Bridging the Digital Divide: How Digital Competence Shapes Elderly Women’s Quality of Life

Öz

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between women 60 years of age and older's digital literacy levels and their quality of life, as well as the variables that affect this relationship. 200 women who were living in Ankara's Çankaya and Sincan districts and took part in programs offered by Public Education Centers participated in the study. The relationship between digital literacy, quality of life, and different demographic characteristics was examined using a correlational research design based on quantitative data. The results show that women in Çankaya are generally more digitally literate. Significant correlations between digital literacy levels and demographic characteristics like age, income, occupation, marital status, education level, and district of residence were also found. Age, income, marital status, and district of residence did not significantly affect quality of life. Yet, a small but encouraging link was found between quality of life and education level. In addition, it was discovered that quality of life was significantly affected by employment position. Overall, the study found a small negative correlation between digital literacy and quality of life, indicating that although the relationship is minor, quality of life could fall as digital literacy rises.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Digital Literacy
• Adult Education
• Lifelong Learning
• Quality of Life
• Elderly women

Destekleyen Kurum

Ankara University

Proje Numarası

1

Etik Beyan

ANKARA UNIVERSITY SUB-ETHICS COMMITTEE DECISION SAMPLE Decision Date: 17/07/2023 Meeting Number: 16 Decision Number: 164 164- The "Non-Clinical Research on Human Subjects Application Form" dated 16/05/2023 regarding the thesis titled "The Relationship Between Digital Literacy Levels and Quality of Life of Women Aged 60 and Over" submitted by Esen Nur GÜNERHAN, a master's student supervised by Prof. Dr. Hayat BOZ, a faculty member at our University's Faculty of Educational Sciences, has been reviewed by our Ethics Committee. It was unanimously decided that the research protocol related to the thesis titled “The Relationship Between Digital Literacy Levels and Quality of Life of Women Aged 60 and Over”, conducted by Esen Nur GÜNERHAN under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Hayat BOZ, a faculty member at the Faculty of Educational Sciences of our University, is ethically appropriate on the condition that the research protocol is followed and that the approval is valid as of the ethics approval date.

Dijital Uçurumu Kapatmak: Dijital Yeterlilik Yaşlı Kadınların Yaşam Kalitesini Nasıl Şekillendiriyor?

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, 60 yaş ve üzeri kadınların dijital okuryazarlık düzeyleri ile yaşam kaliteleri arasındaki ilişkiyi ve bu ilişkiyi etkileyen değişkenleri incelemektir. Ankara’nın Çankaya ve Sincan ilçelerinde yaşayan ve Halk Eğitim Merkezleri tarafından sunulan programlara katılan 200 kadın araştırmaya dahil edilmiştir.Dijital okuryazarlık, yaşam kalitesi ve çeşitli demografik özellikler arasındaki ilişki, nicel verilere dayalı ilişkisel tarama modeli kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir.Bulgular, Çankaya ilçesinde yaşayan kadınların genel olarak daha yüksek dijital okuryazarlığa sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Ayrıca dijital okuryazarlık düzeyleri ile yaş, gelir, meslek, medeni durum, eğitim seviyesi ve ikamet edilen ilçe gibi demografik özellikler arasında anlamlı ilişkiler bulunmuştur.Yaş, gelir, medeni durum ve ikamet edilen ilçe değişkenlerinin yaşam kalitesi üzerinde anlamlı bir etkisi olmadığı belirlenmiştir. Ancak eğitim seviyesi ile yaşam kalitesi arasında düşük fakat olumlu bir ilişki tespit edilmiştir. Bunun yanında, istihdam durumunun yaşam kalitesini anlamlı düzeyde etkilediği görülmüştür.Genel olarak, çalışma dijital okuryazarlık ile yaşam kalitesi arasında küçük düzeyde negatif bir korelasyon olduğunu ortaya koymuştur; bu da ilişkinin zayıf olmasına rağmen, dijital okuryazarlık arttıkça yaşam kalitesinin bir miktar düşebileceğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dijital Okuryazarlık
• Yetişkin Eğitimi
• Yaşam Boyu Öğrenme
• Yaşam Kalitesi
• Yaşlı Kadınlar

Destekleyen Kurum

ANKARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ

Proje Numarası

1

Etik Beyan

ANKARA UNIVERSITESI ALT ETIK KURULU KARAR ÖRNEGI Karar Tarihi: : 17/07/2023 Toplanti Sayisi: : 16 Karar Sayisi: : 164 164- Universitemiz Egitim Bilimleri Fakültesi, Ogr. Uyesi Prof. Dr. Hayat B02'un danismanligini yaptigi, yüksek lisans ogrencisi Esen Nur GÜNERHAN'In "60 Yas ve Üstü Kadinlarin Dijital Okuryazarlik Düzeyleri ve Yaşam Kaliteleri Arasindaki İliski" başlıklı teziniz ile ilgili 16/05/2023 tarihli "İnsan Üzerinde Yapilan Klinik Dışı Araştirmalar Basvuru Formu" Etik Kurulumuzca incelendi. Universitemiz Egitim Bilimleri Fakültesi, Ögr. Oyesi Prof. Dr. Hayat BOZ'un danismanligini yaptigi, yüksek lisans ogrencisi Esen Nur GÜNERHAN'in 60 Yas ve Üstü Kadinlarin Dijital Okuryazarlik Düzeyleri ve Yasam Kaliteleri Arasindaki İlişki başlikli teziniz ile ilgili araştırma protokolüne uyulması ve etik onay tarihinden itibaren geçerli olması koşuluyla uygulanmasının etik açıdan uygun olduğuna oy birliği ile karar verildi.

Kaynakça

1. Aleti, T. (2024). Digital inclusion in later life: Older adults’ socialisation agents. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 30(2), 156–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/14413582231187652
2. Bilgili, N., & Arpacı, F. (2014). Quality of life of older adults in Turkey. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 59(2), 415–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2014.04.010
3. Blane, D., Higgs, P., Hyde, M., & Wiggins, R. D. (2004). Life course influences on quality of life in early old age. Social Science & Medicine, 58(11), 2171–2179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.08.028
4. Chung, J. E., Park, N., Wang, H., Fulk, J., & McLaughlin, M. (2010). Age differences in perceptions of online community participation among non-users: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1674–1684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.016
5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539
7. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
8. EPALE Türkiye. (2023). Halk eğitim merkezlerinde dijital okuryazarlığı artırmak için neler yapılabilir? https://epale.ec.europa.eu/tr/blog/halk-egitim-merkezlerinde-dijital-okuryazarligi-artirmak-icin-neler-yapilabilir.

9. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2019). How to design and evaluate research in education (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
10. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference (10th ed.). Pearson.
11. Gruben, M., Sheil, A., Das, S., O’Keeffe, M., Camilleri, J., Cronin, M., & Murray, H. (2025). It's like not being able to read and write: Narrowing the digital divide for older adults and leveraging the role of digital educators in Ireland. Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3689050.3704945
12. Gutacker, N., Kinge, J. M., & Olsen, J. A. (2023). Inequality in quality-adjusted life expectancy by educational attainment in Norway: An observational study. BMC Public Health, 23(1), Article 100. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-14984-y
13. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
14. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 Hamutoğlu, N. B., Canan-Güngören, Ö., Kaya-Uyanık, G., ve Gür-Erdoğan, D. (2017). Dijital Okuryazarlık Ölçeği: Türkçe’ye Uyarlama Çalışması. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 18(1), 408-429. https://doi.org/10.12984/egeefd.295306
15. Hunsaker, A., Hargittai, E., & Piper, A. M. (2020). Online engagement among older adults: Trends, benefits, and challenges. Computers in Human Behavior, 110, Article 106377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106377
16. Hyde, M., Wiggins, R. D., Higgs, P., & Blane, D. B. (2003). A measure of quality of life in early old age: The theory, development and properties of a needs satisfaction model (CASP-19). Aging & Mental Health, 7(3), 186–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360786031000101157
17. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
18. Lee, S. (2024). Internet use and well-being of older adults before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: Findings from European Social Survey. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 67(2), 178–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2023.2217682
19. Lee, H., Lim, J.-A., & Nam, H.-K. (2022). Effect of a digital literacy program on older adults’ digital social behavior: A quasi-experimental study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(19), 12404. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912404
20. Liu, S., Lu, Y., Wang, D., He, X., Ren, W., Kong, D., & Luo, Y. (2023). Impact of digital health literacy on health-related quality of life in Chinese community-dwelling older adults: The mediating effect of health-promoting lifestyle. Frontiers in Public Health, 11, Article 1200722. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1200722
21. Lohr, S. L. (2021). Sampling: Design and analysis (3rd ed.). Chapman and Hall/CRC.
22. Martínez-Alcalá, C. I., Rosales-Lagarde, A., & Hernández-Alonso, E. (2021). Digital inclusion in older adults: A review of challenges and opportunities. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 568972. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.568972
23. Miller, L. M. S., Callegari, R. A., Abah, T., & Fann, H. (2024). Digital literacy training for low-income older adults through undergraduate community-engaged learning: Single-group pretest-posttest study. JMIR Aging, 7, Article e51675. https://doi.org/10.2196/51675
24. Ministry of National Education. (2025). Monitoring and evaluation report 2024. Directorate General for Lifelong Learning.
25. Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59(3), 1065–1078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.016
26. Nguyen, M. H., Hunsaker, A., & Nguyen, K. (2022). Digital skills and well-being among older adults: A cross-national study. Computers in Human Behavior, 127, Article 107057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107057
27. Or, C. K. L., & Karsh, B. T. (2009). A systematic review of patient acceptance of consumer health information technology. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 16(4), 550–560. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M2888
28. Phellas, C. N., Bloch, A., & Seale, C. (2011). Structured methods: Interviews, questionnaires, and observation. In C. Seale (Ed.), Researching society and culture (3rd ed., pp. 181–205). Sage.
29. Seifert, A., Cotten, S. R., & Xie, B. (2021). A double burden of exclusion? Digital and social exclusion of older adults in times of COVID-19. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 76(3), e99–e103. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbaa098
30. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
31. Thompson, S. K. (2012). Sampling (3rd ed.). John Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118162934
32. Türkoğlu, N., & Adıbelli, D. (2014). Adaptation of the Quality of Life Scale for Older Adults (CASP-19) to Turkish society. Akademik Geriatri Dergisi, 6(2), 98–105.
33. Van Dijk, J. (2020). The digital divide. Polity Press.
34. Vaportzis, E., Giatsi Clausen, M., & Gow, A. J. (2017). Older adults’ perceptions of technology and barriers to interacting with tablet computers: A focus group study. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1687. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01687
35. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
36. Vercruyssen, A., Schirmer, W., Geerts, N., & Mortelmans, D. (2023). How “basic” is basic digital literacy for older adults? Insights from digital skills instructors. Frontiers in Education, 8, Article 1231701. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1231701
37. Wiggins, R. D., Netuveli, G., Hyde, M., Higgs, P., & Blane, D. B. (2008). The evaluation of a self-enumerated scale of quality of life (CASP-19) in the context of research on ageing. Social Indicators Research, 89(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9220-5
38. World Health Organization. (2023). Global report on ageism 2023. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240016866
39. Xin, Y., Weina, H., & Yan, D. (2025). Digital literacy impacts quality of life among older adults through hierarchical mediating mechanisms. Scientific Reports, 15, 19288. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-04472-9
40. Yang, H., Chen, H., Pan, T., Lin, Y., Zhang, Y., & Chen, H. (2022). Studies on the digital inclusion among older adults and the quality of life—A Nanjing example in China. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, Article 811959. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.811959
41. Yetim, B., & Çelik, Y. (2020). Sağlık hizmetlerine erişim: Karşılanmamış ihtiyaçlar sorunu. Toplum ve Sosyal Hizmet, 31(2), 423–440. https://doi.org/10.33417/tsh.630479