Purpose: to study social, economic, demographic, regional factors of digital literacy as a basis of digital prosperity.
Methodology/Approach: Three research questions are studied, using regression models for cross-sectional data - Pooling model, Random effects model and Fixed-effects model and the Item Cluster Analysis method.
Findings: Age, education, income and household type are the most significant factors of digital literacy, giving rise to the societal digital divide in Slovakia. Less important factors are the city size and the sector of the economy, but only weak is the influence of region, gender and nationality.Research Limitation/implication: Only the contingency tables of the longitudinal surveys were available, so the microanalysis was not possible.
Bawden, D., 2001. Information and digital literacies: a review of concepts. Journal of Documentation, [e-journal] 57(2), pp.218-259. http:/dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000 007083.
Baily, M.N., 1986. What has happened to productivity growth?. Science,
[e-journal] 234(4775), pp.443 - 451. http:/dx.doi.org//10.112/science.234. 4775.443.
Behrens, S., 1994. A conceptual analysis and historical overview of information literacy. College and Research Libraries, [e-journal] 55(4), pp.309 - 322. http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/crl_55_04_309.
Brynjolfsson, E. and Brown, P., 2005. VII Pillars of IT Productivity. Optimize, 4(5), pp.26-35.
Brynjolfsson, E. and Saunders, A., 2010. Wired for innovation: how information technology is reshaping the economy. London: The MIT Press.
David, P.A., 1990. The Dynamo and the Computer: A Historical Perspective on the Modern Productivity Paradox. The American Economic Review, [e-journal] 80(2), pp.355 - 361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410401011006086.
Dewan, S. and Kraemer, K.L., 1998. International dimensions of the productivity paradox. Communications of the ACM, [e-journal] 41(8). pp. 56 - 62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/280324.280333.
Gilster, P., 1997. Digital literacy. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Hoffman, R., 2008. Socioeconomic differences in old age mortality. Dordrecht: Springer.
Kerby, D.S., 2014. The simple difference formula: An approach to teaching nonparametric correlation. Comprehensive Psychology, [e-journal] 3(1), pp.1 - 9. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/11.IT.3.1.
Levine, T.R. and Hullett, C.R., 2002. Eta squared, partial eta squared, and misreporting of effect size in communication research. Human Communication Research, [e-journal] 28, pp.612 - 625. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00828.x.
Martin, A., 2006. Literacies for the digital age. In: A. Martin and D. Madigan, eds. 2006. Digital literacies for learning.London: Facet Publishing. pp.3-25.
Oliner, S.D. and Sichel, D.E., 1994. Computers and Output Growth Revisited: How Big Is the Puzzle?. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2, pp.273-334.
Rei, C.M., 2004. Causal evidence on the “productivity paradox” and implications for managers. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, [e-journal] 53(2), pp.129 - 142. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410400410515034.
Revelle, W., 1979. Hierarchical cluster-analysis and the internal structure of tests. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 14(1), pp.57-74.
Solow, R., 1987. We'd better watch out. New York Times Book Review, 12 p. 36.
Velšic, M., 2011. Digital literacy in Slovakia 2011. In: 9th International Conference on Emerging eLearning Technologies and Applications (ICETA). Stara Lesna, Slovakia, 27-28 Oct. 2011. http://dx.doi.org//10.1109/ICETA.2011.6112568.
Warschauer, M and Matuchniak T., 2010. New Technology and Digital Worlds: Analyzing Evidence of Equity in Access, Use, and Outcomes. Review of Research in Education, [e-journal] 34, pp.179 - 225. http://dx.doi.org//10.3102/0091732X 09349791.