according to the latest report of the Iranian Statistics Center, the rate of Internet use in the country in 2017 was 59.1%, which is 11.9% for the 50 to 74-year-old age group, and for the greater than 75-year-old age group, it was less than 0.5% [10].

Gerontechnology is a growing field in interdisciplinary research as well as in the development of new products [11]. In the period of global aging, digital technology is considered a new opportunity to overcome various challenges related to aging [12]. It should be noted that the popularity of the Internet is partially related to its positive effects on daily life [9]. Technology has provided services to support elderly people who were not previously possible. Remote care, healthcare services based on information and communication technology, and online social support can be considered among the most important facilities that affect health, quality of life, and individual independence in the lives of elderly people [7, 13, 14]. As a result, enhancing the participation of elderly people in digital technology to improve their health and performance has become increasingly important [12]. Technology is a potential resource for facilitating or improving aging in place. Digital technology can also help elderly people escape social isolation by strengthening their connection with the outside world and their participation in their favorite activities [15]. Recent evidence has shown that the use of various information and communication technologies positively contributes to mental well-being and improves the quality of life of elderly people [13–15]. The use of the Internet has been reported to promote well-being and active aging among elderly people and to possibly support the maintenance of cognitive function [16]. The use of new educational methods involving smartphones can be effective in controlling diseases and their complications, especially in elderly people [17, 18], and improving self-management in patients with chronic conditions [19].

In the 20th century, psychological duality intensified with the exponential growth in various technical fields and the emergence of modern technologies (especially with the advancement of computer science) because modern technologies, as much as they provide comfort and convenience, also cause anxiety and fear [20]. Technophilia and technophobia are the two extremes of the relationship between technology and humans, particularly between technology and society [11, 20]. Technophobia refers to an emotional response and a negative attitude toward technology [20]. Technophilia may work in the opposite direction and point to the positive end of the spectrum of attitudes toward technology [11]. A person who is attracted to technology uses most technologies in a positive way, enthusiastically adopts new forms of technology, and considers this a way to improve his/her life conditions and fight against social problems [20]. However, basic attitudes and feelings toward technology (e.g., technophilia) can affect the level of satisfaction with technology as well as the perception of health intervention outcomes [11, 20]. The usability, motivation, and acceptance of a specific technology or service are important factors in evaluating the impact of health technology interventions [11].

Based on a review of the literature, in addition to the lack of studies investigating the attitudes of Iranian elderly people toward technology, there is no suitable and concise tool that can measure the attitudes of technophilia and technophobia in this population. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a valid and reliable tool to measure these concepts. A brief scale to measure the attitudes of elderly people toward technology called the TechPH was developed and validated by Anderberg et al. in Sweden in 2019 [11]. The present study, as the first attempt in its own way, was carried out to determine the psychometric properties of the TechPH for use in studies on the Iranian elderly population.

Study Design & Population

This research is a methodological study that was conducted in 2024 among 60-year-old and older elderly people under the cover of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences in Tehran. Considering that completely separate samples were considered for exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, a total of 420 individuals participated in the study. The samples were selected using a multistage random sampling method. In the first stage, each headquarters located in Tehran was considered a class. In the second stage, comprehensive health services centers in each class were randomly selected as clusters in proportion to the total number in each class. In the third stage, according to the elderly population of each comprehensive health services center, samples in that cluster were selected using systematic random sampling. The criteria for entering were people who were Iranian, willing to participate in the research, aged 60 years and older, had literacy and the ability to complete the questionnaire, had a household file in the covered comprehensive health services centers, and did not have cognitive impairment at the time of the study. The exclusion criterion was incomplete completion of the questionnaire. This research was conducted by obtaining letters of introduction from related organizations, and the participation of individuals was voluntary, ensuring the confidentiality of the information. The Abbreviated Mental Test Score (AMTS), which is one of the most widely used methods for screening the cognitive status of elderly people worldwide due to its shortness, simplicity, speed of execution, and low influence of language and culture [21], was used to assess their cognitive status. This test consists of 10 questions, and its maximum possible score is 10. A score of 7 or above indicates the absence of a cognitive problem. Foroughan et al. reported that the Cronbach's alpha coefficient of this questionnaire was 0.9 [22]. People were included in the study after earning the required number of points.

Original Instrument

Anderberg et al. designed and validated the TechPH for elderly people in Sweden in 2019 to measure elderly people's attitudes toward technology. This instrument includes 6 items and generally considers 2 attitudes: technophilia (items 1–3) and technophobia (items 4–6). The appropriate response for each item is on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) (items related to technophobia are reverse scored). The final score is a number between 1 and 5, and the higher the score is, the more technophilic the person is [11]. After correspondence with Professor Dr. Peter Anderberg, the author responsible for the main article of the TechPH scale and obtaining his permission, this tool was received and entered into the process of translation and psychometrics.

Validity

A. Translation and cross-cultural validity

The standard method proposed by the WHO was used to translate the questionnaire [23]. To determine the translation validity, first, the original questionnaire was translated from English to Persian by 2 experts fluent in English in a double-blind manner. Then, 2 specialists skilled in English back-translated the Persian version into English. During the translation process, the wording of some of the items was also modified to provide better cultural linguistics, but the wording was not significantly changed; thus, the translated version still corresponded to the original TechPH scale. After the translations were adjusted, the first version of the TechPH was prepared in Persian, namely, the IR.TechPH.

B. Face Validity

To determine the qualitative face validity, the first version of IR.TechPH was completed by 10 older people (5 older women and 5 older men) to evaluate its fluency, transparency, clarity, and appropriateness. According to their feedback, few changes were made to increase the clarity and understanding of the items.

C. Content Validity

For qualitative content validity, IR.TechPH was evaluated by 11 experts in related fields (including 3 in health education and health promotion, 3 in technology and media, and 5 in geriatrics), and their feedback on grammar and writing Farsi was recorded on the questions. In terms of quantitative content validity, the content validity ratio (CVR) and content validity index (CVI) were evaluated [24]. To determine CVR, experts were asked to review each item based on the 3-part spectrum of "Not necessary", "Useful but not necessary", and "Necessary". Then, the answers were calculated based on the following formula [24, 25].

$$CVR=\frac{{n}_{E}-\frac{N}{2}}{\frac{N}{2}}$$

n _E = the number of experts who answered the necessary option/N = the total number of experts

To calculate CVI, 3 criteria of simplicity, relevance, and clarity in the form of a 4-point Likert scale for each item were checked by experts (for example, 1: not simple, 2: somewhat simple, 3: simple, and 4: quite simple). The CVI score was calculated by summing the favorable scores for each item that received the 3rd or 4th rank (highest score) on the total number of experts [24, 26]. Finally, the acceptance of items based on the CVI was greater than 0.79, and the CVR was greater than 0.59.

D. Construct validity

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were applied to determine construct validity. For EFA, the Kaiser‒Meyer‒Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO), Bartlett’s test of sphericity (BT), principal component analysis (PCA), scree plot, and varimax rotation were used. To retain an item in the EFA, a cutoff point of 0.5 was considered. After extracting the factors and items in each factor, their consistency with the main concepts and dimensions of attitude toward technology was examined. Goodness-of-fit indices were used for CFA.

Reliability ( Stability & Internal Consistency)

To evaluate the stability of the tool by the test-retest method, the IR.TechPH was completed by 20 older people (10 older women and 10 older men) in two stages with a time interval of 15 days, and then the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cronbach's alpha were calculated to measure stability and internal consistency.

In this research, the data of 420 older people were collected, coded, and entered into a computer. Then, the data were analyzed using SPSS 16 and EQS 6.4 software. The older people were in the age groups of 60–64 (34.8%), 65–69 (40%), and 70 years and older (25.2%). A total of 198 people (47.1%) were women, and 222 people (52.9%) were men. Most of them were married (76%), had a diploma (33.1%), and lived with their spouses (41.2%). A job survey revealed that 136 people (23.4%) were employed and 284 people (67.6%) were unemployed. A total of 262 (62.4%) of the elderly people had average economic conditions, 32 (7.6%) had poor conditions, and 126 (30%) had good economic conditions. In the self-assessment of phone skills, 127 (30.23%) of them reported low skill, 177 (42.14%) reported average skill, and 116 (27.61%) reported good skill (Table 1).

Table 1

Demographic characteristics of the studied samples and the mean and standard deviation of the TechPH index
Variables/Groups		N (%)	TechPH Index Mean (SD)
Age	60–64	146 (34.8)	21.52 (3.04)
	65–69	168 (40.0)	18.33 (3.79)
	70 & More	106 (25.2)	16.92 (3.70)
Gender	Male	222 (52.9)	19.28 (3.77)
Gender	Female	198 (47.1)	18.86 (4.20)
Marital Status	Have spouse	319 (76.0)	19.46 (3.76)
Marital Status	Have no spouse	101 (24.0)	17.91 (4.43)
Number of children	0	27 (6.4)	21.40 (3.24)
	1	49 (11.7)	20.87 (3.60)
	2	105 (25.0)	20.39 (3.50)
	3	157 (37.4)	18.49 (3.58)
	4	82 (19.5)	16.73 (4.28)
Education level	Under Diploma	78 (18.6)	15.76 (3.54)
	Diploma	139 (33.1)	18.09 (3.55)
	Academic	203 (48.3)	21.05 (3.26)
Employment status	Employed	136 (32.4)	21.70 (3.00)
Employment status	Non Employed	284 (67.6)	17.83 (3.78)
Economic status	Weak	32 (7.6)	15.53(3.30)
	Average	262 (62.4)	18.48(3.65)
	Good	126 (30.0)	21.26(3.74)
Who do you live with?	lone	48 (11.42)	18.41 (4.57)
	With spouse	173 (41.2)	19.19 (4.03)
	With children	37 (8.8)	17.83 (3.84)
	With spouse and children	140 (33.33)	19.67 (3.38)
	Nurse and others	22 (5.25)	18.09 (5.31)
Internet use frequency	Less than once a week	36 (8.57)	14.55 (3.61)
	At least once a week but not daily	101 (24.04)	16.13 (2.92)
	Daily	283 (67.38)	20.72 (3.24)
Self-assessed technical skill	Low	127 (30.23)	15.53 (3.20)
	Medium	177 (42.14)	19.43 (2.84)
	Good	116 (27.61)	22.44 (2.94)

In terms of qualitative face validity, the opinions of elderly people regarding IR.TechPH were evaluated, and according to their feedback, the necessary changes were made to increase the clarity and expressiveness of the items. After carefully studying the instrument, after assessing the qualitative content validity, the experts stated that the questions were expressive and clear. The CVI was calculated for a relevance of 1, clarity of 0.92, and simplicity of 0.95 (total average of 0.95). The lowest value of the CVR was 0.63, and the highest value was estimated to be 1 (total average of 0.906); therefore, all the items of the scale were retained, and no items were deleted (Table 2).

Table 2

Content Validity Ratio and Content Validity Index of IR.TechPH Scale
No.	Items	CVR	CVI
No.	Items	CVR	Relevance	Clarity	Simplicity
1	I think it’s fun with new technological gadgets	1	1	0.9	1
2	Using technology makes life easier for me	1	1	0.9	1
3	I like to acquire the latest models or updates	0.63	1	1	1
4	I am sometimes afraid of not being able to use the new technical things	1	1	0.9	1
5	Today, the technological progress is so fast that it’s hard to keep up	1	1	1	1
6	I would have dared to try new technical gadgets to a greater extent if I had	0.81	1	0.82	0.73
Average			0.95

The EFA of the scale was conducted with the participation of 210 Iranian older people. The KMO value was 0.754, which confirms the adequacy of the sample size. Additionally, the results of Bartlett's sphericity test showed a significant correlation between the items (χ2 = 221.819, df = 15, P < 0.001), which justifies the factor analysis (Table 3). Figure 1 shows the scree plot. Additionally, based on the findings in Table 4, two factors were extracted from the scale and the variance of the factor analysis, including technophilia (items 1 to 3), with a variance of 41.002%, and technophobia (items 4 to 6), with a variance of 18.111%. A cutoff point of 0.5 was considered for factor loadings.

Table 3

Exploratory Factor Analysis: KMO and Bartlett's Test (210 Older People)
Kaiser‒Meyer‒Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy		0.754
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity	Approx. Chi-Square	221.819
	df	15
	Sig.	0.001

Additionally, CFA of the questionnaire was conducted with the participation of 210 elderly individuals, which is different from the sample used in the EFA. According to the fit indices of the model (RMSEA = 0.061, IFI = 0.979, CFI = 0.978, GFI = 0.983, CMIN/DF = 1.769, MFI = 0.989, AGFI = 0.942), a factor related to each question was identified. The 6-item instrument with 2 factors, namely, technophilia and technophobia, had an acceptable fit (Table 5). In addition, there was a negative and significant correlation (r=-0.78, P < 0.001) between the 2 factors of technophilia and technophobia (Fig. 2).

To determine the scale reliability, two methods, internal consistency and stability, were used. The maximum Cronbach's alpha was 0.765. The ICC was 0.922, and there was significant agreement between the first and second test scores (P = 0.001), which confirms the repeatability of the subscales and the entire questionnaire and shows high stability in the IR.TechPH (Table 6).

Table 6

The Stability and Internal Consistency Reliability of IR.TechPH Scale
Dimensions (Name)	Number of items	Cronbach’s α Coefficient	ICC^*
F1 (Technophilia)	3	0.712	0.920
F2 (Technophobia)	3	0.70	0.921
IR.TechPH	6	0.765	0.922
^*ICC = Intraclass Correlation Coefficient - Confidence Interval 95%

Considering the importance of attitudes toward technology among elderly people, the present study was conducted with the aim of psychometrically testing the Persian version of the TechPH scale and providing a valid and reliable instrument for the Iranian population. The various psychometric properties of the instrument, including face, content, and construct validity, as well as reliability, were investigated in the elderly community of Tehran. The scale translation, which was performed by bilingual experts in a double-blind manner, is very similar to the original version, which shows that this tool has cross-cultural application and good efficiency in different societies. Additionally, the demographic findings showed that the participants in the present study were not different from all the elderly individuals in terms of the gender ratio. In this case, it seems that more realistic results were obtained from the evaluations performed. In the next step, the purpose of evaluating content validity is to answer the question of whether the content of the tool is capable of measuring the defined goal. For this reason, the judgment of experts, under the title of an expert panel, is used in the specialized field, and the relevance, simplicity, and clarity of each item as well as their necessity are in the form of a questionnaire that the panel of experts asked [24, 26]. In this research, the CVRs obtained for each item are greater than the values suggested in the Lawshe table [25]. Additionally, a CVI of 0.95 was obtained, which is more than the acceptable value for the items (0.79 and above) [24]. Therefore, the Farsi version of the TechPH has adequate content validity. Face validity is an objective judgment about the structure of an instrument and determines whether the scale has been accepted by respondents [27]. Therefore, according to the feedback of the elderly participants, very minor changes were made to make the items more understandable. However, in general, it was very similar to the original version. Construct validity addresses the issue of whether the desired structure has the ability to measure the set goal. This type of validity is also called factor validity due to the method of evaluation with factor analysis methods. Among the common methods for calculating construct validity are exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. EFA is an exploratory statistical method whose purpose is to discover dimensions [24, 28]. The EFA results were obtained from the KMO and Bartlett's sphericity tests. The KMO value was 0.754, which, according to the acceptable value defined for KMO (0.7 and above) [29], confirmed the adequacy of the sample size in this research, and the results of Bartlett's sphericity test showed a significant correlation between the items. (χ2 = 221.819, df = 15, P < 0.001) [30]. The psychometric properties of the TechPH have been investigated thus far only in Sweden. The results of Anderberg et al.'s study, which were conducted on 374 elderly people aged 65 years and older, are similar to the results of the present research (KMO = 0.76 and χ2 = 554.1, P < 0.001) [11]. Additionally, the study of Sinkovics et al., which was conducted in 2002 with the aim of creating a tool to measure technophobia, confirms our findings (χ2 = 383.075, df = 62, P < 0.001) [31]. As a result, in general, EFA provides a suitable model for the present data. Additionally, the results of the confirmatory factor analysis models were RMSEA = 0.061, SRMR = 0.042, IFI = 0.979, CFI = 0.978, GFI = 0.983, CMIN/DF = 1.769, MFI = 0.989, and AGFI = 0.942. According to the acceptable values of these indices [32], the construct validity of the instrument has an acceptable fit. The results of Anderberg et al.'s study (RMSEA = 0.067, CFI = 0.97, CMIN/DF = 6.65, SRMR = 0.036, AGFI = 0.95) [11] are similar to the results of the present research. Additionally, the findings of Sinkovics et al.'s study (CFI = 0.956, IFI = 0.957, RMSEA = 0.040) [31] emphasize the acceptability of our results and confirm the confirmatory factor analysis of the Persian version of the TechPH.

Another finding of this study was the appropriate and acceptable reliability of the tool, which was investigated using two methods of internal consistency (calculation of Cronbach's alpha coefficient) and stability (calculation of the ICC). Cronbach's alpha is used to test the reliability of an instrument that is designed in the form of a Likert scale, and its answers are multiple options [33]. The Cronbach's alpha was 0.765, which is in line with the results of Anderberg et al.'s study [11]. In general, a high Cronbach's alpha indicates the appropriateness of the internal consistency of the scale and the correlation between the items. In the study of Schnall et al., which was conducted with the aim of validating the Health Information Technology Usability Evaluation Scale (Health-ITUES), all three dimensions of the scale showed very good Cronbach's alpha values (more than 0.7) with scores of 0.85 to 0.92 [34], which can support our results. Finally, the ICC was 0.922, which, according to the acceptable value for this coefficient, is greater than 0.7 [35]. TechPH has good stability as well as high internal consistency.

Technophilia and technophobia do not have a single global definition. Osiceanu defines technophilia as the attraction and enthusiasm of humans toward technology, which is determined through activities such as the application of various advanced technologies in daily life [20]. Martínez-Córcoles et al. did not consider only passion and desire to be enough to define technophilia; rather, the need to depend on and enjoy the use of new and advanced technology products and their display should also be considered [36]. Marescotti and colleagues consider technophobia to be the fear or irrational anxiety of people who is created about the use of technologies [37]. Ajlouni and Rawadieh consider technophobia to be a psychological orientation or attitude toward technology that leads to limited use or a fear of using technology [38]. Li and Fuller defined technophilia as a person's positive emotional expression that arises from a person's response to a personal ICT context [39]. Additionally, Donat et al. described negative emotions toward technology as technophobia, which actually consists of two opposite ends of the spectrum of emotions toward technology, with technophilia at the positive end [40]. In general, it can be said that two factors are extracted from the IR.TechPH scale, which assesses technophobia and technophilia, can be considered a measure of people’s negative and positive attitudes toward technology, and the scale presented in the present study can open a new chapter of studies with different designs for needs assessment, evaluation, and interventions in the field of technology and its connection with other important fields of old age in Iran.

IR.TechPH, as the Persian version of the TechPH scale, has appropriate face and content validity. Based on the results of factor analysis and similar to the original version of this scale, it has two dimensions—technophilia and technophobia—and has good construct validity as well as acceptable reliability. Thus, it is considered a suitable tool for measuring the attitudes of elderly people toward technology in the Iranian elderly population. The application of this scale in various types of research, such as investigations of attitudes toward technology among older people, provides the possibility of comparing the results of studies between countries among older people.

Limitations

One of the limitations of the present study is that due to the lack of a standard and similar questionnaire in the Farsi language, concurrent, convergent, and divergent validities were not performed. Among the other limitations, it can be mentioned that in the psychometric process, elderly people who had minimal reading and writing literacy participated, which can affect the application of the tool in studies on illiterate elderly people. Additionally, the self-reporting trait of the instrument was another limitation that is unavoidable in questionnaire-based studies.

CVR: content validity ratio; CVI: content validity index; EFA: exploratory factor analysis; CFA: confirmatory factor analysis; KMO: Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy; PCA: principal component analysis; ICC: intraclass correlation coefficient; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation; IFI: incremental fit index; CFI: comparative fit index; GFI: goodness-of-fit index; MFI: McDonald's fit index; AGFI: adjusted goodness-of-fit index; SRMR: standardized root mean square residual

Acknowledgments

We thank the professors of the Department of Public Health, School of Public Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. We would like to thank all the older people who participated in the present study. We are also grateful to Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences Vice-Chancellor of Health for their help in sampling and accessing the target group. In addition, we would like to especially thank Professor Dr. Peter Anderberg from the Blekinge Institute of Technology and University of Skövde, Karlskrona, Blekinge County, Sweden, for providing the necessary information to conduct this research.

Author contributions

N.A, S.R, and M.G. contributed to the study’s conception and design, and all the authors have read and approved the final manuscript. N.A. contributed to project administration, data collection and analysis, and the writing of the initial draft. S.R. contributed to the methodology, data analysis, interpretation of the data, review, and editing. M.G. contributed to supervision, methodology, data analysis, interpretation of the data, review, and editing.

Funding

This research received no financial support.

Availability of data and materials

All data that support the findings of this study are not publicly available due to participants’ confidentiality.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study is the result of a thesis in the field of geriatric health with ethics code IR.SBMU.PHNS.REC.1402.015 from Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. Initially, the aim of the study was explained to the participants. Then, they were assured that their information would remain confidential. They were also informed that participation is totally voluntary and that they have the right to leave whenever they want. Social and cultural considerations were observed during the research. Finally, the participants gave their informed consent to participate in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

World Health Organization (WHO). Agieng and Health factsheet. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health (2022). Accessed 13 November 2023.
Jannat Alipour Z, Fotoukian Z, Ahmadi H. Elderly Friendly Hospitals, a Step toward Improving the Health of the Elderly A Review Study. Q J Casp Health Aging. 2021;6(2):22–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.22088/cjhaa.6.2.1. [Persian].
Beard JR, Officer A, De Carvalho IA, Sadana R, Pot AM, Michel J-P, et al. The World report on aging and health: a policy framework for healthy aging. lancet. 2016;387(10033):2145–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00516-4.
Statistical Centre of Iran. Population and Housing Censuses. https://amar.org.ir/english/Population-and-Housing-Censuses. Accessed 20 November 2023.
Zandieh Z, Mohammadi-Shahboulaghi F, Vahedi M, Nazari M. Determining the relationship between the incidence of elder abuse and care burden in elderly people with informal caregivers who refer to selected hospitals in Tehran. J Gerontol. 2022;7(3):56–67. http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22034/JOGE.7.3.56. [Persian].
Mehri N, Messkoub M, Kunkel S. Trends, determinants and the implications of population aging in Iran. Aging Int. 2020;45(4):327–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12126-020-09364-z.
Basakha M, Mohaqeqi Kamal SH, Pashazadeh H. Acceptance of Information and Communication Technology by the Elderly People Living in Tehran. Salmand: Iranian Journal of Aging. 2019;13(5):550–563. http://dx.doi.org/10.32598/SIJA.13.Special-Issue.550. [Persian].
Anderson M, Perrin A. Tech adoption climbs among older adults. Pew Res Cent. 2017. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/05/17/tech-adoption-climbs-among-older-adults.
Szabo A, Allen J, Stephens C, Alpass F. Longitudinal analysis of the relationship between purposes of internet use and well-being among older adults. Gerontologist. 2019;59(1):58–68. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gny036.
Statistics Center of Iran. The results of the research project of households and people's use of information and communication technology. 2017. https://www.amar.org.ir/Portals/0/News/1398/artbattat96.pdf. Accessed 10 March 2023.
Anderberg P, Eivazzadeh S, Berglund JS. A novel instrument for measuring older people’s attitudes toward technology (TechPH): Development and validation. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(5):e13951. https://doi.org/10.2196/13951.
Oh SS, Kim K-A, Kim M, Oh J, Chu SH, Choi J. Measurement of digital literacy among older adults: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(2):e26145. https://doi.org/10.2196/26145.
Barbosa Neves B, Franz R, Judges R, Beermann C, Baecker R. Can digital technology enhance social connectedness among older adults? A feasibility study. J Appl Gerontol. 2019;38(1):49–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464817741369.
Bong WK, Bergland A, Chen W. Technology acceptance and quality of life among older people using a TUI application. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(23):4706. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16234706.
Ollevier A, Aguiar G, Palomino M, Simpelaere IS. How can technology support aging in place in healthy older adults? A systematic review. Public Health Rev. 2020;41:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40985-020-00143-4.
Anderberg P, Abrahamsson L, Berglund JS. An instrument for measuring social participation to examine older adults' use of the internet as a social platform: development and validation study. JMIR aging. 2021;4(2):e23591. https://doi.org/10.2196/23591.
Safdari R, Shams Abadi AR, Pahlevany Nejad S. Improve health of the elderly people with M-health and technology. Iran J Aging. 2018;13(3):288–99. https://doi.org/10.32598/SIJA.13.3.288. [Persian].
Bateman DR, Srinivas B, Emmett TW, Schleyer TK, Holden RJ, Hendrie HC, et al. Categorizing health outcomes and efficacy of mHealth apps for persons with cognitive impairment: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(8):e301. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7814.
Arcury TA, Sandberg JC, Melius KP, Quandt SA, Leng X, Latulipe C, et al. Older adult internet use and eHealth literacy. J Appl Gerontol. 2020;39(2):141–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464818807468.
Osiceanu M-E. Psychological implications of modern technologies:technofobia versus technophilia. Procedia-Social Behav Sci. 2015;180:1137–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.229.
Bakhtiyari F, Foroughan M, Fakhrzadeh H, Nazari N, Najafi B, Alizadeh M et al. Validation of the persian version of Abbreviated Mental Test (AMT) in elderly residents of Kahrizak charity foundation. Iranian journal of Diabetes and Metabolism. 2014;13(6):487 – 94. URL: http://ijdld.tums.ac.ir/article-1-5271-en.html. [Persian].
Foroughan M, Wahlund LO, Jafari Z, Rahgozar M, Farahani IG, Rashedi V. Validity and reliability of a bbreviated M ental T Est S core (AMTS) among older I ranian. Psychogeriatrics. 2017;17(6):460–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyg.12276.
World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Guidelines on Translation: Process of translation and adaptation of instruments. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en.
Hajizadeh E, Asghari M. Statistical methods and analyses in health and biosciences a research methodological approach using SPSS practical guide. Validity and reliability of measurement tools. Tehran: Iranian Association of Academic Publishers (IRAAP); 2021. pp. 395–350.
Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol. 1975;28(4):563–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x.
Yaghmaie F. Content validity and its estimation. J Med Educ. 2003;3(1):e105015. https://doi.org/10.22037/jme.v3i1.870.
Drost EA. Validity and reliability in social science research. Educ Res Perspect. 2011;38(1):105–23. 10.3316/informit.491551710186460. https://search.informit.org/doi/.
Plichta SB, Kelvin EA, Munro BH. (2013). Munro's statistical methods for health care research: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. URL: http://jumed15.weebly.com/uploads/5/8/7/5/58753271/munro%C3%A2s-statistical-methods-for-healt-care-research.pdf.
Trujillo-Ortiz A, Hernandez-Walls R, Castro-Perez A, Barba-Rojo K, Otero-Limon A. kmo: Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. A MATLAB file [WWW document] URL: http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/loadFile.do?objectId=12736. (2006).
Manoukian E, Maurais J, Ouimet R. Exact critical values of Bartlett's test of homogeneity of variances for unequal sample sizes for two populations and power of the test. Metrika. 1986;33:275–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01894757.
Sinkovics RR, Stöttinger B, Schlegelmilch BB, Ram S. Reluctance to use technology-related products: Development of a technophobia scale. Thunderbird Int Bus Rev. 2002;44(4):477–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.10033.
Lt H, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct equation modeling: multidisciplinary J. 1999;6(1):1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of the tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16(3):297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555.
Schnall R, Cho H, Liu J. Health Information Technology Usability Evaluation Scale (Health-ITUES) for usability assessment of mobile health technology: validation study. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2018;6(1):e8851. https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.8851.
Walter S, Eliasziw M, Donner A. Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat Med. 1998;17(1):101–. https://doi.org/10.1002/. (SICI)1097-0258(19980115)17:1%3C101::AID-SIM727%3E3.0.CO;2-E. 10.
Martínez-Córcoles M, Teichmann M, Murdvee M. Assessing technophobia and technophilia: Development and validation of a questionnaire. Technol Soc. 2017;51:183–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2017.09.007.
Marescotti ME, Demartini E, Filippini R, Gaviglio A. Smart farming in mountain areas: Investigating livestock farmers’ technophobia and technophilia and their perception of innovation. J Rural Stud. 2021;86:463–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.07.015.
Ajlouni A, Rawadieh S. Technophobia and Technophilia among Undergraduates: Cross-national Research in Jordan, Qatar, and Egypt. Journal of Social Studies Education Research. 2022;13(4):24–55. Retrieved March 3, 2024 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/223006.
Li Y, Fuller B, editors. I'm Lovin'IT: Toward a Technophilia Model of User Adaptation to ICT. AMCIS; 2017. Retrieved from https://api.core.ac.uk/oai/oai:aisel.aisnet.org:amcis2017-1222.
Donat E, Brandtweiner R, Kerschbaum J. Attitudes and the digital divide: Attitude measurement as instrument to predict Internet usage. Informing Science. 2009;12:37. Retrieved from https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=3834995ac5afee8417bdec18fcb4c45949c5af0c.

No competing interests reported.

Older People’s Technophilia and Technophobia: Methodological Research on the Psychometric Evaluation of the TechPH Scale among an Iranian Population

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Background and Aim:

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Figures

INTRODUCTION

Materials and Methods

Study Design & Population

Original Instrument

A. Translation and cross-cultural validity

B. Face Validity

C. Content Validity

D. Construct validity

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Limitations

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1