Reducing psychological distress as well as improving computer beliefs and self-esteem Mental and Behavioural Disorders
Conditions
Interventions
The one-on-one computer training programme imparted in this project was designed by the first author to enhance older adults? computer technology attitudes and self-efficacy. This is the first time th
at baseline, RAs collected data on socio-demographic attributes, physical health, and on the four outcome variables. After six weeks, all participants were re-tested on the four outcome variables, inc
the latter were asked to avoid deviating from training manual instructions and, for the purpose of quality assessment, to keep a diary of the training experience with each trainee and to document anom
Sponsors
California State University (USA)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
All
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: Ethnically diverse older adults meeting the following criteria: 1. Being at least 50 years-old 2. Being fluent in English if this is their second language (in order to minimise confounding our findings with levels of acculturation). 3. Being willing and able to attend all six sessions of our one-on-one training (even if our control/waitlist participants will first receive six weekly visits, not the training). 4. Staying in the area for the next two months 5. Being able to access a computer at their home (a common occurrence in most homes)
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: Participants who: 1. Reside in an institutional setting 2. Are unable to grant informed consent (i.e. are not fluent in English enough to fully comprehend the content of the consent form) 3. Have more than ?minor? computer technology experience (operationalized as having turned a computer on and off, or having viewed other people utilize computer technology to write documents or use the internet). As a result of implementing these three criteria, all our participants will be computer and internet illiterate (i.e. non-users of the technology taught in our training).
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Differences in the four outcome variables (namely computer attitudes, computer self-efficacy, self-esteem, and depression) between the computer technology trained and untrained older adults Our four outcome variables were assessed twice (pre- and post-test, i.e., at baseline and after 6 weeks) while the rest of the variables were assessed only at baseline, to avoid burdening older adults. To quantify the socio-demographic and computer-related issues required for inclusion/exclusion purposes, we used a list of items that covered all the inclusion and exclusion criteria; this is the same list as the one used in the first author?s 2011 study. It contains variables of interest including age, education, and household income, and ethnic background, as well as computer ownership, access to a computer, prior computer experience, and ability to e-mail. 1. To calculate computer technology attitudes, we utilized the latest version of the Older Adults' Computer Technology Attitudes Scale (OACTAS), which has achieved strong reliability results, as reported in the aforementioned 2011 study (Cronbach?s a reliability = 0.92). All its 17 items are negatively worded, in an attempt to elicit candid responses to computer technology questions from computer illiterate individuals. Responses are coded on a 7-point Likert-type scale from ?-3? ?strongly disagree? to ?+3? ?strongly agree?; the scores are reversed before conducting data analyses, in order to have higher numbers denote better computer technology attitudes. 2. The 30-item Computer User Self-Efficacy Scale was used to assess computer-self-efficacy; according to its authors, the Cronbach's a of this measure is 0.97 and the test-retest reliability coefficient is 0.86. Items are rated on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from ?1? ?strongly disagree? to ?6? ?strongly agree?. The only minimal adaptation of this tool involved deleting an irrelevant introductory item relating only to college students. 3. To quantify health status | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| No secondary outcome measures | — |
Countries
United States of America
Outcome results
None listed