Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 1421–1429

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Beyond search and communication: Development and validation

of the Internet Self-efficacy Scale (ISS)
Yunhwan Kim, Michael Glassman ⇑
Educational Studies, College of Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio State University, 121 Ramseyer Hall, 29 West Woodruff Ave., Columbus, OH 43210, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Internet self-efficacy is a pivotal construct for understanding a wide range of online activities. Human
Available online 5 March 2013 activity has been developing in new directions along with the evolution of the Internet over the last
few decades. A self-efficacy measure which might appropriately reflect these changes is still lacking in
Keywords: the literature. To address this research gap, the current study developed the Internet Self-efficacy Scale
Internet (ISS) and tested its validity and reliability. A sample of 349 undergraduate students completed an assess-
Self-efficacy ment battery including the ISS. A 17-item five-factor model was extracted from an EFA. Using a CFA, the
Information
17-item five-factor model obtained from the EFA was cross-validated and the results revealed acceptable
model fits where v2(df = 107) = 198.987, NFI = .918, CFI = .960, and RMESA = .067 (95% C.I.; 052, .081).
Also, the ISS showed good convergent validity, evidenced by the significant relationships with Internet
outcome expectancy and Internet anxiety.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction efficacy Scale (ISS) presented in this paper measures individuals’

The Internet in many ways creates a new forum for human
activity which we are just beginning to understand. A critical com-
ponent of Internet activity is the individual’s ability to successfully
navigate this new, constantly expanding information landscape
(Glassman & Kang, 2012). We suggest self-efficacy (Bandura,
1982) is a direct and indirect factor in willingness and ability to
use new information technologies to their potential. Those with
higher levels of Internet self-efficacy will be more willing to ex-
plore, take chances, and attempt to solve problems using fast
developing Internet applications (e.g., search engines, blogs,
Wikis). It is however important to remember the Internet is not
monolithic; it involves a number of different task oriented possibil-
ities. Internet self-efficacy can be measured in a number of ways,
from self-efficacy in using and completing technically oriented
problems to the ability to use new types of communications and
internetworking capabilities to create and maintain purposeful
communities. In this paper we base the Internet self-efficacy on
Bandura’s larger construct of self-efficacy as a process of personal
agency, and define it as individuals’ perceptions they can success-
fully use the World Wide Web, the Internet’s most pervasive and
important application, as a problem solving tool; with problem
solving defined within a Deweyan framework (Glassman & Kang,
2010), encountering a problem and empirically testing different
possibilities until finding a successful solution. The Internet Self-
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: glassman.13@osu.edu (M. Glassman).
self-efficacy in attempting, pursuing, and bringing to fruition Inter-
net based, goal oriented problems/projects at different levels of
complexity.
The ISS suggests five factors of Internet self-efficacy of increas-
ing social/experiential complexity. The idea of increasing complex-
ity is much more concerned with social complexity than cognitive
complexity (although the two are interlinked) which we believe is
reflective of Bandura’s theoretical construct. Bandura’s larger so-
cial-cognitive theory has its roots in behavioral/pragmatic theory.
Complexity does not refer to individual cognitive structures (e.g.,
the Piagetian distinction between concrete operations and formal
operations) but experiential complexity. More complex tasks de-
mand higher, more voluminous and intricate inter-connections be-
tween nodes (we will go deeper into this idea in the next section).
The least complex Internet activities involve experiences where it
is relatively easy to receive reinforcement and begin to develop a
sense of mastery such as communicating with others and search-
ing for new information using the Internet. Activities involving
organization of new information and differentiation of high quality
information from low quality information from competing sources
are more complex, because it involves abilities to bring together
disparate information to complete a single task. Reinforcement
based on success is less immediate and less certain. The most com-
plex tasks, because they involve not only coordinating different
nodes but actively engaging them within a field of operations,
are the abilities to develop original content on the Internet or
through Internet based activities (either reactive strategies or gen-
erating completely new ideas).

0747-5632/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.018
1422 Y. Kim, M. Glassman / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 1421–1429
To help illustrate the differences we use the activity of basket-
ball which fits well into Bandura’s scheme. The least complex
activity is simply shooting at a basket. The only agent involved in
the activity is the player and positive reinforcement is based on
the player’s ability to get the ball in the basket. The player is inde-
pendent of any other agent for success and increased self-efficacy.
A second level of complexity is playing against an opponent in try-
ing to get the ball into the basket. The players not only have to take
into account their own abilities (e.g., strengths and weaknesses)
but also organize their skill sets in relation to the person they are
playing against. The third level of complexity is the full court, mul-
tiple player game. In order to be successful the players need to take
into account not only the individual they are directly playing
against but all players on the opposing team and on their own
team. The level of complexity to the activity goes up with each sit-
uation. But because self-efficacy is primarily experience based it
can vary within each category for even vastly different age groups.
A 14 year old might have much greater self-efficacy than a 40 year
old in shooting at the basket, but might just as easily have greater
efficacy in passing defending, and/or scoring in the more complex
full court game.
1.1. Theory of self-efficacy and Internet behavior
Bandura suggests successful behavior in most human endeavors
is highly dependent on the individual’s belief they can be success-
ful in that behavior, how well they ‘‘can execute courses of action
required to deal with prospective situations’’ (Bandura, 1982, p.
122). The willingness to undertake a task and persevere is heavily
influenced by the individual’s belief that the situation can be suc-
cessfully navigated until the task is accomplished. Individuals who
perceive themselves as highly efficacious in a given area of activity
will be more likely to begin, persist in and finish a task related to
that area. This idea can be especially salient when considering
the use of rapidly expanding technologies of the Internet. Individ-
uals who perceive themselves as lacking abilities to control their
Internet related behaviors or outcomes (e.g., being misinterpreted
in communication, being influenced by poorly vetted information,
being drawn into a dangerous community) might be less willing to
use the Internet, especially for complex tasks. Bandura (1990) sug-
gests that self-efficacy impacts our selection of activity – we do not
choose to engage in activities if we believe they will end up in fail-
ure; an idea that might be especially resonant on the Internet,
which can be a place of ‘‘dark spaces’’ (Levinson, 1999).
Levels of individual self-efficacy are directly related to previous
experience of positive reinforcement in response to the same or
similar behaviors. Self-efficacy tends to build in a virtuous cycle,
with greater confidence leading to more success, leading to more
positive response from the environment. It is perhaps important
in explaining our model to go a little deeper into Bandura’s theory
both in terms of his reason for its development and its larger ram-
ifications. Bandura (1986) was attempting to expand behaviorism
so that it made sense within and was sympathetic to a general cog-
nitive approach. He was trying to escape the idea that our actions
can be quickly changed through either a single experience or even
a chain of experiences (Bandura, 1977), with all focus on immedi-
ate or proximal experiences. Instead Bandura suggests each rein-
forcement becomes a point within our cognitive scheme, the way
we think about and/or approach the activity. As we develop more
points of reinforcement in a given activity we develop the percep-
tion that we will be successful in that activity, especially in carry-
ing it out to its end point. This perception is critical because there
will inevitably be unforeseen obstacles in bringing an activity to
fruition – the more complex the activity the more possible
obstacles.
The perception of success helps determine activity in two com-
plementary ways. First, the perception that we will be successful is
a self-motivating factor – we tend to want to do and continue to do
things for which we receive reinforcement – so if we think we are
going to be reinforced for our actions we are more (intrinsically)
motivated to do them. For Bandura (1977) this is related (but not
quite the same as) outcome expectancy – outcome expectancy is
more related to how well we believe the actual task is progressing.
There is also a self-regulative factor in perceptions of self-efficacy.
If we believe that we are going to be ultimately successful in activ-
ity we are more likely to be less anxious about failure and continue
to work towards a successful end point no matter what the
obstacles. Higher levels of self-efficacy make it more difficult to
throw an individual off course, what Bandura (1982) refers to as
coping self-efficacy, perhaps the most important of all types of
self-efficacy within the construct. The flip side of coping is in many
ways anxiety – based in the fear that you will not be able to over-
come obstacles. In fact, specifically for the area of the Internet, the
previous studies has reported the positive relationship between
the Internet/computer self-efficacy and outcome expectancy and
the negative relationship between the Internet/computer self-
efficacy and anxiety (Compeau & Higgins, 1995; Eastin & LaRose,
2000).
There are a couple of aspects about self-efficacy to point out
that are important for the scale we are presenting. The first is that
initially self-efficacy is domain specific, but as individuals develop
strong perceptions of being successful in an activity they will be
able to extend the self-efficacy out to new if related domains
(Bandura, 1986). The shooter with high levels of self-efficacy in
making baskets may be able to extend their perceptions of success
to one on one play (they must have successful experience in one on
one to keep improving their efficacy enough to overcome obsta-
cles). Just the same the user who has high levels of self-efficacy
in communication might be able to extend their perceptions of
success to be able to organize new information. A second aspect
of self-efficacy is that it is more than simple self-confidence and/
or self esteems. It does not just represent a willingness to take
on a task, but the belief they can overcome any unforeseen obsta-
cles that may come in their way. While lower levels of self-efficacy
require proximal reinforcement to make sure the individual main-
tains the activity, more complex activities can be more (power-
fully) affected by distal reinforcement (the proverbial high risk,
high reward).
We suggest that one of the characteristics of the relationship
between self-efficacy and complexity of activity is that more com-
plex activities usually involve more distal reinforcement for activ-
ity. Because using the Internet involves unique types of experience,
it might be difficult to generalize successful activity and high levels
of coping self-efficacy from other arenas to Internet behavior. The
Internet itself has different levels of engagement (which we will
discuss in the next section). Experience surfing through informa-
tion based websites can be very different from maintaining a Face-
book page. Internet success in specific tasks and activities might
generalizable but continued success is still imperative to develop-
ing self-efficacy, especially as tasks become more complex and
reinforcement more difficult to attain in the short term and/or with
any certainty; maintaining a personal communication page on a
closed, protected site such as Facebook can be very different from
establishing, or participating in, an open, interactive blog that has
clear social and/or political goals.
1.2. Development of an Internet Self-efficacy Scale (ISS) and tasks of
the Internet
There have been attempts to relate self-efficacy and adaptabil-
ity to advanced technology (e.g., Compeau & Higgins 1995; Yi &
 Y. Kim, M. Glassman / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 1421–1429
Hwang, 2003) as well as attempts to develop specific Internet self-
efficacy scales (e.g., Eastin & LaRose, 2000). We suggest three rea-
sons the ISS moves past many current Internet self-efficacy scale.
The first and most obvious reason is that the Internet and its pri-
mary application of the Web have changed radically over the last
decade. Many of the changes involve capabilities for experience
in more socially complex activities. The emergence, for example,
of a plethora of Web 2.0 applications has dramatically changed
the types of social connections/interactions on a number of levels
(Benkler, 2006; Castells, 2007). There are quantitative and qualita-
tive aspects to these changes. Quantitatively there is an ever
expanding universe of information that is growing exponentially
as more information is placed under Universal Resource Locators
(URLs). Qualitatively new and easily implemented applications
such as advanced interactive blogs, wikis and social network ser-
vices change the types of activities one can engage in online. Many
of these new possibilities are not well captured by earlier Internet
self efficacy scales. For example one of the more widely used scales,
Torkzadeh and Van Dyke (2001) is focused on the individual’s gen-
eral relationship as Internet user to activities such as ‘‘surfing,’’
‘‘downloading content,’’ and ‘‘e-mail encryption’’ rather than any
organizing information from multiple sources or social experi-
ences. In the Eastin & LaRose Internet self-efficacy scale, another
highly used scale, only one of the eight loaded items mentions
the use of a discussion group in problem solving, while the rest fo-
cus on hardware and software trouble shooting. The Internet self-
efficacy scale developed by Tsai and Tsai (2003)1 a third well used
(and revised) scale is more experiential in nature, but still focuses on
the use of the Web primarily as a way to find information without
any explicit reference to organization and discrimination of multiple
sources, let alone the building of reactive and/or generative
communities.
The second reason, related to the first, we believe ISS is different
from other well used Internet scales is that it takes an expressly
humanistic/social experience view of the Internet while many of
the other scales take a more technological view. The more techno-
logical perspective of human computer interaction focuses on self-
efficacy in using the computer as a helper or junior partner in com-
pleting a task while the more humanistic view suggests the web as
an extension or augmentation of the human mind attempting to
interact with other minds in a larger information universe
(Glassman, 2012). The computer self-efficacy scale developed by
Compeau and Higgins (1995) before the widespread use of the
Internet serves as an early model. For example, except for the first
three questions (browsing) all the questions on the Torkzadeh and
Van Dyke scale (2001) are more technical in nature (encryption/
decryption, system manipulation). The Eastin and LaRose scale
(2000) is completely technical in nature, whether an individual is
‘‘confident’’ is using and explaining their use of the Internet as a
general tool. The Tsai and Tsai scale (2003) treats the Internet
primarily as a helper/tool in problem solving.
The third benefit of the ISS is the items were written to be the-
oretically rigorous in relation to Bandura’s larger self-efficacy con-
struct. As we mentioned earlier in the paper self-efficacy is a little
different than self-confidence in that it is not just willingness to
start a task but to actively engage in problem solving to bring it
to fruition, suggesting higher levels of both self-motivation for
engaging in the activity and self-regulation in completing the
activity, both of which Bandura suggested would be strongly corre-
lated with self-efficacy in the context of particular tasks (Bandura,
1977). The wording of the survey items was specifically meant to
reflect taking action in an Internet based, problem oriented task
1
There have been a number of variations of the Tsai and Tsai scale over the decade
in order to deal with specific problems. We suggest however that it has continued to
maintain its information processing/tool oriented characteristics.
1423
and bringing it to fruition. The items start with perception of def-
inite action (e.g., ‘‘I can’’), followed by a directed task (e.g., ‘‘write
blog posts’’) than can be used to complete a task in a specific man-
ner in spite of obstacles (e.g., that other people will be interested
in.’’) The other major surveys mentioned were, we believe, more
ambiguous in their wording. For example both the Torkzadeh
and Van Dyke (2001) and the Eastin and LaRose (2000) scales begin
most of their items with variations on the phrase ‘‘I feel confident I
can’’ followed by a task. The Tsai and Tsai items (2003) start with
variations of ‘‘I think I can’’ followed by a simple task.
1.3. Internet theory and the ISS scale
In developing the categories for the self-efficacy scales we relied
on the theoretical work concerning use of the Internet developed
by Benkler (2006), Castells (2007) and Glassman and Kang
(2012). Castells has developed one of the more robust analyses of
the Internet as integrated into human activity (Castells, 2007; Cas-
tells, Tubella, Sancho, Diaz ed Isla, & Wellman, 2004). He suggests
the two most common activities people use the Internet for are
communication and searching for information. These tasks can
sometimes be sorted out by age. Younger users (under 29 years
of age) tend to use the Internet for different types of communica-
tion and social network maintenance, many times through a pres-
ence on Social Network Sites such as Facebook (one seventh of the
world is currently on Facebook; Olivarez-Giles, 2011). Older indi-
viduals tend to use the Internet more for information search, either
for their job, or because as life becomes more complex the need for
disparate types of information becomes greater. Castells et al.
(2004) also suggest a small percentage of Internet users – only
10% in one study – use the Internet to develop autonomous, ongo-
ing projects.
Glassman and Kang (2012), in suggesting that the Internet pro-
motes a new type of Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) outline
three basic tasks for online goal driven activities: Search, Organize,
and Differentiate (SOD). The SOD scheme in many ways agrees
with Castells (2007) that search is a gateway behavior for other
productive uses of the Internet. But because one of the Internet’s
most valuable resources – the extraordinary amount of available,
easily accessed information – can also be one of its greatest liabil-
ities, the potential of Internet behavior is highly dependent on abil-
ities to organize information found, and especially to differentiate
signal (relevant information) from noise (irrelevant or poorly
sourced information). Individuals who use the Internet strictly
for communicative purposes and/or primarily through closed sites
(e.g., many SNS or commerce based sites are closed) do not really
need to develop these ‘‘next-step’’ skills. But this might also mean
users who limit their activities to these sites rarely attempt to
use the Internet as a knowledge building tool. Individuals who
do use the Internet as a more open forum must be willing or able
to cope with the amounts of information they might find. Further,
they are also likely to be equipped to compensate for the dangers
of finding distracting, worthless, or even bad information. The
behaviors of organizing and differentiating data found on the Inter-
net are more complex and demanding than simple communication
and search, and require greater levels of self-efficacy in using the
Internet. One could even make the argument that individuals with
high self-efficacy in organization and differentiation of information
on the Internet are good ‘‘users,’’ the information age equivalent of
good researchers.
Benkler (2006) suggests problem focused Internet communities
have abilities for developing unique reactions to barriers, difficul-
ties and problems and/or for autonomously generating new solu-
tions. Benkler (2006) uses two case studies from the 2004 United
States election to illustrate his point about how modern Open
1424 Y. Kim, M. Glassman / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 1421–1429
Source communities have progressed through the writable Web. In
one case bloggers were able to organize into a reactive force by
quickly distributing information and then developing strategies
to help create change in a difficult situation. In a second case study
Internet users were more generative with independent develop-
ment of solid information sources about a specific problem that
continued over weeks and then months as information to the ac-
tive sites was added and then filtered. A sub-community of
‘‘trusted users’’ developed based on quality original posts and com-
ments, especially long term reliability of information provided. The
process was mostly organic with minimal intervention from out-
side forces.
We hypothesized, based on likelihood of successful Internet
activities that self-efficacy scores would divide into three basic lev-
els (see Table 1). The highest level scores would reflect the most
common tasks; communication with others using Internet based
applications (e.g., e-mail, Facebook, Twitter) or direct search for new
information using search engines (e.g., Google). We would find lower
scores for tasks that require greater motivation and self-regulation
bring to fruition: organization of different types of information four
through Internet search and differentiation of competing informa-
tion found through search. The lowest scores would fall to those
questions that reflected the newest and more complex tasks; the
generation of new information (e.g., blog posts, offering unique links
to others, achieving membership or even starting an Internet based
community. (Benkler, 2006).
2. Method
2.1. Participants
The participants for this study were 349 undergraduate stu-
dents at a large university in a Midwestern city. The participants
were recruited over the two consecutive quarters (146 from the
autumn quarter of 2011 and 203 from the winter quarter of
2012), from two child development courses in both quarters and
one human development course in the winter quarter. The mean
age of the subjects was 20.6 years old (standard deviation = 4.0),
ranging from 16 to 63 years old. There were 306 females (88%)
and 43 males (12%) with 1 unidentified. A majority of the students
(n = 272, 78%) was majoring in arts, humanities, or social science,
and 12% of the students (n = 43) was majoring in engineering or
natural science. The remaining 10% of the students (n = 34) had
not decided a specific major at the time of the assessment.
2.2. Procedure
The questionnaires were handed out in the class at the begin-
ning of the quarter and the students were asked to complete them
before they left. Those who participated in the survey were pro-
vided with extra credit upon their completion, and those who
did not want to participate in the study were provided with alter-
native assignment to earn the same amount of extra credit. In or-
der to guarantee the spontaneity of the students in terms of their
participation and responses, all procedures were completed with-
out the instructors of the courses being present. All procedures
were approved by the institutional review board of the university.
Table 1
Hypothesized Levels and Factors of Internet Self-efficacy.
Level Factor
High Search self-efficacy and Communication self-efficacy
Middle Organization self-efficacy and Differentiation self-efficacy
Low Reactive/generative self-efficacy
2.3. Measures
2.3.1. Demographic information
A questionnaire was developed to obtain demographic informa-
tion of the participants. The information on participants’ age and
gender was obtained using the demographic questionnaire.
2.3.2. Internet self-efficacy
The 25 item Internet Self-efficacy Scale (ISS) was developed for
this study. In order to develop the scale, regular weekly meetings
were held which included the two authors of this paper, one
instructor at the university who has run a blog-centered course
and one graduate research assistant. One member of the research
group had a long history of working with Pragmatic and behavioral
theories including Bandura’s work while another member has been
using the self-efficacy construct in applied settings. All members of
the research group had applied and theoretical experience in Inter-
net behaviors. Initially discussions of an Internet self efficacy scale
used (1) the previous self-efficacy measures related to computer
techniques/internet usage and the Internet (Compeau & Higgins,
1995; Eastin & LaRose, 2000; Miltiadou & Yu, 2000), (2) the litera-
ture on current trends of Internet use (Benkler, 2006; Castells,
2007; Glassman & Kang, 2012), and (3) and theoretical/practical
suggestions for constructing self-efficacy scale by Bandura
(2006). The items were developed through individual and group
brainstorming. Then, over a period of weeks, the items were re-
viewed and modified by all meeting members in order to ensure
that the items were created appropriately following Bandura’s
(2006) suggested guidelines for self-efficacy scales and reflecting
relevant areas of Internet activities. The items were not modified
based on participant response to help ensure face validity in terms
of the self-efficacy construct.
The measure assesses participants’ levels of confidence in suc-
cessfully completing a wide range of internet activities. On the
stem question ‘‘Please mark the number on how certain you are
that you can perform each task described in the statement,’’ the
participants were asked to respond on a 7-point Likert scale rang-
ing from 1 (not at all confident) to 7 (very confident). Specific item
content of the measure is shown in Table 2.
2.3.3. Internet outcome expectancy
Participants’ perceived likelihood of obtaining certain outcomes
as a result of internet activities was measured using an outcome
expectancy scale (Eastin & LaRose, 2000). Bandura (1977) consid-
ers outcome expectancy a natural outgrowth and therefore corre-
late with self-efficacy. Out of three subscales in the original scale,
two scales were used in the current study; Social outcome scale
and personal information outcome scale. Social outcome scale in-
cludes five items measuring the perceived likelihood of building
and maintaining social relationships on/through the internet and
personal information outcome scale includes seven items measur-
ing the perceived likelihood of obtaining a wide range of informa-
tion on the internet. On the stem question ‘‘How likely is it that
these things happen to you when you use the Internet?,’’ the par-
ticipants reported the levels of expectation about the outcome de-
rived from their internet activities on a 7-point Likert scale ranging
from 1 (very unlikely) to 7 (very likely). Cronbach’s alpha of each
subscale in the current study was .67 for social outcome scale
and .80 for personal information outcome scale. Specific item con-
tent of the measure can be found in Appendix A.
2.3.4. Internet anxiety
Students’ level of anxiety with regard to their internet activities
required by the course were measured using the State-Trait
Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger, Vagg, Barker, Donham, &
Westberry, 1980). We used anxiety as a negative correlate because
 Y. Kim, M. Glassman / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 1421–1429
Table 2
Items Retained in the Internet Self-efficacy Scale (ISS) after the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and the Respective Factor Loadings.
Items
Reactive/generative self-efficacy
21. I can use blogging as an effective way of connecting with others
19. I can write blog posts that other people will read and be interested in
18. I can be very effective using blogging sites like blogger
23. I can have a positive impact on the lives’ of others through blogging
9. I can offer other people important and interesting information by posting on the Internet
8. I can find important and interesting information by reading other people’s blogs
Differentiation self-efficacy
6. I can improve my own well-being through the use of hyperlinks
5. I can use hyperlinks to find information that is important to others
4. I can use hyperlinks to find information that is important to me
7. I can improve others’ well-being through the use of hyperlinks
Organization self-efficacy
14. I can use the Internet to answer other people’s questions in a productive way
15. I can use the Internet to answer my own questions in a productive way
13. I can organize the information I find on the Internet so that it is coherent and answers specific questions
Communication self-efficacy
20. I can use social networking sites as an effective way of connecting with others
17. I can be very effective communicating using social networking sites like Facebook
Search self-efficacy
2. I can use the Internet to help me find good information about children and their development
1. I can use the Internet to find good information about topics that are important to me
Note: For the future use, specific item content may need to be slightly modified according to the purpose of the study.
it is in many ways the flip side of Bandura’s ideas on increased self-
regulation. Self-regulation measures the participant’s willingness
to continue with their activity no matter what the possible obsta-
cles while anxiety suggests fear about obstacles in reaching proxi-
mal and especially distal goals. The STAI assesses students’ levels of
anxiety related to their course requirements and performances,
and only the State Anxiety items were used in the current study.
Spielberger and colleagues (1980) suggests that the specific con-
tent of the inventory may be modified so the inventory can appro-
priately assess the anxiety aroused by the course requirements
(obstacles) of the corresponding course. Therefore, considering
the characteristics of a blog-centered course, the content of the
inventory was modified to address a range of blogging-activities
such as finding information on the internet, generating posts in a
timely manner, and receiving/providing feedback on the web.
The participants were asked to report how they feel about each
statement of the inventory on a 4-point scale; not at all (1), some-
what (2), moderate (3), and very much so (4). Cronbach’s alpha of
the inventory in the current study was .86. Specific item content of
the measure can be found in Appendix.
2.4. Overview of statistical analysis
The statistical analyses were conducted in four steps. First, in
order to explore underlying factor structure of the ISS, an Explor-
atory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted using data of the sample
recruited from the autumn quarter. The EFA was conducted using
SPSS 19.0 with principal axis factor analysis employed as an
extraction method with varimax rotation. To determine which
items to retain in the final scale, the following criteria were estab-
lished (Kim & Mueller, 1978): items with primary factor loadings
P.70 (including values that rounded to .7) and secondary factor
loadings 6.30 (including values that rounded to .3). All items not
meeting the criteria were removed.
Second, in order to test the factor structure extracted from the
EFA, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted using
data from the sample recruited from the winter quarter. Analysis
of Moment Structures (AMOS) 19 was used to conduct the CFA.
AMOS provides a modification index, which indicates additional
paths that can improve model fit if added. However, given that
1425
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5
.84
.83
.81
.76
.75
.70
.85
.80
.80
.75
.86
.77
.70
.80
.80
.80
.75
the modification index is derived purely from mathematical
calculations, theoretical consideration should always be used be-
fore deciding to adjust the model based on the modification index.
That is, the paths suggested by the modification index should be
added only when the suggested paths make sense theoretically.
To evaluate the degree of fit between the model and the data,
the following goodness-of-fit indices were used: Relative chi-
square (v2/d.f.; 62; Byrne, 1989), Normed Fit Index (NFI; P.90;
Bentler & Bonett, 1980), Comparative Fit Index (CFI; P.90; Bentler,
1990), and Root Mean Square of Error Approximation with 95%
confidence interval (RMESA; 6.05 excellent, 6.08 reasonable,
6.10 mediocre; Browne & Cudeck, 1993).
Third, in order to test the scale’s convergent validity, a series of
correlation analyses were conducted using the entire sample. Con-
vergent validity is considered to be acceptable when the self-effi-
cacy score is significantly correlated with scores of constructs
which are theoretically related to self-efficacy. Therefore, in order
to test a convergent validity, internet self-efficacy was correlated
with internet outcome expectancy and internet anxiety.
3. Results
3.1. Exploratory factor analysis
The EFA yielded a 17-item measure with a five-factor solution:
six items measuring a factor named Reactive/generative self-
efficacy, four items measuring a factor named Differentiation
self-efficacy, three items measuring a factor named Organization
self-efficacy, two items measuring Communication self-efficacy
and two items measuring Search self-efficacy. Out of the original
25-item measure, eight items were deleted based on the predeter-
mined criteria (primary factor loading P.70 and secondary factor
loading 6.30). Table 2 demonstrates the individual items retained
in the final model and their factor loadings (Deleted items are also
presented in Appendix A). With regard to the minimum require-
ment for the number of items, it is conventionally suggested to hold
at least three items in a single subscale. In the current study, two
subscales out of five did not meet the conventional suggestion.
However, given that (1) five subscales extracted through the EFA
appropriately and distinctively reflect different dimensions of
1426 Y. Kim, M. Glassman / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 1421–1429
Table 3
Summary of the model fits of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) models of the Internet Self-efficacy Scale (ISS).
v2 d.f.
Original model 464.039 109
Adjusted model 235.768 108
Final model 198.987 107
internet self-efficacy as theoretically suggested, and that (2) high
factor loadings of the two 2-item subscales indicate that they are
separate and unique from the other factors we decided to stick to
this solution. The reliabilities of each subscale were estimated
using the entire sample. The obtained Cronbach’s alphas were
.91, .90, .89, .82, and .77, respectively for reactive/generative, differ-
entiation, organization, communication and search self-efficacy.
Cronbach’s alpha for the entire items was .91.
3.2. Confirmatory factor analysis
The factor structure extracted from the EFA was then cross-
validated on the sample recruited from the winter quarter. The ini-
tial model was run and resulted in a poor fit (see Table 3). The
modification index indicated that an additional covariance path
between the error terms of items 6 and 7 would most significantly
improve the model fit. The correlation between error terms of indi-
cators may represent (1) the existence of a third factor which is not
included in a proposed model, but commonly underlies the indica-
tors and/or (2) method variance (Kline, 2005). Among the two
cases, given that the items 6 and 7 are included in the same sub-
scale and that the items substantially overlap in its wording, it
seems to be reasonable to conclude that the modification index
may be suggested for the estimation of method variance, rather
than the existence of a third factor.2 Therefore, the error terms of
items 6 and 7 were correlated and the adjusted model was run again.
The adjusted model demonstrated a significant improvement in
model fit, as seen in Table 3. But given that relative chi-square and
RMSEA still did not meet the criteria for reasonable model fit, an
additional path was drawn based on the modification index. The
modification index indicated that an additional covariance path be-
tween the error terms of items 8 and 9, which are included in the
same subscale and also have substantial overlap in its wording,
would significantly improve the model fit. The final model (Fig. 1)
demonstrated additional improvement in model fit and met the cri-
teria for all model fit indices except RMSEA. Although the point esti-
mate of RMSEA did not meet the criteria for excellent model fit, the
results are still beneficial considering that 1) the 95% confidence
interval of RMSEA places the model fit squarely in the reasonable
range and that all other model fit criteria indicate acceptable model
fit. Descriptive statistics on the five subscales using the entire sam-
ple are shown in Table 4. Given that the number of items in each
subscale is different, adjusted mean scores, which were obtained
by dividing the original score by the number of items in the corre-
sponding subscale, are provided along with original scores for the
purpose of easier comparison.
3.3. Convergent validity
Convergent validity of the ISS was tested by correlating internet
self-efficacy with other conceptually-related constructs; internet
2
The method that can test if method variance due to the overlap of wording was a
probable source of the modification index is not currently available. However, as an
indirect/proximal way, we observed the change in model fit when the error terms of
the randomly-chosen items which do not share its wordings are correlated (between
items 4 and 7, and items 19 and 23). The results indicated that the model fit of this
alternative model (CFI = .886, RMSEA = .113) is significantly poorer than that of our
final model.
v2/d.f. NFI CFI RMSEA (95% C.I.)
4.26 .809 .845 .130 (.118–.142)
2.18 .903 .944 .078 (.065–.092)
1.86 .918 .960 .067 (.052–.081)
outcome expectancy and internet anxiety. The results are pre-
sented in Table 5. As expected, all subscales of internet self-efficacy
were significantly associated with internet outcome expectancy as
well as internet anxiety. Specifically, internet self-efficacy was pos-
itively related to internet outcome expectancy and negatively re-
lated to internet anxiety. With regard to the relationship
between internet self-efficacy and internet outcome expectancy,
the magnitude of the relationships between theoretically close
constructs (i.e., communication self-efficacy and social outcome,
and search self-efficacy and personal information outcome) were
stronger than other relationships, indicating superior convergent
validity of the ISS.
4. Discussion
Data from the present studies suggests that the Internet Self-
efficacy Scale (ISS) is a valid and reliable measure for assessing
an individual user’s level of self-efficacy in using the Internet for
what we suggest are progressively more complex tasks. The con-
ceptual model for the scale allows for the assessment of individuals
who might use the Internet for a variety of tasks, some of which are
more common (e.g., communicating with friends through Face-
book, using the Google search engine) and some of which are less
common (developing or maintaining some type of autonomous
project using some type of Web based platform or tool).
4.1. Factor structure and validity of the Internet Self-efficacy Scale
(ISS)
Consistent with the hypotheses, the EFA yielded 5-factor struc-
ture of the Internet self-efficacy; Reactive/Generative, Differentia-
tion, Organization, Communication and Search self-efficacy. Also,
the results of the CFA indicate that this 5-factor structure of the
ISS was reliably detected on a cross-validated sample. Further, to-
gether with previous research, internet self-efficacy was signifi-
cantly associated with theoretically-related concepts, internet
outcome expectancy and internet anxiety, supporting the validity
of the ISS (Compeau & Higgins, 1995).
4.2. The three levels of Internet Self-efficacy
It was our initial hypothesis, based on prior research (Benkler,
2006; Castells, 2007; Castells et al., 2004) and theory (Glassman
& Kang, 2012) on individual use of the Internet that there would
reflect five specific factors. These factors were divided into three
general levels of self-efficacy based on likelihood of experience
activities with highest likelihood of experience (communicating
and searching) would have the highest self-efficacy and activities
with the least likelihood of positive experience (e.g., participating
in a knowledge generating community) would have the lowest le-
vel of self-efficacy.
The highest self-efficacy scores were found in response to ques-
tions relating to communication and search. We suggest this is par-
tially because these activities have advanced highly intuitive
platforms for guiding activity such as Social Network Sites in
the case of communication and advanced search engines in the
case of search. A user actually has to make relatively little cognitive
investment when engaging in these activities and possibilities of
 Y. Kim, M. Glassman / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 1421–1429 1427

Fig. 1. Final Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) model of the Internet Self-efficacy Scale (ISS) (Original image file attached in the submission packet).

Table 4 organized by the platform, and Google returns search results that
Descriptive Statistics of the Internet Self-efficacy Scale (ISS). have been ordered by a continuous algorithm.
Variables Range Mean (SD) Adjusted mean (SD) Differentiation is a more difficult task, both in willingness to
Reactive/generative self-efficacy 7–42 27.4 (7.7) 4.6 (1.3) initiate the activity and possibilities for successful experiences that
Differentiation self-efficacy 4–28 21.2 (4.7) 5.3 (1.2) will increase self-efficacy. Differentiation was measured by the
Organization self-efficacy 3–21 17.6 (3.0) 5.9 (1.0) respondents’ willingness to follow hyperlinks in the goal oriented
Communication self-efficacy 2–14 12.5 (2.0) 6.2 (1.0) tasks. The possibility of following a hyperlink found in a document
Search self-efficacy 6–14 12.5 (1.5) 6.2 (0.8)
can lead to relatively high levels of discomfort if the individual
does not perceive themselves as able to quickly differentiate high
value information from low value information, signal from noise.
This discomfort can occur at two levels: the purely cognitive level
perceived success are extremely high. Both communication and in which the user fears the new information increasing cognitive
search had the highest adjusted means of 6.2 and the lowest stan- load without increasing quality of thought (DeStefano & LeFevre,
dard deviations. 2007) or the user might fear new information that challenges in
The second defined level of Internet self-efficacy included orga- place cognitive schemes. The combined threats can make following
nization and differentiation. Organization probably falls closest to hyperlinks a riskier activity. The developed scale suggests
communication and search skills in terms of likelihood of success- organization is actually closer to search and communication than
ful experience because it can involve organizing information that is to differentiation and has a smaller standard deviation, as prior re-
already partially structured by the platforms used in those activi- search, anecdotal information and theoretical speculation would
ties. The Wall and newsfeed on Facebook for instance are already suggest.

Table 5
Convergent validity of the Internet Self-efficacy Scale (ISS).

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
** ** ** ** ** **
1. Reactive/generative self-efficacy – .43 .41 .41 .36 .30 .28 .29**
2. Differentiation self-efficacy – .47** .35** .47** .22** .27** .21**
3. Organization self-efficacy – .41** .50** .24** .37** .23**
4. Communication self-efficacy – .38** .36** .32** .21**
5. Search self-efficacy – .12* .42** .27**
6. Social outcome – .18** .04
7. Personal information outcome – .10
8. Internet anxiety –
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
1428 Y. Kim, M. Glassman / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 1421–1429
The most complex use of the Internet may, to this point, be
development of reactive problem solving and especially generation
of new information – the development of what O’Reilly (2007) has
referred to as collective intelligence online. The possibility of gen-
erative self-efficacy – an individual’s perception that they could
help develop unique information online – was thought to be so
rare that we combined it with reactive self-efficacy – an individ-
ual’s perception that they could directly react to and solve concrete
problems online. Again there were two reasons we believed per-
ception of reactive/generative self-efficacy would be lower than
other Internet based self-efficacy, one more cognitive and one
more contextual. The cognitive reason is reactive/generative activ-
ities involve the conscious projection of individual thinking into a
larger information universe (Glassman & Kang, 2012). This is often
a new and confusing cognitive task when initiated by the individ-
ual. The second more contextual reason is that the types of Web 2.0
tools that enable democratization of collective intelligence for even
casual Internet users have been more recent additions to the Inter-
net, and are only sporadically implemented in even the most ad-
vanced settings (Glassman & Kang, 2011). As expected reactive/
generative showed the lowest scores and highest standard
deviation.
4.3. Future uses of the Internet Self-efficacy Scale (ISS)
An individual’s perception of their own abilities to use the
Internet to accomplish tasks and solve problems will become an
important aspect of everyday life on all levels. While some of
the tasks such as search and communication are relatively
intuitive and can be (and are) aided by advanced, user-friendly
platforms – other arguably more critical capabilities such as
information differentiation and generation can be difficult and
fear-provoking, especially to the uninitiated. There seems to be
two major ways to alleviate these difficulties – the development
of platforms that make the tasks more inviting and/or intuitive
or development of educational and training strategies that provide
experiences which increase individual self-efficacy in these tasks.
In either case it will be important to know if the intervention,
material or educational, did increase the Internet self-efficacy of
the targeted learner.
Because the ISS is primarily experience based it can be used with
all individuals who have achieved at least an eighth grade reading
level to measure the efficacy of specific innovations and educational
processes. There most probably will be differences based on cohort,
life/educational experience and access to Internet portals, but we
believe these differences will be reflected in outcomes and do not
impact the use of the instrument. It would also be important not
to make assumptions based on these differences – for example just
as a 14 year old might have much higher self-efficacy in basketball
than even an athletic 30 year old with access to the best possible
equipment, so might a 14 year old user with limited resources3
have higher Internet self-efficacy than a 30 year old Ph.D. in physics
or engineering. The ISS can also be used to see if there is a cohort com-
ponent to successful use of the Internet. Initial research (Castells
et al., 2004) for example suggests older users are better at searching
because it is part of the job tasks, while younger users are more com-
fortable using the Internet for communication. More important is the
possibility that those who have been using Internet for a longer time
might have differences in self-efficacy, which may in turn translate
into different types of projects and/or focus on different Internet plat-
forms (e.g., Facebook vs. Twitter).
3
For example, we have found anecdotally that homeless youth spend a great deal
of time online using free computers in libraries. For some it may even be their
primary form of connection with social system nodes looking to help them.
4.4. Limitations
The primary limitation to the ISS is the same phenomena that
spurred its development; the Internet is an extraordinarily fast
moving technology and the ISS may become outdated in ways
we cannot yet comprehend. It is doubtful in 2000 or 2003 that
researchers could have foreseen the advent of Facebook, the grow-
ing domination of Google, or the development of Internet plat-
forms as easily created/accessible communities. For example the
creation of the Semantic Web (Berners-Lee, 2006) may cause us
to rethink once again the types of goal oriented tasks and social
experiences possible through the Internet.
Some other cautions should be noted in generalizing the current
findings.
Also, due to the nature of the convenience sampling method
used in this study, some background information of the sample
was unevenly distributed, especially for gender and major. Given
that gender and major of the participants may affect the level of
Internet self-efficacy, we tested the group differences in the levels
of internet self-efficacy. With regard to gender, a significant differ-
ence was found only one subscale, reactive/generative, with fe-
males showing higher levels of self-efficacy compared to males
(4.62 vs. 4.11, t (347) = 2.45). However, with regard to major,
no difference was found in all subscales across three groups (Arts,
humanities and social science vs. engineering and natural science
vs. undecided).
5. Conclusion
The Internet Self-efficacy Scale (ISS) outlined in this paper offers
a reliable, valid measurement of individual perceptions of capabil-
ities in using the Internet for a variety of tasks. These measure-
ments will become more important as the Internet continues to
impact, and in some way alter, our lives and the ways in which
we solve problems.
Appendix A. Item content of the study measures
A.1. Deleted items of the ISS
3. I can be successful using the Google search engine, or some
other search engine, to find the information that I need.
10. I can distinguish good information from bad information
when I am surfing the Internet.
11. I can have an impact on the world by being active on the
Internet.
12. I can choose and follow hyperlinks to important and rele-
vant data.
16. I can use the Internet effectively and efficiently any time
that I want.
22. I can use blogging as an effective way of connecting with
others.
24. I can work effectively with others online.
25. I can work effectively with others offline.
A.2. Internet outcome expectancy scale
Find companionship.
Meet new friends.
Maintain relationships.
Get in touch with people I know.
Meet someone in person whom I met on the Internet.
Find current information like time, weather, stock prices and
sports scores.
Get information about products and services.
 Y. Kim, M. Glassman / Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013) 1421–1429
Get immediate knowledge of big news events.
Get information I can trust.
Find information that is new to me.
Encounter controversial information.
Find information to complete a course assignment.
A.3. Internet anxiety scale
I feel calm when I need to find new information on my own.
I feel secure about sharing my thoughts with others.
I feel tense when I think about blogging being a course
requirement.
I feel strained having to write online every week.
I feel at ease writing what I think for other people to read.
I feel upset when other people comment on my work.
I feel satisfied when I have said something I really wanted to say
in a blog post.
I feel frightened when I think people I do not know will read my
work.
I feel uncomfortable with public discussion of ideas.
I feel self-confident that people will like what I write online.
I feel nervous that people will not like what I write online.
I feel jittery that people will judge me because of what I write
online.
I feel content with my ability to seek out information on the
web.
I feel indecisive when I am thinking about making one of my
ideas public.
I am relaxed when I am reading other people’s blog posts.
I am worried when I am reading other people’s comments on
what I wrote.
I am confused when I am asked to write a blog post on a subject.
I am presently worrying over possible misfortunes.
I feel steady when I hit the ‘‘post/submit’’ button.
I feel pleasant when my blog posts are recognized in the class.
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191–214.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American
Psychologist, 37, 122–147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1990). Perceived self-efficacy in the exercise of control over AIDs
infection. Evaluation and Program Planning, 13, 9–17.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T.
Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Greenwich,
Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.
Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets
and Freedom. <http://sisudoc.org/sisu/the_wealth_of_networks.yochai_benkler/
landscape.a5.pdf>. Accessed 10.03.12.
1429
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural modeling. Psychological
Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in
analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606.
Berners-Lee, T. (2006, July 27). Linked data. <http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/
LinkedData.html>.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative says of assessing model fit. In K. A.
Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162).
Newbury Park, California: Sage.
Byrne, B. M. (1989). A primer of LISREL: Basic applications and programming for
confirmatory factor analytic models. NY: Springer-Verlag.
Castells, M. (2007). Communication, power and counter-power in the Network
society. International Journal of Communication, 1, 238–266.
Castells, M., Tubella, I., Sancho, T., Diaz ed Isla, M., & Wellman, B. (2004). Social
structure, personal identity, and personal autonomy in the practice of the
Internet: The network society in Catalonia. In M. Castells (Ed.), The network
society: A cross-cultural perspective. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Compeau, D., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a
measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189–211.
DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J. (2007). Context load in hypertext reading: A review.
Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1616–1641.
Eastin, M., & LaRose, R. (2000). Internet self-efficacy and the psychology of the
digital divide. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 6(1). <http://
www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue1/esatin.html>. Retrieved June, 2008
Glassman, M. (2012). An Era of Webs: Technique, Technology and the new cognitive
(r)evolution. New Ideas in Psychology, 30, 308–318.
Glassman, M., & Kang, M. (2012). Intelligence in the Internet age: The emergence
and evolution of Open Source Intelligence (OSINT). Computers in Human
Behavior, 28(2), 673–682.
Glassman, M., & Kang, M. (2011). The logic of wikis: The possibilities of the Web 2.0
classroom. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6,
93–112.
Glassman, M., & Kang, M. J. (2010). Pragmatism, connectionism and the internet: A
mind’s new storm. Computers in Human Behavior, 6, 1412–1418.
Kim, J., & Mueller, C. W. (1978). Factor analysis: Statistical methods and practical
issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principals and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.).
New York: Guilford.
Levinson, P. (1999). Digital McLuhan: A guide to the information millennium. London:
Routledge. 1999.
Miltiadou, M., & Yu, C. H. (2000). Validation of the Online Technologies Self-Efficacy
Scale (OTSES). <http://www.creative-wisdom.com/pub/efficacy.pdf> Retrieved
June, 2008.
Olivarez-Giles, N. (2011). Facebook growth slowing, study says. Los Angeles Times.
(June 14, 2011). <http://www.articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/14/business/la-fi-
facebook-20110614>. Accessed 10.03.12.
O’Reilly, T. (2007). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the
next generation of software. Communication Strategies, 1, 17–37.
Spielberger, C. D., Vagg, P. R., Barker, L. R., Donham, G. W., & Westberry, L. G. (1980).
Factor structure of the state–Trait anxiety inventory. In I. G. Sarason & C. D.
Spielberger (Eds.). Stress and anxiety (Vol. 7, pp. 95–109). Washington, DC:
Hemisphere.
Torkzadeh, G., & Van Dyke, T. (2001). Development and validation of an Internet
self-efficacy scale. Behavior and Information Technology, 20, 275–280.
Tsai, M., & Tsai, C. (2003). Information searching strategies in web based learning:
the role of Internet self-efficacy. Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, 40, 45–50.
Yi, M., & Hwang, Y. (2003). Predicting the use of web-based information systems:
Self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology
acceptance model. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 59,
431–449.