Digital Inequality and Internet Self-Efficacy in Adults With Intellectual Disability: Motivational, Demographic and Contextual Predictors of Online Participation.
Sarah Glencross, Jonathan Mason
Adults with intellectual disability reported significantly lower confidence using the internet than their peers without disability, despite holding more positive attitudes toward it.
Cognitive ability, age, regional location, and the type of support person were the strongest predictors of that confidence gap.
Key findings
1The primary outcome, internet self-efficacy, was significantly lower in the intellectual disability group (M = 33.10, SD = 20.45) than in the comparison group (M = 62.41, SD = 13.52), with a mean difference of 29.31 (95% CI [-36.91 to -21.71], p < 0.001).
2Cognitive profile was the strongest single predictor of self-efficacy (r = 0.66, R² adj = 0.43). Among the three motivational belief subscales, only Behavioural Beliefs added significant predictive value in both groups, and the full motivational model explained 14% of variance in the disability group versus 47% in the comparison group.
3Significant group differences appeared in every type of internet use except gaming. The largest gaps were in accessing government services online (23% vs 96%), banking (28% vs 96%), and shopping (14% vs 86%). Only 7% of the disability group had a mobile device with data, compared with 80% of the comparison group.
Still to come
How it was doneWhat they found
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Cross-sectional design: associations cannot be read as cause and effect. Recruitment through disability service providers in one state (Queensland) may favour people already connected to formal services and limits generalisability to other Australian states or to people not engaged with services. No information was collected about individuals who declined or dropped out, so selection bias cannot be assessed. All measures were self-report, administered by a single interviewer, which may introduce response-style or social-desirability effects. Several subgroups in the support-person analysis were very small (n = 4 for professional IT workers, n = 8 for no support), making those comparisons fragile. The motivational model explained only 14% of the variance in self-efficacy for the disability group, leaving most of the variation unaccounted for. No objective usage data (session duration, logs) were collected, and offline outcomes (employment, civic participation) were not directly measured, so the third-level digital divide is inferred rather than demonstrated.
Declared interests
Funded by a PhD scholarship from the National Disability Insurance Agency (a government body), administered by the University of the Sunshine Coast. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the finding that professional IT support was associated with higher self-efficacy as evidence that hiring IT staff will close the digital gap. The two groups being compared had only 4 and 8 participants respectively, the design is cross-sectional so no causal claim is supported, and the motivational model explained only 14% of the variance in the disability group, meaning most of what drives confidence is still unmeasured here.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →