Professional Digital Competence: Definition, Frameworks, Measurement, and Gender Differences: A Systematic Literature Review

Sánchez-Canut, Sònia; Usart-Rodríguez, Mireia; Grimalt-Álvaro, Carme; Martínez-Requejo, Sonia; Lores-Gómez, Beatriz

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/8897227

Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results and Discussion Discussion Conclusions Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2023 | Article ID 8897227 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/8897227

Professional Digital Competence: Definition, Frameworks, Measurement, and Gender Differences: A Systematic Literature Review

Sònia Sánchez-Canut,¹Mireia Usart-Rodríguez,¹Carme Grimalt-Álvaro,¹Sonia Martínez-Requejo,²and Beatriz Lores-Gómez¹

Academic Editor: Mirko Duradoni

Received02 May 2023

Revised07 Sept 2023

Accepted15 Sept 2023

Published29 Sept 2023

Abstract

In the current context of increasing digitization, professionals need to be digitally competent. In addition, women’s low participation in the technology field indicates the persistence of a digital gender gap in the economic and social spheres. A key aspect to help reducing digital inequality is the role that the digital competence (DC) plays in the professional development of women, allowing them to enter to a job market still coped by men. The current systematic literature review, following the PRISMA protocol, analyzes the existing definitions of professional DC, the frameworks used to develop it at the workplace, and the gender differences observed. Four main ideas emerge from the review of the 41 selected articles: (1) the need of an enabling professional DC definition to help understand how it operates specifically in professional environments; (2) the expanding role of the DigComp framework to carry out initiatives for assessing, training, developing, advising, or certifying digital competence in professional environments; (3) the identification of seven key dimensions of professional DC; and (4) the need of future studies that go further in the measurement of women’s professional DC, as a response of the lack of data about gender differences in this field. Although the limitations of a systematic literature review, such as publications and database bias, these results are aimed at fostering a shared definition and framework of professional DC that standardizes the measurement and development of this competence, allowing workers, and women in particular, to adapt to the digital transformation, assuring equal access to qualified jobs.

1. Introduction

It is well known that industry and job demands are nowadays changing because of the massive technological shift of society. Several reports describe how this introduction will turn some tasks currently performed by humans into machine work [1, 2]. Within this scenario, it is expected that 85 million jobs will be displaced by 2025, while 97 million new roles that are more adapted to the new division of labor between humans, machines, and algorithms emerge [2]. Therefore, the future of work will require that the workforce be able to upskill and reskill their capabilities, that is, acquire new competences to help in their current roles and learn new capabilities to take on different or entirely new roles to adapt to the digital transformation [1].

However, this has a transversal impact on job demand, which can pose a threat to some specific collectives, such as women. In particular, there exists a digital gap, especially within the technological sector [3, 4], and in some jobs that are expected to be essential for the future, such as data scientists and digital specialists, women are severely underemployed, even if they already have the necessary skills [2]. That is why, to keep up with these professional challenges, women need to increase their access to technology and raise their technological capabilities to acquire and enhance their digital competence [5].

The digital gender gap extends well beyond access to technology; it carries extensive implications for women’s economic prospects, educational attainment, involvement in decision-making processes, access to healthcare, online safety, and the advancement of global development objectives. Providing equal opportunities for all workers—and especially those who are at a disadvantage—to develop their necessary skills to better adapt to the future jobs not only helps to maximize the development of economic growth of all countries but also promotes peace and prosperity, as is reflected in one of the targets of the fifth sustainable development goal (SDG) set by the [6]: “Enhance the use of enabling technology, in particular information and communications technology, to promote the empowerment of women” (p.38). In this context of digital transformation and professional transitions, an in-depth study of the role of digital competence in professional development (also known as professional digital competence) can contribute to better prepare current and future workers to cope with the challenges of future work demands.

However, research reveals that company leaders feel unprepared for the challenge of a deep digital transformation, as they lack “a clear understanding of the impact that future automation and digitization would have on skill requirements” or “the tools or the knowledge to quantify the business case for efforts to reskill their workforces” [1]. Indeed, education systems are not adequately preparing the youth to work in the digital economy [7]. Not only can there be considerable differences in pupils’ digital skills during compulsory education [8] but also current vocational training programs are more likely to lead to employment in jobs that are at risk of automation and therefore should be adapted to the changing demands of the digital economy [7].

Even though the European Framework of Digital Skills for Citizens, known as DigComp [9], offers common European guidance on what it means for citizens to have adequate digital skills, the different current needs presented above demonstrate a lack of guidance towards which abilities and skills need to be considered within professional digital competence. Certainly, some sectors already have their own professional framework, such as DigComp for Education (DigCompEdu), but still, further exploration in different professional contexts is required to study the role and specifications of professional digital competence in these complex processes [10], especially for operationally intensive sectors. This reflection should also integrate specific guidelines for company leaders to address existing inequalities to maximize their current and future workers’ potential contribution.

This study is aimed at analyzing how the diverse existing digital competence frameworks define, describe, and measure professional digital competence in order to better understand how it operates. More specifically, it is aimed at answering the following research questions: (i)Q1. How is professional digital competence defined? What do the different definitions have in common and how do they differ?(ii)Q2. What frameworks are being used to describe professional digital competence?(iii)Q3. What dimensions make up professional digital competence?(iv)Q4. What instruments are being used to measure professional digital competence? What do they measure and how?(v)Q5. Have differences between men’s and women’s digital competence been measured? What results have been obtained?

Overall, addressing these concerns will contribute to a better understanding of the role of DC in professional development and will assist policymakers in the creation of programs focused on labor market skills analysis, career guidance, workforce development, training design and delivery, skills assessment, and competence certification.

The remainder of the article is structured as follows. In the next section, the research methodology is presented. The “Results and Discussion” section corresponds to the empirical research and discussion of the results of the systematic literature review. The final section summarizes the main contributions, limitations, and practical implications of the research conducted.

2. Materials and Methods

This study presents a systematic review of scientific research with the aim to find plausible answers to clearly formulated questions [11]. It is aimed at being replicable and updateable [12]. It was carried out according to the phases of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement [11]. The PRISMA statement “was developed to facilitate transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and has been updated (to PRISMA 2020) to reflect recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology” [13]. The approach and tools proposed by the PRISMA statement offer a rigorous method to achieve the aims of this reviewing process.

2.1. Search Strategy

For this systematic review, we searched in four databases of reference in the field of professional work: Web of Science, Scopus, ERIC, and Dialnet, all of which contain peer-reviewed, high-quality journal articles, reports, conference papers, and books on Educational Sciences. The period covered is from 2000 to 2022, and it is framed in the international context. The search was restricted to study title, abstract, and keywords.

To ensure a broad coverage of publications, the search was done using the keywords, time coverage, and languages shown in Table 1. Because of the lack of consistency in the terms usually used in literature, we considered the set of terms digital competence, e-skills, digital skills, and e-competence. The time coverage was limited by focusing on the literature from the past twenty-two years.

As a result, 2072 records were found. After duplicates were removed, 1722 records were available for screening and selection.

2.2. Selection Criteria

2.2.1. Exclusion Criteria

The exclusion criteria defined to guide the screening of the publications were the following: (i)EC 1. The term professional digital competence used by the publication refers to teachers’ professional digital competence (in any of the educational stages)(ii)EC 2. The term digital competence used by the publication refers to students’ digital competence (in any of the educational stages)(iii)EC 3. The publication is in a language other than English, Spanish, or Catalan(iv)EC 4. There is no access to the full publication

2.2.2. Inclusion Criteria

To be included in the study, publications had to some of the inclusion criteria defined below. (i)IC 1. The content of the publication provides a definition of professional or citizen digital competence and relates to a work environment(ii)IC2. The content of the publication refers to a framework related to the development of professional or citizen digital competence(iii)IC 3. The content of the publication enumerates and/or describes the dimensions that make up professional or citizen digital competence or any digital competence relating to a work environment(iv)IC 4. The content of the publication describes instruments or variables for measuring digital competence(v)IC 5. Publications between 2000 and 2022 are covered(vi)IC 6. Peer-reviewed articles, reports, conference papers, books, and dissertations are considered

2.3. Selection Process

The 1722 records identified by the search were subject to a process of screening to ensure they met the selection criteria. This process of screening and selection was carried out in two main stages, as shown in the PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1).

A first stage of screening was done in two steps where titles, firstly, and abstracts, secondly, were checked to determine whether the studies were likely to be relevant. In total, 1567 records were excluded, most of them since they referred to students’ or teachers’ digital competence or were not related to the context of this study. In a second stage, the 89 remaining publications were read in their entirety to determine whether the research was eligible. As a result, 38 articles were selected to be analyzed in-depth, and 3 more publications identified from citation searching were added to the set.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Results

The aim of this systematic literature review is to analyze the existing definitions and frameworks of professional digital competence and the gender differences observed in its measurement. Among the 41 reviewed publications, there were 31 journal articles, one report, and one dissertation. 61% of them were published during the past five years (2018 to 2022) and the rest of them (39%) between 2012 and 2017. Table 2 lists the reviewed publications. We present the results based on the 5 research questions.

Q1. What definitions of professional digital competence exist? What do they have in common and how do they differ?

From the analysis of all the articles, a key aspect emerged; no specific definition of professional digital competence was found to explain how it operates in the workplace.

The characteristics highlighted by authors to explain the use of this generic term when studying the professional use of digital competence are its broadness [29], pluralism, and interconnectivity [33].

Transversality is another trait that is reported to characterize digital competence. The term refers to the ability of digital competence to transcend sectors of activity and to integrate with other key competences. It is portrayed in DigComp 1.0 [55] as an enabler for the acquisition of other key competences such as language, mathematics, learning to learn, or cultural awareness. Guitert et al. [32] link its transversality to the work environment, highlighting the increasing demand of it across the labor market and its key role in job search processes that currently mostly take place in digital platforms.

The definitions of digital competence used in the selected articles are mostly the ones elaborated by European institutions and initiatives during the past decades. Table 3 provides the definitions of digital competence shown in the articles and highlights how the professional dimension, through the term work, is presented in them.

As shown in Table 3, six definitions of digital competence included the term work or working as one of its domains of application. But any reference to areas of development or domains within the professional environment is missing from these definitions. It needs to be highlighted that the definition provided in the DIGCOMP: A Framework for Developing and Understanding Digital Competence in Europe [55] differentiates between work and employability.

Rosas Quintero [48] brings a definition of digital competence that focuses exclusively on the professional environment; they consider digital competence as “the capacity to embrace and utilize new or established technology to scrutinize, choose, and appraise digital data for the purpose of investigating and resolving work-related issues and building a cooperative knowledge base” (p.10).

It is also worth highlighting that Lissitsa et al. [36] present digital career literacy as a concept that can connect digital skills to professional environments through career development. The term digital career literacy “includes the ability to use the online environment to search, make contacts, find answers to questions and build a positive professional reputation in order to promote career development” [36]. It is presented as a facilitator to changing jobs, fighting stereotypes at the workplace, or receiving rewards.

Q2. What frameworks are being used to describe professional digital competence?

The second objective of this review is to identify the frameworks present in the literature to describe how digital competence operates and is assessed and developed in professional environments. More specifically, the aim of this research is to look for frameworks that could provide a specification of factors or dimensions, competence descriptors, examples of use at work, and/or levels of progression at the workplace, all related to digital competence.

The frameworks identified (12 in total) can be categorized into two types: frameworks oriented to citizenship or adulthood that include examples and/or descriptors specifically related to the work domain (Table 4) and frameworks that target specific professional fields such as education, health, or tourism (Table 5). Both tables indicate the name, year, promoter, target group, a brief description, and number of dimensions, competences, and levels of progression. It should be noted that dimensions are mostly labeled as areas of competence or competence areas in the reviewed literature.

For the composition of Table 4, two considerations have been made. First, in the case of the DigComp framework, although different articles mentioned version 1 (2013), version 2.0 (2016), and version 2.1 (2017), the 2022 version was included. Second, in the case of the National Standards for Essential Digital Skills (2019) Framework, information about its precursor is provided, the Essential Digital Skills Framework (2018), because it includes an extensive list of examples of applications at work that do not appear in the National Standards for Essential Digital Skills.

Below are the frameworks of digital competence organized according to the professional target group and their descriptions (Table 5).

Table 6 provides a list of the competence areas and skills found in the reviewed literature differentiating transversal frameworks from professional/specialized ones. Figure 2, for its part, presents a mapping of the dimensions reported in the main general frameworks.

Q3. What dimensions make up professional digital competence?

As shown in Figure 2, five dimensions are consistently present in the reviewed frameworks: information management and data literacy, digital content creation, communication, and collaboration. Safety and legal issues and problem-solving are, under different labels and with slight differences, common areas in the main general frameworks. Also, it has been observed that some of the competence areas proposed in some of the frameworks are specifically related to professional performance and workplace development. More specifically, that is the case with the dimensions career-related competences, lifelong learning, and self-direction.

Q4. What instruments are being used to measure professional digital competence? What do they measure and how?

None of the reviewed sources provided evidence about experiences of broad and integral digital competence measurements in the professional environment. Likewise, only a limited number of the selected articles presented studies that measured particular dimensions or factors of digital competence, most of them about the process of analyzing specific correlations between digital competence and other phenomena such as candidates’ suitability for the job market [46], progress in learning digital skills [25], and womens’ digital skills in the use of social networks [47] or technostress [30].

Table 7 presents an overview of the type of instruments used in those articles that reported the use of specific instruments of measurement. Among the 10 reported tools, nine were designed from a self-perception approach and one with a performance-based approach.

Canina and Orero-Blat [18] describe the use of a software application (TeamsChamp) to daily measure employees’ digital skills. This is achieved by tracking performance indicators in three dimensions: digital collaboration, digital communication, and digital operativity. The design of the indicators took into consideration the digital traces each user leaves when using the tools directly related to each of the selected digital competences, quantified them, and presented them in a friendly format for any user to view.

Q5. Have differences between men and women’s digital competence been measured?

In general, references to the digital gender gap in the reviewed articles are scarce and more indicative than analytical. Lissitsa et al. [36] pointed to gender differences stating that empirical research studied differences in digital competences based on gender, age, education, and ethnicity. Lister [37] stated that women are at risk of being left behind in a digitized society. Cabero-Almenara et al. [16] highlight that the role of ICTs as social tools that favor people’s participation, collaboration, and empowerment is also fostering the empowerment of women and thus promoting gender equity.

The reviewed articles highlight several remarkable differences between women and men regarding the digital gender gap. A study conducted by Castaño-Muñoz et al. [20] found that women tend to participate less frequently in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) compared to men. The researchers also observed that participants’ male-to-female ratio varies depending on the topic of the MOOC. For instance, a higher percentage of women engage in hands-on ICT and test anxiety courses (over 70%), while fewer women participate in business intelligence and entrepreneurship courses (38% and 42%, respectively).

Canchola and Glasserman [17] examined the digital skills influencing the completion of xMOOC courses. They noted that most individuals interested in energy sustainability, and thus more likely to complete related courses, are predominantly men with some engineering background. The study suggests that there are gender differences in this area, though further evaluation is required to determine the extent of these disparities.

Van Laar et al. [52] conducted a measurement of digital skills among professionals in the creative industries. Their findings indicate that employed men outperform women in communication expressiveness, collaboration, critical thinking, and problem-solving. On the other hand, employed women exhibit better skills in information evaluation, communication networking, and content-sharing. These results demonstrate gender discrepancies in specific digital skills within the creative industries.

Another study focused on characterizing women’s digital competence on social networks but did not directly compare its findings with those of men [47]. Despite the absence of gender-specific comparisons, this research provides valuable insights into women’s digital skills in areas crucial to their employability, such as problem-solving, emotional competence, effective communication, and social capital.

Overall, these studies shed light on the gender differences in digital participation and skills, emphasizing variations in MOOC enrollment, interests in specific topics, digital competencies within creative industries, and social networking skills. Further research is necessary to gain a comprehensive understanding of the digital gender gap and its implications. The results of the study showed that most women perceived themselves with a medium-high level of digital skills in the use of social networks, especially in emotional, functional, and security-related skills on social networks, while they lacked some informative and creative skills. Some differences were also found in the level of women’s self-perceived digital competence depending on their employment status; indeed, it was professional and entrepreneur women who obtained more advanced digital skills in the use of social networks compared to unemployed women.

4. Discussion

This last part of the article is devoted to the four main outcomes that emerge from the main aim of the systematic literature review: (1) the enabling nature of the definition of professional digital competence, (2) the expanding role of the DigComp framework in professional environments, (3) the seven key dimensions of professional digital competence, and (4) the lack of data on gender differences in relation to professional digital competence.

The findings of the study are significant as they collectively emphasize the evolving nature of digital competence in professional contexts and provide valuable insights for researchers, policymakers, educators, and employers seeking to enhance digital competence and inclusivity in the professional world.

4.1. The Nature of the Definition of Professional Digital Competence

According to the results, there is a common understanding of the definition of digital competence as an umbrella term that shelters different kinds of domains such as work, employment, leisure, communication, participation, learning, socialization, empowerment, consumerism, daily life, and privacy and security. However, one of the aspects which previously needed to be discussed is the necessity, or not, to produce a specific definition for professional digital competence. Several factors need to be considered first.

In one hand, there is a positive effect in the use of the umbrella term for initiatives in the working domain: its inclusiveness can facilitate an agile approach to any problem, opportunity, or challenge which needs to be addressed, whatever the domain it belongs to. On the other hand, a general definition could hide the complexity and particularities of the different purposes or domains that it enumerates. For instance, the differences between the domains of leisure, social participation, or consumerism are qualitatively significant and the lack of a specific definition of digital competence in relation to them could be understood as a simplification.

Therefore, in the case of professional digital competence, it might be beneficial to provide a definition reflecting the main purposes of highly digitized work environments to highlight its transversal and enabler nature. Professional digital competence could, thus, be defined as the set of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that enable the effective and responsible use of digital technologies to perform tasks and solve problems in increasingly digitized working environments; build meaningful professional relationships through digital collaboration; foster innovation in the workplace; facilitate lifelong continuous professional development; and enhance individuals’ employability.

4.2. The Expanding Role of the DigComp Framework in Professional Environments

The analysis of the frameworks, dimensions, and instruments of measurement used in the reviewed sources has made it possible to verify that the DigComp framework, despite its main orientation towards citizenship, is consolidating and expanding as a central tool for many initiatives related to the professional environment; more specifically, it focuses on the assessment and certification of competences and the advice on and training in digital competence in professional contexts. Most of the cases and initiatives analyzed in the reviewed sources were based on DigComp, or took it into account, to a greater or lesser extent. Such are the examples of Guitert et al. [32] when defining their Basic Digital Competences Framework for Unemployed Citizens, the Global Framework of Reference on Digital Literacy defined by the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2018), or the Key Digital Skills Framework for Healthcare Professionals [40].

In this line of consolidation of the DigComp framework, Kluzer et al. [60] recently offered a detailed description of the different uses that DigComp has been given by Labour Market Intermediaries (LMIs). The latter have implemented initiatives for increasing the employability of different profiles, such as the unemployed, jobseekers, employees, and entrepreneurs, by developing their digital competence. The orientation of the nine cases reported by Kluzer et al. [60] is diverse and shows the adaptability of DigComp to draw initiatives for improving employability; providing career counseling; guiding training and professional development; or preparing for seeking work. Some of the key mentioned reasons which motivated the adoption of DigComp in the reported cases were its clear and solid structure, flexibility, and neutrality.

4.3. The Seven Key Dimensions of Professional Digital Competence

A third aspect to highlight is the identification of key dimensions for the development of digital competence. Although key digital competences are different depending on the sector of the economy, it is possible to identify certain “knowledge blocks” that are common to all sectors [61].

In this sense, after mapping (Figure 2) and analyzing the key dimensions reported in the reviewed frameworks (Table 6), it can be concluded that seven competence areas make up professional digital competence. Its structure would have a T-shape, with six transversal dimensions (professional engagement and development, digital information, digital content creation, digital communication and collaboration, digital problem-solving, and safety) supplemented by the specific dimension of industry-related competences (Figure 3).

Professional engagement and development has been included among the transversal dimensions due to the importance of using digital technologies and resources for continuous professional development [62]. In our understanding, lifelong learning and self-direction [53] would also be part of it. Moreover, the dimension of digital communication and collaboration would include competences related to collaborative work in virtual and multidisciplinary environments as proposed by Rosas Quintero [48] in his framework for industrial engineers. Also, the dimension of industry-related competences would include different sets of expert skills, knowledge, and attitudes that would be adapted to the particular needs of the professional field [63] or even of a professional position.

4.4. Lack of Data on Gender Differences in Relation to Professional Digital Competence

Finally, one of the most striking findings of this literature review was the lack of data on women and professional digital competence; the reviewed sources provided scarce information on the traits of women’s digital competence, gender differences, or the distinctiveness of its measurement. Neither are there any references among the study cases provided by Kluzer et al. [60] to initiatives targeting collectives of professional women.

The measurement examples identified in this review were limited and mostly based on self-perception tools. Several studies showed that the improvement of self-perception of technological skills promotes the use of technologies and, thus, greater digital inclusion [64]. Therefore, it seems clear that there is a need to continue working on measurement tools focusing on the levels of self-confidence according to gender to design initiatives to develop the digital competence of women workers. As Guzzani et al. [65] point out, depending on the tool used, the results show a greater or lesser gender digital divide, and in the case of online tasks, no significant results are obtained.

Furthermore, the measurement of digital competence should be integrative and designed with a longitudinal approach to facilitate the follow-up of its progress; it should also combine different types of activities, like the ones indicated by the European Commission [10] and van Laar et al. [51]. Indeed, performance-based tests and knowledge questions could enrich self-assessment tools and help to build robust measurement tools. Finally, as observed, the lack of sex-disaggregated data is making it difficult to assess and monitor the implications of the digital gender gap and to contribute to the design of initiatives and policies to address it.

For all the reasons mentioned above, more research is needed to gather sex-disaggregated data, deepen the study of professional digital competence, and gain a better comprehension of the role it plays in professional performance and development.

Future research should explore the ways in which digital competence intersects with gender dynamics. Studies could investigate the underlying factors contributing to gender disparities in acquiring and applying digital skills, considering sociocultural influences and educational backgrounds.

Moreover, research could delve into the effectiveness of training programs tailored to address potential gaps in digital competence. By identifying specific areas where gender disparities exist, upskilling and reskilling initiatives can be developed to address the gaps and empower individuals with the skills necessary for success in digitalized professional environments. Among potential lines of applied research, the analysis of the effectiveness of reskilling and upskilling initiatives based on digital learning and microlearning could help policymakers, educators, and employers to design and implement scalable training programs.

All new research related to gender differences in the field of digital competence and professional environments will help to achieve those SDG related to gender equality and women’s empowerment.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the results of this systematic literature review highlight four main outcomes related to professional digital competence. Firstly, there is a common understanding of digital competence as an umbrella term that covers various domains such as work, employment, leisure, communication, and daily life. Although a general definition facilitates an agile approach, a specific definition of professional digital competence has been proposed by the authors, after the literature review, that could be useful to researchers and practitioners working in this field. Therefore, professional digital competence has been defined as the set of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that enable the effective and responsible use of digital technologies to perform tasks and solve problems in increasingly digitized working environments; build meaningful professional relationships through digital collaboration; foster innovation in the workplace; facilitate lifelong continuous professional development; and enhance individuals’ employability. Such a definition could provide a clearer understanding of the term, its areas of competency, and contexts of development.

Secondly, the DigComp framework is expanding as a central tool for many initiatives related to the professional environment. The framework’s clear and solid structure, flexibility, and neutrality have made it adaptable to various initiatives aimed at improving employability, providing career counseling, guiding training and professional development, or preparing for seeking work.

Thirdly, after mapping and analyzing the key dimensions included in the frameworks reviewed, it can be concluded that seven competence areas structure professional digital competence. Six correspond to generic competence areas (engagement and professional development, digital information, digital content creation, digital communication and collaboration, digital problem solving, and security), and the last one is specific and depends on the professional family to which one belongs (industry-related competences).

Lastly, the literature review identified a lack of data on women and professional digital competence. The reviewed sources provided scarce information on the traits of women’s digital competence, gender differences, or the distinctiveness of their digital competence.

Albeit the valid and reliable process of the SLR conducted in this research, some limitations must be highlighted. Firstly, the study relied on the quality and availability of existing literature, which could introduce inconsistencies due to variations in research methods and publication bias. Additionally, there was a time lag between the review and the most recent developments in the field. The scope was also limited by the search strategy, potentially missing relevant research. Lastly, subjectivity in study selection and interpretation could have introduced bias. Despite these limitations, the study is valuable for synthesizing existing knowledge and identifying future research directions.

Future research should focus on addressing the gender gap in professional digital competence through targeted efforts. Investigating potential gender disparities in accessing digital competence training and opportunities would contribute to more inclusive policies. Another future research direction should delve deeper into the root causes of the gender gap in professional digital competence and the tools with which self-efficacy measurements are made.

Additionally, applied research in the fields of digital learning and microlearning would provide evidence-based recommendations for the development and enhancement of scalable and far-reaching digital training programs and the creation of inclusive workplaces to promote gender diversity in the digital sphere.

Overall, the results of this review provide valuable information on the development and application of digital competence in the professional context. A clear definition of the term, involving the seven key dimensions described, will facilitate the development and assessment of this multidimensional construct. In particular, various initiatives can take advantage of this knowledge to improve employability and professional development in digital competence. Further research in this field will undoubtedly help to develop digital competence among workers, thus guiding them in the process of digital transformation, responding to the need to fill increasingly skilled jobs.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the “la Caixa” Banking Foundation under Grant LCF/PR/R19/52540001. Open Access funding was enabled and organized by CRUE-CSUC Gold.

References

K. Ellingrud, R. Gupta, and J. Salguero, Building the Vital Skills for the Future of Work in Operations, McKinsey & Company, 2020.
World Economic Forum, “2021 Global Gender Gap Report,” 2020 https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2021.pdf.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Krishnan, A. Madgavkar, K. Ellingrud et al., Ten Things to Know about Gender Equality, McKinsey & Company, 2020.
S. Mateos-Sillero and C. Gómez-Hernández, Libro blanco de las mujeres en el ámbito tecnológico, Ministerio de Economía y Empresa de España, 2019, https://www.mineco.gob.es/stfls/mineco/ministerio/ficheros/libreria/LibroBlancoFINAL.pdf.
A. Madgavkar, J. Manyika, M. Krishnan et al., The Future of Women at Work: Transitions in the Age of Automation, McKinsey Global Institute, 2019.
United Nations, “Goal 5: achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls,” Sustainable development goals, 2021 https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/gender-equality/.
View at: Google Scholar
Internacional Labour Organization, L. Charles, S. Xia, and A. P. Coutts, “Digitalization and Employment. A Review,” 2022 https://www.ilo.org/employment/Whatwedo/Publications/WCMS_854353/lang--en/index.htm.
View at: Google Scholar
L. M. Niño-Cortés, C. Grimalt-Álvaro, B. Lores-Gómez, and M. Usart, “Brecha digital de género en secundaria: diferencias en competencia autopercibida y actitud hacia la tecnología,” Educación XX1, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 299–322, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Carretero, R. Vuorikari, and Y. Punie, DigComp 2.1: the digital competence framework for citizens with eight proficiency levels and examples of use (EUR 28558 EN), Joint Research Centre (European Comission), 2017.
View at: Publisher Site
European Commission, Joint Research Centre, R. Vuorikari, W. O'Keeffe, and I. Martínez de Soria, Developing digital competence for employability: engaging and supporting stakeholders with the use of DigComp, Joint Research Centre, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site
D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D. G. Altman, and The PRISMA Group, “Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement,” PLoS Medicine, vol. 6, no. 7, article e1000097, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. Zawacki-Richter, M. Kerres, S. Bedenlier, M. Bond, and K. Buntins, Systematic reviews in educational research: methodology, perspectives and application, Springer VS, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site
M. J. Page, D. Moher, P. M. Bossuyt et al., “PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews,” BMJ, vol. 372, no. 160, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Bejaković and Ž. Mrnjavac, “The importance of digital literacy on the labour market,” Employee Relations, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 921–932, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Buitrago Alonso, A. García Matilla, and A. Gutiérrez Martín, “Perspectiva histórica y claves actuales de la diversidad terminológica aplicada a la educación mediática,” EDMETIC, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 81–104, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Cabero-Almenara, L. Torres-Barzabal, and J. M. Hermosilla-Rodríguez, “ICT and the creation of critical digital citizenship,” Education in the Knowledge Society (EKS), vol. 20, p. 10, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Canchola and L. Glasserman, “Digital adult literacy in virtual learning environments: The case of xMOOCs in energy sustainability,” in Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality, pp. 987–992, New York, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Canina and M. Orero-Blat, “A practical tool to measure digital competences.: Teamschamp,” International Journal of Services Operations and Informatics, vol. 11, no. 1, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Carrasco-Sáez, M. Careaga Butter, and M. Badilla-Quintana, “The new pyramid of needs for the digital citizen: a transition towards smart human cities,” Sustainability, vol. 9, no. 12, p. 2258, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Castaño-Muñoz, K. Kreijns, M. Kalz, and Y. Punie, “Does digital competence and occupational setting influence MOOC participation? Evidence from a cross-course survey,” Journal of Computing in Higher Education, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 28–46, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Cerezo Medina, Analysis of perceptions and training needs in information and communication technologies in tourism: the case of Andalusia, [Ph.D. thesis], Universidad de Málaga, 2016, RIUMA. https://riuma.uma.es/xmlui/handle/10630/11442.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization), “European e-Competence Framework version 3.0. A common European Framework for ICT Professionals in all industry sectors,” 2014 https://www.ecompetences.eu/e-cf-3-0-download/.
View at: Google Scholar
R. Chaker, “Digital skills are predictors of professional social capital through workplace and social recognition,” Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 23–50, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Csordás, “Diversifying effect of digital competence,” AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 3–13, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. de Greef, M. Segers, J. Nijhuis et al., “The development and validation of testing materials for literacy, numeracy and digital skills in a Dutch context,” International Review of Education, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 655–671, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Dobson, R. Variava, M. Douglas, and L. M. Reynolds, “Digital competency of psychologists in Aotearoa New Zealand: a cross-sectional survey,” Frontiers in Digital Health, vol. 4, article 951366, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. C. Duică, N. V. Florea, A. O. Duică, and I. A. Tănăsescu, “The role of e-skills in developing sustainable organizations and e-activities in the new digitized business world,” Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 8, p. 3400, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Fernández-Sanz, J. Gómez-Pérez, and A. Castillo-Martínez, “E-skills match: a framework for mapping and integrating the main skills, knowledge and competence standards and models for ICT occupations,” Computer Standards and Interfaces, vol. 51, no. C, pp. 30–42, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Ferrari, Y. Punie, and C. Redecker, “Understanding digital competence in the 21st century: an analysis of current frameworks,” in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, A. Ravenscroft, S. Lindstaedt, C. D. Kloos, and D. Hernández-Leo, Eds., pp. 79–92, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Golz, K. A. Peter, T. J. Müller, J. Mutschler, S. M. G. Zwakhalen, and S. Hahn, “Technostress and digital competence among health professionals in Swiss psychiatric hospitals: cross-sectional study,” JMIR Mental Health, vol. 8, no. 11, article e31408, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. E. Gómez-Meneses, “Digital competence in auditing. Support or burden on the professional practice of auditors,” Cuadernos de Contabilidad, vol. 15, pp. 135–151, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Guitert, T. Romeu, and J.-F. Colas, “Basic digital competences for unemployed citizens: conceptual framework and training model,” Cogent Education, vol. 7, no. 1, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Janssen, S. Stoyanov, A. Ferrari, Y. Punie, K. Pannekeet, and P. Sloep, “Experts’ views on digital competence: commonalities and differences,” Computers & Education, vol. 68, pp. 473–481, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Kateryna, R. Oleksandr, T. Mariia, S. Iryna, K. Evgen, and L. Anastasiia, “Digital literacy development trends in the professional environment,” International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 55–79, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Kirinic and M. Kozina, “Analysis of quality-related competencies within the European e-competence framework. (e-CF),” in 2018 4th International Conference on Information Management (ICIM), pp. 170–174, Oxford, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Lissitsa, S. Chachashvili-Bolotin, and Y. Bokek-Cohen, “Digital skills and extrinsic rewards in late career,” Technology in Society, vol. 51, pp. 46–55, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Lister, “Smart Learning in the Community: Supporting Citizen Digital Skills and Literacies,” in Distributed, Ambient and Pervasive Interactions. HCII 2020, N. Streitz and S. Konomi, Eds., vol. 12203 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Cham, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Marta-Lazo, J. M. Rodríguez Rodríguez, and S. Peñalva, “Competencias digitales en periodismo. Revisión sistemática de la literatura científica sobre nuevos perfiles profesionales del periodista,” Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, vol. 75, no. 75, pp. 53–68, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Mazurchenko and K. Maršíková, “Digitally-powered human resource management: skills and roles in the digital era,” Acta Informatica Pragensia, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 72–87, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. A. Montero Delgado, F. J. Merino Alonso, E. Monte Boquet, J. F. Ávila de Tomás, and J. M. Cepeda Díez, “Competencias digitales clave de los profesionales sanitarios,” Educacióon Méedica, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 338–344, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Murawski, M. Darvish, C. M. Prinz, and M. Bick, “Exploring digital competence requirements for junior financial analysts in the UK banking industry,” Responsible Design, Implementation and Use of Information and Communication Technology, vol. 12067, pp. 358–369, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Ondrejková, “Digital skills and digital divide in context of the digital agenda for Europe focused on Slovakia,” in 2015 13th International Conference on Emerging eLearning Technologies and Applications (ICETA), Stary Smokovec, Slovakia, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Passey, M. Shonfeld, L. Appleby, M. Judge, T. Saito, and A. Smits, “Digital agency: empowering equity in and through education,” Technology, Knowledge and Learning, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 425–439, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Pawlicka, R. Tomaszewska, E. Krause, D. Jaroszewska-Choraś, M. Pawlicki, and M. Choraś, “Has the pandemic made us more digitally literate?” Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Pérez-Escoda and N. G. Fernández-Villavicencio, “Digital competence in use: from DigComp 1 to DigComp 2,” in TEEM “16: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM´16), pp. 619–624, New York, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Periáñez-Cañadillas, J. Charterina, and J. Pando-García, “Assessing the relevance of digital competences on business graduates’ suitability for a job,” Industrial and Commercial Training, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 139–151, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Á. Rebollo-Catalán, V. Mayor-Buzón, and R. García-Pérez, “Competencias digitales de las mujeres en el uso de las redes sociales virtuales: Diferencias según perfil laboral,” Revista de Investigación Educativa, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 427–444, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Rosas Quintero, “Digital competences of the industrial engineer in industry 4.0 a systematic vision,” Production, vol. 32, article e20220028, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. E. Silva Quiroz and J. L. Lázaro-Cantabrana, “La competencia digital de la ciudadanía, una necesidad creciente en una sociedad digitalizada. Edutec,” Revista Electrónica de Tecnología Educativa, vol. 73, pp. 37–50, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. van Laar, A. J. A. M. van Deursen, J. A. G. M. van Dijk, and J. de Haan, “21st-century digital skills instrument aimed at working professionals: conceptual development and empirical validation,” Telematics and Informatics, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 2184–2200, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. van Laar, A. J. A. M. van Deursen, J. A. G. M. van Dijk, and J. de Haan, “Determinants of 21st-century digital skills: a large-scale survey among working professionals,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 100, pp. 93–104, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. van Laar, A. J. A. M. van Deursen, J. A. G. M. van Dijk, and J. de Haan, “Twenty-first century digital skills for the creative industries workforce: perspectives from industry experts,” First Monday, vol. 24, no. 1, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. van Laar, A. J. A. M. van Deursen, J. A. G. M. van Dijk, and J. de Haan, “The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: a systematic literature review,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 72, pp. 577–588, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. van Laar, A. J. A. M. van Deursen, J. A. G. M. van Dijk, and J. de Haan, “Measuring the levels of 21st-century digital skills among professionals working within the creative industries: A performance-based approach,” Poetics, vol. 81, article 101434, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Ferrari, DIGCOMP: a framework for developing and understanding digital competence in Europe, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (Joint Research Centre), 2013.
View at: Publisher Site
“Recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competencies for lifelong learning,” Official Journal of the European Union, L394/310, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:394:0010:0018:en:PDF.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Calvani, A. Cartelli, A. Fini, and M. Ranieri, “Models and instruments for assessing digital competence at school,” Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 183–193, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Vuorikari, S. Kluzer, and Y. Punie, DigComp 2.2: the digital competence framework for citizens-with new examples of knowledge, skills and attitudes, EUR 31006 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site
Actic, “Accreditation in ICT skills,” 2016 http://actic.gencat.cat/web/.content/07_difusio/documents/arxius/actic_english_general_presentation_201301.pdf.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Kluzer, C. Centeno, and W. O’Keeffe, DigComp at work. EUR 30166 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site
Gobierno de España, “Plan de recuperación, transformación y resiliencia,” 2021 La Moncloa. https://t.ly/mwBzDhttps://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/temas/fondos-recuperacion/Documents/30042021-Plan_Recuperacion_%20Transformacion_%20Resiliencia.pdf.
View at: Google Scholar
Y. Punie and C. Redecker, European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu, Joint Research Centre (European Comission), 2017.
View at: Publisher Site
N. Law, D. Woo, and G. Wong, A global framework of reference on digital literacy skills for indicator 4.4.2, UNESCO-UIS, 2018.
A. M. González Ramos, N. Vergés Bosch, and J. S. Martínez García, “Women in the technology labour market,” Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, vol. 159, pp. 73–90, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Guazzini, E. Serritella, M. La Gamma, and M. Duradoni, “Italian version of the internet self-efficacy scale: internal and external validation,” Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, vol. 2022, Article ID 9347172, 11 pages, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2023 Sònia Sánchez-Canut et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

738

Downloads

436

Citations