Digital Competence of university students with disabilities and factors that determine it. A descriptive, inferential and multivariate study

Digital competenceDigital Competence of university students with disabilities and factors that determine it. A descriptive, inferential and multivariate study ABSTRACT Taking into account that 15% of the world population suffers from some type of disability, few investigations have been concerned with knowing the level of digital competenceDigital Competence that students with functional diversity have. This research is based on an initial sample of 17,301 newly enrolled university students from the Andrés Bello University (Chile), of which 650 are selected for having some type of disability. Its main objective is to know the level of self-perception in the digital competenceDigital Competence of university students with disabilities and the variables that explain it. To do this, an evaluation instrument consisting of 6 dimensions (technological literacy, information search and processing, critical thinking, problem solving and decision making, communication and collaboration, digital citizenship, and communication and collaboration) is designed and applied. To calculate the validity of the instrument, the partial least squares (PLS) method is applied through structural equation modeling. Next, data is provided regarding the level of Digital CompetenceDigital Competence of the students and if there are differences between the types of disability. Finally, the data is subjected to a logistic regression to estimate the relationship between the dependent variable (digital competenceDigital Competence) and a set of independent variables (sociodemographic variables). The results reveal that the instrument used shows high levels of reliability, which guarantees its use in students with disabilities. Likewise, the average level of digital competenceDigital Competence is medium low. Finally, tThe factors that affect this variable are discussed and the necessary structuring of digital literacy plans is highlighted. Finally, this paper discusses new techniques for diagnosing students' digital skills. KEYWORDS Digital competenceDigital Competence, disability, Higher Education, Educational Technology, Linear Regression 1. Introduction Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) are progressively having a strong impact in favoring inclusive education and the incorporation of people with some type of disability into the knowledge society (Cullen & Alber-Morgan, 2015; CEPAL, 2015; Fernández-Batanero et al., 2018; Ullmann et al., 2018; Cabero-Almenara & Valencia, 2019). The possibilities they offer for these people are diverse: favoring the autonomy of the person (Güldenpfennig et al., 2019), expanding the possibilities of communication with synchronous and asynchronous tools (Light et al., 2019), saving time in the acquisition of skills and abilities and facilitates social and labor insertion (Manzoor & Vimarlund , 2018), as well as fosters rapprochement with the academic and scientific world and favors the reduction of the sense of academic failure (Unesco, 2016). However, in the face of all the possibilities that ICTs offer us and the positive perceptions that teachers have regarding them (Vega-Gea et al., 2021), the reality is that their presence is not as massive as it should be. Among other reasons, due to the training that teacher have for their incorporation into educational practice (Tello & Cascales, 2015; Pegalajar, 2017; Martínez et al., 2018; Cabero-Almenara, et al., 2022; Fernández-Batanero et al., 2022). A lack of training and knowledge regarding the different types of technologies that can be used with people with functional diversity, the possibilities they offer, and the functions for which they can be used (Díaz-Maroto & Martínez, 2015). Perhaps due to the lack of educational policies in their initial and permanent training (Casal-Otero et al., 2021; Rodríguez-Hoyos et al., 2021), although other authors relate it to both lack of financial support (Silva & Austillo, 2012), as well as time and attitude (Fernández et al., 2018). In addition, the incorporation of ICTs into educational practice not only influences the training and digital skills that teachers have, but also the digital skills that students possess (Arnao & Gamonal, 2016). In the latter case, a multitude of investigations have been carried out on the levels of digital skills that students possess, carried out at different educational levels: secondary and high school (Basilotta et al., 2020) and university (Moreno et al., 2018; Marín-Gutiérrez et al., 2019; Flores & Roig, 2019; Humanante-Ramos, et al., 2019; Sánchez-Caballé et al., 2019; Ordóñez et al., 2021). These studies show that students are not as competent as the imaginary of "digital natives and emigrants" has led us to believe (Cabero et al., 2020). However, most of these studies have focused on students without any type of functional diversity. This study is considered important for several reasons. In the first place, because despite the fact that the line of research on digital skills has been developing for decades, today there are very few studies focused especially on students who have some type of functional diversity. Furthermore, Nhlapo et al. (2018) states that 15% of the world population suffers from some type of functional diversity, so it is necessary to focus on this group that has a wide range of cases. A second reason is due to social aspects, where processes of discrimination and social exclusion in students with functional diversity are the order of the day. To counteract this, Aguilera & Cuenca (2022) declare that the use of ICT can help in the access and development of learning environments, new methodologies and teaching strategies, taking into account the heterogeneity of the student body, and betting, therefore, on an inclusive education (Cuartero 2021; Hersh, 2017). Inclusive education as "a permanent process, whose objective is to offer quality education for all, respecting diversity and the different needs and aptitudes, characteristics and learning expectations of students and communities, eliminating all forms of discrimination" (UNESCO, 2009, p.3) Lastly, the identification of factors related to sociodemographic and digital aspects can help to increase the digital literacy of students, thus favoring a possible reduction of their limitations. In addition, some research has implied that digital technologies can both increase the performance of students with functional diversity, specifically with visual diversity (Kamali et al., 2021), as well as improve the participation and communication they carry out within the school community. (Douglas, 2001). An interesting study in this field was carried out by Arslantas & Gul (2022), who explored the digital literacy skills of 60 visually impaired university students from Turkey. The results showed that daily Internet use had a significant positive effect on digital competenceDigital Competence scores, and that there was a negative correlation between digital competenceDigital Competence and age. With similar results, Heiman et al. (2017) examined students' ICT knowledge and accessibility. The sample included 1,272 students from Canada and Israel, where 307 students had been diagnosed with ADHD (attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder) or some learning difficulty. The findings indicated that students without disabilities have better access and use of ICT compared to students with some type of functional diversity, being necessary to increase the knowledge of this type of students to help them with their academic problems. In addition, it was shown that gender was a significant predictor in the use and skills of students, where male students had more positive attitudes about Internet use than females. With similar results in relation to the use of ICT, authors like Okonji et al. (2020) and Ashraf et al. (2016) have revealed that people with visual diversity can perform basic computer skills, such as preparing documents, searching for information on the Internet, as well as sending emails and communicating with friends, the use of ICTs helping the teaching-learning process. Park (2020) analyzed the digital competenceDigital Competence of students with some type of disability, specifically on their use and behavior when using the Internet through Smartphones and laptops. This was carried out with 9,200 students with and without disabilities through a non-stratified sample, from South Korea. The results of this study revealed significantly lower levels among people with disabilities compared to the non-disabled population. What's more, they found that even if they have Internet-enabled devices, they are less likely to engage in activities such as email, social networking, information production, or networking. Along the same lines, Wu et al. (2014) examined whether there was a digital divide between Primary Education students with and without learning disabilities. For this, the authors used 234 students from Taiwan. The results indicated that there was no significant difference in opportunities for access to computers and the Internet at home and at school between children with and without disabilities. However, a significant difference was found in ICT skills between children without and with disabilities, being lower for the latter group. Although the literature shows that students with disabilities have less digital competenceDigital Competence, Adam & Tatnall (2017) showed that ICTs improve the learning attitude of students with learning difficulties and facilitate significant achievement in academic skills and knowledge. In this context, Kwon (2021) analyzed the progression made by students with disabilities in relation to their digital competenceDigital Competence, using a mobile device as technology. They used students with disabilities between the ages of 18 and 21 from Tuscaloosa, Alabama. The main result found was the use of mobile devices improved the academic skills of students with disabilities, as well as potential benefits in inclusive education. Taking into consideration the contribution of this study in relation to what has been previously investigated in the scientific literature, the objectives of this study are the following: • O1. Know the level of the level of self-perception in the dDigital Competence of university students with disabilities. • O2. Know if there are differences regarding the type of disability (hearing, physical, intellectual, mental, visceral and visual) of university students in relation to their level of Digital CompetenceDigital Competence. • O3. Identify academic and demographic variables that significantly explain the development of Digital CompetenceDigital Competence in university students with disabilities. 3. Method 3.1. Design To carry it out, a cross-sectional research design with a descriptive and predictive approach has been proposed that takes into account the participation of the students of the AIEP of the Andrés Bello University of Santiago de Chile (Chile). To respond to the first research objective (O1), the means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the questionnaire items, dimensions and total value are presented. In addition, for the second objective (O2), the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis H contrast test is applied. Finally, to reach the third objective (O3), a logistic regression is performed. According to Peláez (2016), the "Logistic Regression" is a multivariate statistical technique that allows us to estimate the relationship between a dependent variable (digital competenceDigital Competence), and a set of independent variables (sociodemographic variables). This analysis technique is the most appropriate to find out if a set of variables explains the level of the level of self-perception in the digital competenceDigital Competence and has been used in other related research in the field of Educational Technology showing its potential to achieve the objectives proposed in the studies (Cabero-Almenara et al., 2021a, 2021b, 2022). In parallel, it has been verified that the data maintain a distribution different from the normal one. This has been done using kurtosis analysis. Together, the KS test yields a p=.000 value (non-normal distribution). 2.3. Sample It is based on a total sample of close to 20,000 people who answer the questionnaire that is developed in the following section. Data collection was carried out during the first semester of the 2021/22 academic year. After eliminating the atypical and lost cases, the resulting database has 17,301 new students from the AIEP of the Andrés Bello University of Santiago de Chile. Of them, 607 (3.5%) have some type of disability. Therefore, the sample under study is made up of 420 women (69.19%) and 187 men (30.81%) with disabilities and an average age of 27 years (±2.43). In relation to the type of disability, the results are broken down in Table 1. It should be noted that the classification used for the subjects with disabilities was auditory, physical, intellectual, mental, visceral and visual. Being the subjects with physical or motor disabilities, those who present some type of limitation produced as a consequence of the decrease or elimination of motor or physical capacities; the sensory ones, those that present some type of deficiency in the senses of sight or hearing; intellectuals, those who present some limitation of intellectual functioning that makes it difficult for them to participate socially or have a lack of autonomy for work or educational actions; the visceral ones, when the subject presents a deficiency in some internal organ (cardiac, respiratory...); and psychic, which suggests an alteration of behavioral type and adaptive behavior (Albrecht, 2005). Table 1. Type of disability presented by the sample under study Type of disability N Auditory 52 Physical 92 Intellectual 19 psychic 75 Visceral 7 Visual 362 As can be seen, the vast majority (59.64%) have visual disability followed by physical (15.16%) and psychiatric (12.36%). The least common cases are those with visceral disability (1.15%). Table 2 presents some sociodemographic variables related to the level of technological equipment to face the university career of the sample. Table 2. Technological equipment according to the type of disability Equipment Available Auditory Physical Intellectual psychiatric Visceral Visual Desktop computer No 45 81 17 70 7 321 Yes 7 11 2 5 0 41 Netbook No 46 73 14 68 4 330 Yes 6 19 5 7 3 32 Laptop No 13 38 10 27 4 130 Yes 39 54 9 48 3 232 SmartTV No 44 77 16 65 7 322 Yes 8 15 3 10 0 40 Tablet No 49 83 17 70 6 329 Yes 3 9 2 5 1 33 Smartphone No 22 28 7 22 2 129 Yes 30 64 12 53 5 233 Webcam No 38 65 17 56 6 282 Yes 14 27 2 19 1 80 Speakers/headphones No 35 51 14 45 3 256 Yes 17 41 5 30 4 106 Microphone No 38 65 17 54 6 277 Yes 14 27 2 21 1 85 As can be seen, in all cases the technologies available in the institution for students with certain disabilities are rather limited. It is also seen in some cases, such as smartphones and notebooks, which are the ones with the greatest presence, they are possibly resources of the students themselves and that are adapted to their needs and characteristics. 2.4. Instrument To measure the level of self-perception in the digital competenceDigital Competence of university students, a system of dimensions and items was used, supported by the contributions of Gutiérrez-Castillo & Cabero-Almenara (2016), Gutiérrez-Castillo et al. (2017) and Cabero-Almenara et al. (2020) Note that the questionnaire was adapted to the Chilean cultural and linguistic context. The questionnaire has 30 items divided into the following 6 dimensions: • Technological Literacy (D.A) with 6 items: implies the ability to use, manage, evaluate and understand technology in an educational setting (Rush & Renguette , 2017). • Search and treatment of information (D.B) with 5 items: includes the ability to search for information from digital sources and evaluate its usefulness, relevance and reliability of information, as well as manage digital information (van Laar et al., 2020, 2019) . • Critical thinking, problem solving and decision making (D.C) with 3 items: it involves learning to reflect critically and adequately contextualize technologies that have enormous implications at the educational, domestic and work levels (Pötzsch , 2019). • Communication and collaboration (D.D) with 5 items: involves the use of digital resources to plan, organize and carry out learning processes with peers, as well as being able to communicate the learning acquired (Midtlund et al., 2021; Casillas-Martin , et al., 2022). • Digital Citizenship (D.E) with 5 items: implies the ethical, safe and responsible use of Internet technologies (Mattson, 2017). • Creativity and innovation (D.F) with 6 items: it implies continuing with social progress and the formation of new knowledge, where innovation in the classroom with educational technology can be a significant factor (Henriksen et al., 2018; Genlott et al., 2019). The measurement scale was ordinal (Likert scale of 10 points) where the value 1 referred to "very low level of competence", while the value 10 referred to "very high level of competence". The questionnaire was administered via the Internet and in some cases the students needed the help of the administrators for its correct interpretation and completion. Additionally, the instrument incorporates questions referring to different sociodemographic variables such as gender, age, if he/she has ever repeated a course, degree of preparation to face the university career, maximum academic level of the father and maximum academic level of the mother. The instrument has been subjected to rigorous reliability and validation processes that confirmed its reliability (Alpha and Omega) and validity (PLS) according to the study by Cabero-Almenara et al. (2022). First, Convergent Validity (Mean Variance Extracted-AVE) and Discriminant Validity (Fornell-Larcker) data are provided (Table 3). As can be seen, the values yield excellent results in terms of convergent and discriminant validity. In the case of the AVE, all dimensions have a value greater than .5. This implies a high level of validity according to the specialized literature (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). Table 3. Discriminant and convergent validity D.A. D.B. D.C. D.D. D.E. D.F. Discriminant validity D.A. Technological literacy 0.7843 D.B. Search and processing of information 0.7476 0.8574 D.C. Critical thinking, problem solving and decision making 0.5956 0.7220 0.8994 D.D. Communication and collaboration 0.6816 0.7422 0.6935 0.8392 D.E. Digital citizenship 0.5520 0.6497 0.6804 0.6532 0.8956 D.F. Creativity and innovation 0.6173 0.7075 0.7390 0.7372 0.8084 0.8934 Convergent validity 0.6151 0.7351 0.8090 0.7043 0.8020 0.7981 The structural equation model was made with the Smart PLS software. In addition, the reliability of the selected items is examined through Cronbach's Alpha (α=.974) and McDonald's Omega coefficient (Ω=.982), for each of the instrument's scales. Both coefficients obtain very satisfactory values (O'Dwyer & Bernauer, 2014; Lisawadi et al., 2019; Vaske et al., 2017). Furthermore, the reliability for each dimension of the instrument, as well as its total, is presented in Table 4. The results corroborate high reliability indices. Table 4. Dimension reliability Alpha D.A. Technological literacy 0.8750 D.B. Search and processing of information 0.9089 D.C. Critical thinking, problem solving and decision making 0.8807 D.D. Communication and collaboration 0.8945 D.E. Digital citizenship 0.9379 D.F. Creativity and innovation 0.9482 Finally, the general predictive power of the model is evaluated through various coefficients. Hu and Bentler (1999) determined that the SRMR (normalized residual root mean square) coefficient should be less than 0.08, on the scale it is 0.049. Lohmöller (1989) states that the NFI coefficient (Normed fit Index) must be greater than or equal to 0.90, and in our case it is 0.903. Therefore, the model is fully validated. 3. Results The results are presented according to the proposed research objectives: The first section aims to know the level self-perception in the Digital Competence of university students with disabilities; the second section deals with knowing if there are differences regarding the type of disability (hearing, physical, intellectual, mental, visceral and visual) of university students in relation to their level of Digital Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Tabla con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Tabla con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Con formato ... Competence; finally, the last section identifies academic and demographic variables that significantly explain the development of Digital Competence in university students with disabilities. 3.1. Level of Digital Competence of university students with disabilities (O1) Regarding the first research objective (O1), the means and standard deviations achieved in each of the items, as well as in the different dimensions analyzed of the instrument and the total level of Digital CompetenceDigital Competence are presented in Table 53. Table 53. Mean and standard deviation of the level of digital competenceDigital Competence of university students with disabilities M SD D.A. Technological literacy 8.35 1.56 A1. I am able to use different mobile devices (Smartphone, Tablet, IPad, others). 8.64 1.91 A2. I am able to surf the Internet with different browsers (Google Chrome, Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, others). 8.87 1.79 A3. I can communicate with other people using synchronous communication tools (in real time) via the Web (Chat, WhatsApp, Zoom, Meet , Skype, others). 9.01 1.64 A4. I am able to communicate with other people using asynchronous communication tools (in deferred time) via the Web (forums, social networks, distribution lists, tweets, others). 8.01 2.34 TO A5. I effectively use the virtual classroom used in my Institute (Blackboard) as support for teleclassroom and online teaching. 7.98 2.26 A6. I feel competent to use the virtual services (virtual SAE, Library services, student Intranet, others) of my Institute. 7.61 2.31 D.B. Search and processing of information 7.66 1.90 B1. I am able to locate information through different sources and databases available on the internet. 8.35 2.03 B2. Relevant information will be identified by evaluating different sources and their origin. 7.75 2.22 B3. I am able to organize, analyze and ethically use information from a variety of sources and media. 7.77 2.18 B4. I synthesize the appropriately selected information for the construction and assimilation of new content, through tables, graphs or diagrams. 6.89 2.53 B5. I plan information searches to solve problems that arise. 7.57 2.31 D.C. Critical thinking, problem solving and decision making 6.54 2.41 C1. I am able to identify and define problems and/or research questions using ICT. 6.25 2.86 C2. I use digital resources and tools to explore current world issues and solve real problems, attending to personal, social, and/or professional needs. 7.41 2.42 C3. The capabilities and limitations of ICT resources will be analyzed. 5.96 2.81 D.D. Communication and collaboration 7.28 2.14 D1. I share information of interest with my colleagues using a variety of platforms and digital media. 7.21 2.61 D2. I effectively communicate information and ideas to multiple audiences, using a variety of media and formats. 6.88 2.58 D3. I am able to develop cultural understanding and global awareness through communication with other students and professionals from other cultures. 7.21 2.47 D4. I am able to coordinate group activities using the tools and means of the Internet. 7.47 2.47 D5. I interact with other colleagues and users using social networks (Facebook, Twitter, others...) and communication channels (Blog, YouTube channel , others...) based on ICT. 7.63 2.65 D.E. Digital citizenship 7.13 2.39 E1. I assume an ethical commitment in the use of digital information and ICT, including respect for copyright, intellectual property and the proper reference of sources. 7.16 2.74 E2. I promote and practice the safe, legal and responsible use of information and ICT. 7.18 2.68 E3. I demonstrate personal responsibility for lifelong learning using ICT. 7.24 2.64 E4. I consider myself competent to make constructive criticism, judging and making contributions to the ICT work developed by my colleagues. 6.86 2.71 Con formato: Fuente: Cursiva Con formato: Fuente: Cursiva Tabla con formato Con formato: Fuente: Negrita Tabla con formato Con formato: Fuente: Negrita Tabla con formato Con formato: Fuente: Negrita Tabla con formato Con formato: Fuente: Negrita Tabla con formato Con formato: Fuente: Negrita E5. I exhibit a positive attitude towards the use of ICT to support collaboration, learning and productivity. 7.23 2.60 D.F. Creativity and innovation 6.84 2.35 F1. I have the ability to conceive original, novel and useful ideas using ICT. 6.82 2.63 F2. I am able to create original works using traditional and emerging ICT resources. 6.87 2.68 F3. I identify new trends visualizing the possibilities of use that ICTs offer me. 6.63 2.65 F4. I use models and simulations to explore complex systems and issues using ICT. 6.19 2.79 F5. I develop jobs where I use ICT in a creative way, to support the construction of my knowledge. 6.67 2.74 F6. I am able to adapt to new situations and technological environments. 7.86 2.37 Total Digital CompetenceDigital Competence 7.30 1.83 First of all, it should be noted that the average score achieved by the students in the instrument as a whole can be considered truly acceptable, with an average score of 7.30 out of 10. With regard to the means achieved in the different dimensions that made up the instrument, ordered from lowest to highest, the relationship obtained was as follows: • Critical thinking, problem solving and decision making (6.54). • Creativity and innovation (6.84). • Digital citizenship (7.13). • Communication and collaboration (7.28). • Information search and treatment (7.66). • Technological literacy (8.35). As regards the items, it should be noted that between the item with the lowest score and the one with the maximum there is a difference in the means of 4.05 points. On the other hand, that in the standard deviations, except in two items, in the rest the scores exceed two points, thus indicating the strong dispersion. The five items with the lowest score were: • C3. The capabilities and limitations of ICT resources will be analyzed (5.96). • F4. I use models and simulations to explore complex systems and issues using ICT (6.19). • C1. I am able to identify and define problems and/or research questions using ICT (6.25). • F3. I identify new trends visualizing the possibilities of use that ICTs offer me (6.63). • F5. I develop jobs where I use ICT creatively, to support the construction of my knowledge (6.67). As can be seen, the vast majority of the items were in the "Creativity and innovation" dimension. The five items with the highest score were: • A4. I am able to communicate with other people using asynchronous communication tools (in deferred time) via the Web (forums, social networks, distribution lists, tweets, others) (8.01). • B1. I am able to locate information through different sources and databases available on the internet (8.35). • A1. I am able to use different mobile devices (Smartphone, Tablet, IPad, others) (8.64). • A2. I am able to browse the Internet with different browsers (Google Chrome, Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, others) (8.87). Tabla con formato Con formato: Fuente: Negrita Tabla con formato Con formato: Justificado Con formato: Fuente: Negrita • A3. I can communicate with other people using synchronous communication tools (in real time) via the Web (Chat, WhatsApp, Zoom, Meet , Skype, others) (9.01). In this case, the vast majority belonged to the "Technological Literacy" dimension. The students considered themselves to have less digital skills for "Critical thinking, problem solving and decision making" and if they considered themselves to have very adequate levels of training in terms of "technological literacy" for ICT management. Remember that this last dimension involved the ability to use, manage, evaluate and understand technology in an educational setting. It should be noted that the size of the standard deviations found suggested a strong disparity between the data offered by the different students. To complement the above information, a description is made by dimensions and total grouped by type of disability. The results can be seen in Table 64. Table 64. Mean and standard deviation of the level of digital competenceDigital Competence of university students by type of disability Auditory Physical Intellectual Psychic Visceral Visual M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD D.A 8.26 1.59 8.39 1.47 7.96 2.51 8.62 1.34 7.17 2.79 8.35 1.53 D.B 7.49 1.90 7.53 2.11 6.58 2.63 7.93 1.86 6.57 2.35 7.75 1.78 D.C 6.79 2.24 6.25 2.36 5.18 3.14 6.79 2.46 6.05 3.00 6.61 2.36 D.D 7.31 1.83 7.17 2.18 6.77 2.91 7.36 2.33 6.14 3.10 7.34 2.06 D.C 7.59 2.07 7.18 2.38 5.60 2.95 7.22 2.54 7.34 2.16 7.12 2.36 D.E 7.12 2.15 6.69 2.51 5.58 2.86 6.68 2.48 6.52 2.97 6.94 2.25 Total 7.43 1.75 7.20 1.88 6.28 2.57 7.43 1.81 6.63 2.50 7.35 1.76 Note: D.A Technological literacy; D.B Search and processing of information; D.C Critical thinking, problem solving and decision-making; D.D Communication and collaboration; D.E Digital Citizenship; D.F Creativity and innovation. It should be noted that the greatest domains of digital skills were found in subjects with hearing and mental disabilities (7.43), followed at a very short distance by subjects with visual impairments (7.35). By dimensions, the highest and lowest mean scores were found in the case of "Technological Literacy" in the mentally disabled (8.62) and visceral (7.17); in the dimension referring to the "Search and treatment of information", in the psychic (7.93) and intellectual (6.58) and psychic (6.57); in the dimension of "Critical thinking, problem solving and decision making", psychic and auditory (6.79) and intellectual 5.18); regarding “Communication and collaboration”, psychic (7.36) and visceral (6.14); in the one focused on "Digital Citizenship", auditory (7.59) and intellectual (5.60); and finally in the one concerning "Creativity and innovation", auditory (7.12) and intellectual (5.58). 3.2. Differences regarding the type of disability (O2) After that and, to respond to the second objective (O2), we proceed to analyze the possible differences in the level of Digital CompetenceDigital Competence by type of disability. For this, the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis H contrast test is used. The results are presented in Table 75. Table 7.5 Kruskal-Wallis H contrast test by type of disability with respect to the level of total Digital CompetenceDigital Competence D.A D.B D.C D.D D.E D.F Total DC Kruskal–Wallis H 2,889 6,949 7,438 1960 7,033 5,406 4,647 df 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Asymptotic sig. .717 .224 .190 .855 .218 .368 .460 Note: D.A Technological literacy; D.B Search and processing of information; D.C Critical thinking, problem solving and decision-making; D.D Communication and collaboration; D.E Digital Citizenship; D.F Creativity and innovation. Con formato: Espacio Después: 0 pto, No ajustar espacio entre texto latino y asiático, No ajustar espacio entre texto asiático y números Con formato: Fuente: Cursiva Mateos-Sanchez, M., Melo, AC, Blanco, LS, & García, AMF (2022). Chatbot, as Educational and Inclusive Tool for People with Intellectual Disabilities. Sustainability, 14(3), 1520. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14031520 Mattson, K. (2017). Digital citizenship in action: empowering students to engage in online communities. International Society for Technology in Education. McClain-Nhlapo, Ch., Sivonen, L., Raja, D., Palummo, M., & Acul, E. (2018). Disability inclusion and accountability framework. World Bank Publications Medina-García, M., Higueras-Rodríguez, L., García-Vita, M. del M., & Doña-Toledo, L. (2021). TIC, Discapacidad y Motivación: Validación de una Escala de Medición y Modelo de Consecuencias para el Conocimiento Digital Inclusivo. Revista Internacional de Investigación Ambiental y Salud Pública , 18(13), 6770. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136770 Midtlund, A., Instefjord, E. J., & Lazareva, A. (2021). Digital communication and collaboration in lower secondary school. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 16(02), 65-76. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1891- 943x-2021-02-03 Moreno, M.D. Gabarda, V., & Rodríguez, A.M. (2018). Alfabetización informacional y competencia digital en estudiantes de magisterio. Profesorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación de Profesorado, 22(3), 253- 270. https://doi.org/10.30827/profesorado.v22i3.8001 O’Dwyer, L., & Bernauer, J. (2014). Quantitative Research for the Qualitative Researcher. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335674 Okonji, P. E., Okiki, O. C., & Ogwezzy, D. (2020). Perceived importance and difficulty of online activities among visually impaired persons in Nigeria. Assistive Technology, 32(1), 16-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2018.1457574 Ordóñez, E., Vázquez-Cano, E., Arias-Sánchez, S., & López-Meneses, E. (2021). Las Competencias en el uso de las Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación en el alumnado universitario. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 60, 153-167. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.74860 Park, E. Y. (2020). Digital Competence and internet use/behavior of persons with disabilities in PC and smart device use. Universal Access in the Information Society, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-020- 00782-z Pegalajar, M.C. (2017). El futuro docente ante el uso de las TIC para la educación inclusiva. Digital Education Review, 31, 131-148. Peláez, I. M. (2016). Modelos de regresión: lineal simple y regresión logística. Revista Seden, 14, 195-214. Pötzsch, H. (2019). Critical digital literacy: Technology in education beyond issues of user competence and labour-market qualifications. Triple C: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 17(2), 221-240. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v17i2.1093 Rodríguez-Hoyos, C., Fueyo Gutiérrez, A., & Hevia Artime. I. (2021). Competencias digitales del profesorado para innovar en la docencia universitaria. Analizando el uso de los dispositivos móviles [The digital skills of teachers for innovating in university teaching]. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 61, 71-97. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.86305 Rush Hovde, M., & Renguette, C. C. (2017). Technological literacy: A framework for teaching technical communication software tools. Technical Communication Quarterly, 26(4), 395-411. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2017.1385998 Código de campo cambiado Código de campo cambiado Código de campo cambiado Con formato: Fuente: Cursiva Código de campo cambiado Código de campo cambiado Sánchez-Caballé, A., Gisbert-Cervera, M., & Esteve-Mon, F. (2019). La competencia digital de los estudiantes universitarios de primer curso de grado. Innoeduca. International Journal of Technology and Educational Innovation, 5(2), 104-113, https://doi.org/10.24310/innoeduca.2019.v5i2.5598 Silva J. E., y Austillo, A. (2012). Inserción de TIC en la formación inicial docente. Barreras y oportunidades. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 58(4), 1-11. Tello, I. & Cascales, A. (2015). Las TIC y las necesidades específicas de apoyo educativo: análisis de las competencias TIC en los docentes. RIED. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 18(2), 353- 383. Ullmann, H., Jones, F., Crane, R. & Williams, D. (2018). Information and communications technologies for the inclusion and empowerment of persons with disabilities in Latin America and the Caribbean. CEPAL. Unesco (2016). Tecnologías digitales al servicio de la calidad educativa. Unesco. UNESCO. (2009). Conferencia internacional de educación 48ª reunión: La educación inclusiva: Un camino hacia el futuro. París: UNESCO van Laar, E., van Deursen, A. J., van Dijk, J. A., & de Haan, J. (2019). Determinants of 21st-century digital skills: A large-scale survey among working professionals. Computers in human behavior, 100, 93-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.06.017 van Laar, E., van Deursen, A. J., van Dijk, J. A., de Haan, J. (2020). Determinants of 21st-century skills and 21st-century digital skills for workers: A systematic literature review. Sage Open, 10(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019900176 Vaske, J., Beaman, J. & Sponarski, C. (2017). Rethinking internal consistency in cronbach’s alpha. Leisure Sciences, 39(2), 163-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2015.1127189 Vega-Gea, E., Calmaestra, J., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2021). Percepción docente del uso de TIC en la Educación Inclusiva: [Teacher perception on the use of ICT in inclusive Education]. Pixel-Bit. Revista De Medios Y Educación, 62, 235–268. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.90323 Wu, T. F., Chen, M. C., Yeh, Y. M., Wang, H. P., & Chang, S. C. H. (2014). Is digital divide an issue for students with learning disabilities? Computers in human behavior, 39, 112-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.06.024 Adam, T., & Tatnall, A. (2017). The value of using ICT in the education of school students with learning difficulties. Education and Information Technologies, 22(6), 2711-2726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639- 017-9605-2 Aguilera, F. J. G., & Cuenca, D. A. (2022). Las TIC como estrategia de inclusión social. Análisis de un itinerario de segunda oportunidad educativa. Innoeduca. International Journal of Technology and Educational Innovation, 8(1), 121-134. https://doi.org/10.24310/innoeduca.2022.v8i1.11467 Albrecht, G.L. (ed.) (2005). Encyclopedia of disability. SAGE Publications. Arnao Vásquez, M. O., & Gamonal Torres, C. E. (2016). Lectura y escritura con recursos TICs en Educación Superior: evaluación de la competencia digital. Innoeduca. International Journal of Technology and Educational Innovation, 2(1), 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.20548/innoeduca.2016.v2i1.1046 Arslantas, T. K., & Gul, A. (2022). Digital literacy skills of university students with visual impairment: A mixed-methods analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639- 021-10860-1 Con formato: Portugués (Brasil) Con formato: Inglés (Estados Unidos) Código de campo cambiado Con formato: Fuente: Cursiva Código de campo cambiado Código de campo cambiado Ashraf, M. M., Hasan, N., Lewis, L., Hasan, M. R., & Ray, P. (2016). A systematic literature review of the application of information communication technology for visually impaired people. International Journal of Disability Management, 11(6), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/idm.2016.6 Baek, S., Lee, S.. & Lee, S.Y. (2022). Asociación del nivel de utilización de las TIC y la satisfacción con la vida de las personas con discapacidades: Centrarse en las diferencias en el tipo de discapacidad. Revisión de políticas y trabajo social asiático, 16, 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/aswp.12256 Basilotta, V., García-Valcárcel, A., Casillas, S. & Cabezas, M. (2020). Evaluación de competencias informacionales en escolares y estudio de algunas variables influyentes. Revista Complutense de Educación, 31(4) 2020. 517-528. https://doi.org/10.5209/rced.65835 Cabero, J., Barroso, J. & Martínez, S. (2020). Estudiantes: ¿nativos digitales o residentes y visitantes digitales? Opción, 36, 796-830. Cabero-Almenara, J. & Valencia, R. (2019). TIC para la inclusión: una mirada desde Latinoamerica. Aula Abierta, 48(2), 139-146. https://doi.org/10.17811/rifie.48.2.2019.139-146 Cabero-Almenara, J., Barroso-Osuna, J., Gutiérrez-Castillo, J. J., & Palacios-Rodríguez, A. (2020). Validación del cuestionario de competencia digital para futuros maestros mediante ecuaciones estructurales. Bordón. Revista De Pedagogía, 72(2), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.13042/Bordon.2020.73436 Cabero-Almenara, J., Guillen-Gámez, F. D., Ruiz-Palmero, J., & Palacios-Rodríguez, A. (2021a). Classification models in the digital competence of higher education teachers based on the DigCompEdu Framework: logistic regression and segment tree. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, (1), 49- 61. https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1135472 Cabero‐Almenara, J., Guillén‐Gámez, F. D., Ruiz‐Palmero, J., & Palacios‐Rodríguez, A. (2021b). Teachers' digital competence to assist students with functional diversity: Identification of factors through logistic regression methods. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(1), 41-57. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13151 Cabero-Almenara, J., Gutiérrez-Castillo, J.J., Guillén-Gámez, F.D., & Gaete-Santiago, A. (2022). Competencias digitales de estudiantes técnico-profesionales: creación de un modelo causal desde un enfoque PLS-SEM. Campus Virtuales, 11(1), 167-179. https://doi.org/10.54988/cv.2022.1.1008 Carrillo-López, P. J., & Hernández-Gutiérrez, A. A. (2022). Competencia digital de los docentes Canarios para atender a la diversidad funcional. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 25(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.6018/reifop.496281 Casal-Otero, L., Barreira-Cerqueiras, E., Mariño-Fernández, R. & García-Antelo, B. (2021). Competencia Digital Docente del profesorado de FP de Galicia [Digital Teaching Competence of Galician Vocational Training Teachers]. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 61, 165-195 https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.87192 Casillas-Martín, S., Cabezas-González, M., & García-Valcárcel Muñoz-Repiso, A. (2022). Influencia de variables sociofamiliares en la competencia digital en comunicación y colaboración [Influence of sociofamilial variables on digital competence in communication and collaboration]. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 63, 7-33. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.84551 CEPAL (2015). Agenda digital para América Latina y el Caribe (eLAC2018). CEPAL. Cuartero, S. D. (2021). Tecnologías para la enseñanza y el aprendizaje del alumnado con Trastorno del Espectro Autista: una revisión sistemática. Innoeduca. International Journal of Technology and Educational Innovation, 7(1), 107-121. https://doi.org/10.24310/innoeduca.2021.v7i1.9771 Código de campo cambiado Código de campo cambiado Código de campo cambiado Código de campo cambiado Código de campo cambiado Código de campo cambiado Código de campo cambiado Cullen, J. M., & Alber-Morgan, S. R. (2015). Technology Mediated SelfPrompting of Daily Living Skills for Adolescents and Adults with Disabilities: A Review of the Literature. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 50(1), 43-55. Díaz-Maroto, I. T., & Martínez, A. C. (2015). Las TIC y las necesidades específicas de apoyo educativo: análisis de las competencias TIC en los docentes. RIED. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 18(2), 355-383. Douglas, G. (2001). ICT, education, and visual impairment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(3), 353–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00204 Fernández Batanero, J. M., Reyes Rebollo, M. M., & El Homrani, M. (2018). TIC y discapacidad. Principales barreras para la formación del profesorado. EDMETIC, Revista de Educación Mediática y TIC, 7 (1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.21071/edmetic.v7i1.9656 Fernández-Batanero, J. M., Cabero-Almenara, J., Román-Graván, P., & Palacios-Rodríguez, A. (2022). Knowledge of university teachers on the use of digital resources to assist people with disabilities. The case of Spain. Education and Information Technologies, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10965-1 Fernández-Batanero, J.M., Montenegro-Rueda, M. & Fernández-Cerero, J. Are primary education teachers trained for the use of the technology with disabled students?. RPTEL 17, 19 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-022-00195-x Fernández-Batanero, J.M., Reyes, M.M., & El Homran, M. (2018). TIC y discapacidad. Edmetic, 7(1), 1- 25. https://doi.org/10.21071/edmetic.v7i1.9656 Fernández-Batanero, J.M., Román-Graván, P., Montenegro-Rueda, M., & Fernández-Cerero, J. (2021). El impacto de las TIC en el alumnado con discapacidad en la Educación Superior. Una revisión sistemática (2010-2020). EDMETIC, Revista de Educación Mediática y TIC, 10(2), 81-105. https://doi.org/10.21071/edmetic.v10i2.13362 Flores, C. & Roig, R. (2019). Factores personales que inciden en la autovaloración de futuros maestros sobre la dimensión pedagógica del uso de TIC. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación Superior, 10(27), 151-171. https://doi.org/10.22201/iisue.20072872e.2019.27.345 Genlott, A. A., Grönlund, Å., & Viberg, O. (2019). Disseminating digital innovation in school-leading second-order educational change. Education and Information Technologies, 24(5), 3021-3039. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09908-0 Güldenpfennig, F., Mayer, P., Panek, P., & Fitzpatrick, G. (2019). An autonomy-perspective on the design of assistive technology experiences of people with multiple sclerosis. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-14). https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300357 Gutiérrez-Castillo, J. J., Cabero-Almenara, J., & Estrada-Vidal, L. I. (2017). Diseño y validación de un instrumento de evaluación de la competencia digital del estudiante universitario. Revista Espacios, 38(10). Gutiérrez-Castillo, J.J. &, Cabero-Almenara, J. (2016). Estudio de caso sobre la autopercepción de la competencia digital del estudiante universitario de las titulaciones de grado de educación infantil y primaria. Profesorado, 20(2), 180-199. Heiman, T., Fichten, C. S., Olenik-Shemesh, D., Keshet, N. S., & Jorgensen, M. (2017). Access and perceived ICT usability among students with disabilities attending higher education institutions. Education and Information Technologies, 22(6), 2727-2740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9623-0 Henriksen, D., Henderson, M., Creely, E., Ceretkova, S., Černochová, M., Sendova, E., ..., Tienken, C. H. (2018). Creativity and technology in education: An international perspective. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23(3), 409-424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9380-1 Código de campo cambiado Código de campo cambiado Código de campo cambiado Código de campo cambiado Hersh, M. (2017). Classification framework for ICT‐based learning technologies for disabled people. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(3), 768-788. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12461 Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fitindexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternative. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. Humanante-Ramos, P., Solís-Mazón, M. E., Fernández-Acevedo, J., & Silva-Castillo, J. (2019). Las competencias TIC de los estudiantes que ingresan en la universidad: una experiencia en la Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud de una universidad latinoamericana. Educación Médica, 20(3), 134-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edumed.2018.02.002 Kamali Arslantas, T., Yıldırım, S., & Altunay Arslantekin, B. (2021). Educational affordances of a specific web-based assistive technology for students with visual impairment. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(6), 1037-1054. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1619587 Ki-Moon, B. (2014). ¿Puede la Inteligencia Artificial Facilitar la vida a las Personas con Discapacidad? 2014. Recuperado el 9 de julio de 2022 de https://www.mapfre.com/actualidad/innovacion/ia-personas- discapacidad Kwon, D. (2021). Digital competence of students with disabilities using a mobile device in a post-secondary transition program for potential employment. Dissertations. The University of Alabama. Light, J., McNaughton, D., Beukelman, D., Fager, S. K., Fried-Oken, M., Jakobs, T., & Jakobs, E. (2019). Challenges and opportunities in augmentative and alternative communication: Research and technology development to enhance communication and participation for individuals with complex communication needs. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 35(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2018.1556732 Lisawadi, S., Ahmed, S., Reangsephet, O. & Shah, M. (2019). Simultaneous estimation of Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, 48(13), 3236-3257. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610926.2018.1473882 Lohmöller, J. B. (1989). Latent Variable Path Modeling with Partial Least Squares. Physica. Manzoor, M., & Vimarlund, V. (2018). Digital technologies for social inclusion of individuals with disabilities. Health and technology, 8(5), 377-390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-018-0239-1 Marín-Gutiérrez, I., Rivera-Rogel, D., Velásquez, A. V., & García, R. (2019). Competencias mediáticas en estudiantes universitarios/as de Iberoamérica. Revista Prisma Social, (26), 73–93. Martínez, S., Gutiérrez, J.J., & Fernández, B. (2018). Percepciones y uso de las TIC en las aulas inclusivas. Un estudio de caso. EDMETIC, Revista de Educación Mediática, 7(1), 87-106. https://doi.org/10.21071/edmetic.v7i1.10132 Mateos-Sanchez, M., Melo, AC, Blanco, LS, & García, AMF (2022). Chatbot, as Educational and Inclusive Tool for People with Intellectual Disabilities. Sustainability, 14(3), 1520. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14031520 Mattson, K. (2017). Digital citizenship in action: empowering students to engage in online communities. International Society for Technology in Education. McClain-Nhlapo, Ch., Sivonen, L., Raja, D., Palummo, M., & Acul, E. (2018). Disability inclusion and accountability framework. World Bank Publications Medina-García, M., Higueras-Rodríguez, L., García-Vita, M. del M., & Doña-Toledo, L. (2021). TIC, Discapacidad y Motivación: Validación de una Escala de Medición y Modelo de Consecuencias para el Código de campo cambiado Código de campo cambiado Código de campo cambiado Código de campo cambiado Conocimiento Digital Inclusivo. Revista Internacional de Investigación Ambiental y Salud Pública , 18(13), 6770. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136770 Midtlund, A., Instefjord, E. J., & Lazareva, A. (2021). Digital communication and collaboration in lower secondary school. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 16(02), 65-76. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1891- 943x-2021-02-03 Moreno, M.D. Gabarda, V., & Rodríguez, A.M. (2018). Alfabetización informacional y competencia digital en estudiantes de magisterio. Profesorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación de Profesorado, 22(3), 253- 270. https://doi.org/10.30827/profesorado.v22i3.8001 O’Dwyer, L., & Bernauer, J. (2014). Quantitative Research for the Qualitative Researcher. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335674 Okonji, P. E., Okiki, O. C., & Ogwezzy, D. (2020). Perceived importance and difficulty of online activities among visually impaired persons in Nigeria. Assistive Technology, 32(1), 16-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2018.1457574 Ordóñez, E., Vázquez-Cano, E., Arias-Sánchez, S., & López-Meneses, E. (2021). Las Competencias en el uso de las Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación en el alumnado universitario. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 60, 153-167. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.74860 Park, E. Y. (2020). Digital competence and internet use/behavior of persons with disabilities in PC and smart device use. Universal Access in the Information Society, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-020- 00782-z Pegalajar, M.C. (2017). El futuro docente ante el uso de las TIC para la educación inclusiva. Digital Education Review, 31, 131-148. Peláez, I. M. (2016). Modelos de regresión: lineal simple y regresión logística. Revista Seden, 14, 195-214. Pötzsch, H. (2019). Critical digital literacy: Technology in education beyond issues of user competence and labour-market qualifications. Triple C: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 17(2), 221-240. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v17i2.1093 Rodríguez-Hoyos, C., Fueyo Gutiérrez, A., & Hevia Artime. I. (2021). Competencias digitales del profesorado para innovar en la docencia universitaria. Analizando el uso de los dispositivos móviles [The digital skills of teachers for innovating in university teaching]. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 61, 71-97. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.86305 Rush Hovde, M., & Renguette, C. C. (2017). Technological literacy: A framework for teaching technical communication software tools. Technical Communication Quarterly, 26(4), 395-411. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2017.1385998 Sánchez-Caballé, A., Gisbert-Cervera, M., & Esteve-Mon, F. (2019). La competencia digital de los estudiantes universitarios de primer curso de grado. Innoeduca. International Journal of Technology and Educational Innovation, 5(2), 104-113, https://doi.org/10.24310/innoeduca.2019.v5i2.5598 Silva J. E., y Austillo, A. (2012). Inserción de TIC en la formación inicial docente. Barreras y oportunidades. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 58(4), 1-11. Tello, I. & Cascales, A. (2015). Las TIC y las necesidades específicas de apoyo educativo: análisis de las competencias TIC en los docentes. RIED. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 18(2), 353- 383. Código de campo cambiado Código de campo cambiado Código de campo cambiado Código de campo cambiado Código de campo cambiado Ullmann, H., Jones, F., Crane, R. & Williams, D. (2018). Information and communications technologies for the inclusion and empowerment of persons with disabilities in Latin America and the Caribbean. CEPAL. Unesco (2016). Tecnologías digitales al servicio de la calidad educativa. Unesco. UNESCO. (2009). Conferencia internacional de educación 48ª reunión: La educación inclusiva: Un camino hacia el futuro. París: UNESCO van Laar, E., van Deursen, A. J., van Dijk, J. A., & de Haan, J. (2019). Determinants of 21st-century digital skills: A large-scale survey among working professionals. Computers in human behavior, 100, 93-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.06.017 van Laar, E., van Deursen, A. J., van Dijk, J. A., de Haan, J. (2020). Determinants of 21st-century skills and 21st-century digital skills for workers: A systematic literature review. Sage Open, 10(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019900176 Vaske, J., Beaman, J. & Sponarski, C. (2017). Rethinking internal consistency in cronbach’s alpha. Leisure Sciences, 39(2), 163-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2015.1127189 Vega-Gea, E., Calmaestra, J., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2021). Percepción docente del uso de TIC en la Educación Inclusiva: [Teacher perception on the use of ICT in inclusive Education]. Pixel-Bit. Revista De Medios Y Educación, 62, 235–268. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.90323 Wu, T. F., Chen, M. C., Yeh, Y. M., Wang, H. P., & Chang, S. C. H. (2014). Is digital divide an issue for students with learning disabilities? Computers in human behavior, 39, 112-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.06.024 Código de campo cambiado Código de campo cambiado