British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 38 No 6 2007 990–1009

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00687.x

Development and validation of a mobile computer

anxiety scale

Yi-Shun Wang

Yi-Shun Wang is an associate professor in the Department of Information Management at National

Changhua University of Education. Address for correspondence: Yi-Shun Wang, Department of Infor-
mation Management, National Changhua University of Education, No. 2, Shi-Da Road, Changhua City
500, Taiwan. Email: yswang@cc.ncue.edu.tw

Abstract
Although researchers have developed various scales for measuring users’ com-
puter anxiety or Internet anxiety, none of the literature has addressed the
measurement of mobile computer anxiety (MCA). The purpose of this study is
to develop and validate a multidimensional mobile computer anxiety scale
(MCAS) based on previous research on computer anxiety and Internet anxiety.
In this study, I introduce and define the construct of MCA, provide an empiri-
cal validation of the construct and its underlying dimensionality, develop a
generic MCA scale with desirable psychometric properties and explore the
scale’s theoretical and practical applications. By analysing data from a sample
of 287 respondents, this study proposes a 7-factor, 38-item MCAS. This empiri-
cally validated scale will be useful to researchers in developing and testing
mobile learning (m-learning) theories, as well as to educators and m-learning
managers in understanding an individual’s MCA and in promoting the use of
mobile computing and learning systems.

Introduction
Recently, mobile technology has rapidly and dramatically influenced the way people live
and communicate. In order for people to obtain mobile computing and communication
capability, traditional desktop computing and communication equipment are trans-
formed and converged into various forms, such as cellular phones, personal digital
assistants and smart phones. The upcoming scenario of convergence of mobile com-
munication and computing promises to merge the functions of hand-held computers
and cellular phones into a single hardware platform (Bellotti, Berta, Gloria & Marga-
rone, 2003). Thus, the new palm-size mobile equipment, capable of executing com-
puter programs, communicating and connecting to the Internet, can be called mobile
computers. While achieving mobility, mobile computers suffer from some drawbacks as
compared to traditional desktop computers such as smaller displays (Brewster, 2002),
© 2006 The Author. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. Published by
Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
 Mobile computer anxiety scale 991

limited input capabilities (James & Reischel, 2001) as well as smaller storage capacity
and bandwidth (Dunlop & Brewster, 2002; Varshney, 1999). Therefore, the new prop-
erties of a mobile computer may affect the ergonomics of the device to a great extent
and lead to the end-users’ anxiety.

With the proliferation of mobile computing, the adoption of mobile computers by

individuals will become one of the critical factors affecting the success of the imple-
mentation of mobile learning systems. However, mobile computer anxiety (MCA) may
influence individuals’ adoption of mobile computers and learning systems. In order for
wireless-based applications to be implemented effectively in the context of mobile learn-
ing, it is required to develop a better understanding of individuals’ MCA. However, while
computer anxiety and wire-based Internet anxiety have received much attention
among researchers (eg, Chou, 2003; Cohen & Waugh, 1989; Dukes, Discenza &
Couger, 1989; Francis & Evans, 1995), little research has been conducted to assess
individuals’ anxiety towards using mobile computers. Traditional measures of com-
puter anxiety and Internet anxiety are perceived as being inapplicable in the context of
mobile computers, as they are targeted primarily towards either desktop computers or
a wire-based Internet context.

Thus, the purpose of this study was to develop and validate a comprehensive, multi-
dimensional scale for measuring MCA. To assess the extent and specific nature of MCA,
different dimensions of MCA must be defined both conceptually and operationally.
Developing such a scale can: (1) capture multiple aspects of MCA; (2) provide insights
into the nature of interrelationships among MCA dimensions; (3) provide a more accu-
rate diagnostic instrument to assess individuals’ MCA and (4) provide several important
implications for mobile human–computer interaction research and practice. Until such
a scale is developed, the varying measures of MCA will inhibit the generalisability and
accumulation of research findings.

The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. In the next section, this study
conceptualises the construct of MCA based on previous literature. It is followed by
descriptions of research methods used in scale item generation and data collection.
Then this study presents the results of purifying the MCA scale, identifying the factor
structure of the scale and examining the scale’s reliability, content validity, criterion-
related validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity and nomological validity. The
norms of the scale are then developed, and the implications for practice and research
explored. Finally, this paper concludes by discussing the limitations of the study. The
empirically validated scale will be useful to researchers in developing and testing mobile
learning behaviour theories, and to educators in decreasing individuals’ MCA and
promoting the acceptance of mobile computing and learning systems.

Domain of MCA
Computer anxiety
Computer anxiety has been defined as emotional fear, apprehension and phobia felt by
individuals towards interactions with computers or towards the thought of using com-

© 2006 The Author. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
992 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 38 No 6 2007

puters (Herdman, 1983; Howard, 1986; Marcoulides, 1989). It should not be confused
with negative attitudes towards computers, which entail beliefs and feelings about
computers rather than one’s emotional reaction towards using them (Heinssen, Glass
& Knight, 1987). Thus, computer anxiety is characterised as an affective response
(Barbeite & Weiss, 2004). Previous researchers contend that computer anxiety is a kind
of ‘state anxiety’ that tends to change in specific situations (Cambre & Cook, 1985;
Heinssen et al, 1987; Oetting, 1983; Raub, 1981).

Chua, Chen and Wong (1999) suggest that computer anxiety cannot be fully described
from a unidimensional perspective. It is a multidimensional psychological construct.
Unlike the study of mathematics anxiety, where two measures—the Mathematics
Anxiety Rating Scale (Richardson & Suinn, 1972) and the Fennema–Sherman Math-
ematics Attitudes Scale (Fennema & Sherman, 1976)—have been used in the majority
of all studies, researchers have used a variety of measures to assess computer anxiety
(Rosen & Weil, 1995a). For example, Howard (1986) proposed two dimensions: dura-
tion of anxiety (temporary vs. permanent) and intensity of computer anxiety (normal
vs. neurotic) to measure computer anxiety. Marcoulides (1989) validated a 20-item,
2-factor (general computer anxiety and equipment anxiety) computer anxiety scale.
Mcinerney, Mcinerney and Sinclair (1994) measured computer anxiety from four
dimensions: (1) learning about computers; (2) computer equipment anxiety; (3) com-
puter message anxiety and (4) observing computers anxiety. Rosen and Weil also used
three dimensions (ie, interactive computer learning anxiety, consumer technology
anxiety and observational computer learning anxiety) to measure computer anxiety.
Other examples of computer anxiety measures include a 19-item computer anxiety
rating scale (Heinssen et al, 1987) and a 10-item computer anxiety subset of the com-
puter attitude scale (Loyd & Gressard, 1984).

While there is no consensus in the literature as to whether or not computer anxiety is

a phenomenon that requires different measurement instruments for different popula-
tions (Worthington & Zhao, 1999), some research (Bandalos & Benson, 1990; Francis
& Evans, 1995; Marcoulides, Mayes & Wiseman, 1995) suggest that computer anxiety
is a more universal phenomenon that could be measured in different groups with the
same instrument. In addition, many of the prior studies (eg, Laguna & Babcock, 1997;
Pope-Davis & Twing, 1991) used computer anxiety instruments that were developed
sometimes 5 or 10 years previously. The computer anxiety literature neglects to discuss
the changing nature of computer technology, operationalising computer anxiety
instead as a static object (Worthington & Zhao, 1999). This also implies that a newly
standardised computer anxiety scale should be developed in the context of mobile
computing and learning.

Computer anxiety was also found to be a determinant of computer use avoidance. For
instance, Maurer and Simonson (1984) conclude that a person with computer anxiety
would exhibit avoidance of computers. Weil and Rosen (1995a) also suggest that the
avoidance of computer use for teachers is caused by computer anxiety. Based on
prior studies, Chua et al (1999) summarise and characterise the nature of computer

© 2006 The Author. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
 Mobile computer anxiety scale 993

anxiety using four statements: (1) computer anxiety is a fear of computers when using
the computer, or when considering the possibility of computer use; (2) computer
anxiety is a kind of ‘state anxiety’ that can be changed; (3) computer anxiety is
measurable in multiple dimensions and (4) computer anxiety causes computer use
avoidance.

Internet anxiety
In just a few short years, the Internet has become a global phenomenon, transforming
the way we conduct business, interact and learn. The Internet provides a variety of
properties that a stand-alone computer does not have, such as World Wide Web, Bul-
letin Board System, chat rooms and email. As Chou (2003) suggests, while these new
characteristics are highly applauded by most users, they may cause anxiety in others.
Thus, a new Internet anxiety scale should be developed and validated based on the
construct of computer anxiety. Presno (1998) proposed four dimensions of Internet
anxiety: (1) Internet terminology anxiety; (2) net search anxiety; (3) Internet time
delay anxiety and (4) a general fear of Internet failure. Through surveying 136 high
school and vocational high school teachers in Taiwan, Chou identified four aspects of
Internet anxiety: (1) Internet use; (2) hardware construction; (3) management of stu-
dents’ Internet use and (4) learning computer-related skills and knowledge. She also
found gender difference, teachers’ major areas and prior computer experience (ie,
computer-use hours per week and Internet-use hours per week) had a significant influ-
ence on Internet anxiety.

MCA
Advances in mobile technology give pace to the rapid development of mobile learning
conducted with portable mobile computers. However, mobile computers are distin-
guished from stationary and wire-based computers in various attributes. For example,
Siau, Lim and Shen (2001) suggest that mobile computers have ‘(1) small screens and
small multifunction key pads; (2) less computational power, limited memory and disk
capacity; (3) shorter battery life; (4) complicated text input mechanisms; (5) higher risk
of data storage and transaction errors; (6) lower display resolution; (7) less surfability;
(8) unfriendly user-interfaces; and (9) graphical limitations’ (p. 6). Tsalgatidou and
Pitoura (2001) also suggest that mobile elements have fewer resources than static
elements. As noted earlier, the new properties of a mobile computer may result in the
end-users’ anxiety towards using them. Thus, MCA would inhibit the proliferation
of mobile computing and learning until individuals accept mobile computers.

Many researchers have spent the greater part of the past 2 decades verifying the exist-
ence of the construct of computer anxiety (Cohen & Waugh, 1989; Dukes et al, 1989;
Francis & Evans, 1995; Marcoulides, 1989; Marcoulides et al, 1995). However, mobile
computer technology has experienced several major transformations over the past 5
years. It is believed that the mobile computer context departs significantly from the
previous stationary computer contexts, necessitating the development of a new scale
for measuring the MCA of individuals. Based on prior studies on computer anxiety,
MCA can be defined as a negative affective response by individuals towards interactions

© 2006 The Author. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
994 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 38 No 6 2007

with mobile computers or towards the possibility of using one. In this study, I attempted
to develop a multidimensional scale for measuring MCA by adapting the previously
validated measures of computer anxiety and Internet anxiety to the context of mobile
computers. However, an instrument has nomological validity if it ‘behaves as expected
with respect to some other constructs to which it is theoretically related’ (Churchill,
1995, p. 538). In order to test the nomological validity of the proposed mobile com-
puter anxiety scale (MCAS), this study presents two hypotheses based on the following
elaboration.

First, social cognitive theory posits that self-efficacy and anxiety influence each other
(Bandura, 1977, 1997). Namely, as individuals experience higher anxiety, they may
report lower levels of efficacy; however, as their efficacy levels rise, individuals report a
corresponding decrease in anxiety. In the information systems (IS) literature, Marakas,
Yi and Johnson (1998) also modelled computer self-efficacy and computer anxiety as
having a reciprocal relationship. Previous researchers contend that the higher an
individual’s computer self-efficacy, the lower his/her computer anxiety (Compeau &
Higgins, 1995; Compeau, Higgins & Huff, 1999). Thatcher and Perrewé (2002) also
suggest that computer anxiety will have a negative relationship with computer self-
efficacy. Thus, the following hypothesis was tested.

Hypothesis 1: A negative relationship exists between the MCAS score and the mobile computer
self-efficacy.

Second, the primary purpose of developing MCAS is to predict behaviour, and thus the
measurement of MCA should be more closely tied to attitude–behaviour theory. MCA is
a kind of attitude that can cause computer use avoidance. Computer anxiety was also
found to have a direct influence on system usage (Compeau & Higgins, 1995; Compeau
et al, 1999). For this reason, individuals with high degrees of MCA are expected to have
lower degrees of intention to use a mobile computer. The following hypothesis was
tested to validate the nomological validity of the proposed MCAS:

Hypothesis 2: A negative relationship exists between the MCAS score and the behavioural inten-
tion to use a mobile computer.

Generation of scale items

Operationally, MCA can be considered as a summation of anxiety towards various
attributes or items. There are various potential measures of the MCA construct. This
study attempted to take computer anxiety and Internet anxiety into consideration in
developing new MCA measuring items. A review of the literature on computer anxiety
and Internet anxiety (Charlton & Birkett, 1995, 1998; Chou, 2003; Heinssen et al,
1987; Howard, 1986; Kernan & Howard, 1990; Loyd & Gressard, 1984; Marcoulides,
1989; Mcinerney et al, 1994; Raub, 1981; Rosen & Weil, 1995a; Siau et al, 2001)
obtained 44 items representing various dimensions underlying the MCA construct, and
these were used to form the initial pool of items for the MCAS. To make sure that
no important aspects of anxiety were omitted, this study conducted experience surveys

© 2006 The Author. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
 Mobile computer anxiety scale 995

and personal interviews regarding MCA with the assistance of two professionals, two
college teachers and five mobile computer users. They were asked to review the initial
item list of the MCAS, and they recommended adding six extra items. Thus, the
expanded 50-item list was considered to constitute a complete domain for the MCA
measurement.

An exploratory 50-item MCAS was developed using a 7-point Likert-type scale, with
anchors ranging from not at all anxious to very much anxious. In order to analyse the
criterion validity and nomological validity of the MCAS, two items for measuring per-
ceived overall MCA were developed as criteria, and two items for the behavioural inten-
tion construct were adapted from previous applications of the technology acceptance
model (Agarwal & Prasad, 1999; Venkatesh & Davis, 1996). Additionally, three items
adapted from Compeau and Higgins (1995) were used to measure mobile computer
self-efficacy. Likert scales (1–7), with anchors ranging from strongly disagree to strongly
agree, were used for criteria and behavioural intention items. The anchors of the items
measuring mobile computer self-efficacy ranged from not at all confident to totally confi-
dent. In addition to the previously mentioned items, the questionnaire contained demo-
graphic questions. Respondents were instructed to circle the response that best
described their level of agreement with the statements. After careful examination of the
result of pretesting by selected users, the statements were further adjusted to make the
wording as precise as possible. The Appendix lists the items used in this study.

Data collection and scale purification

Subjects
To make the results generalisable, this study gathered data from several profit or non-
profit organisations in Taiwan using convenience sampling. A sample of 287 usable
responses was obtained from a variety of respondents with different demographic back-
grounds. According to the sample data, the respondents ranged from 19 to 60 years of
age (mean = 24.5 years). Approximately 54.4% of the respondents were male, and
45.6% were female. The characteristics of the respondents are shown in Table 1.

Item analysis and reliability estimates

The 50-item instrument (with the two global items excluded) was refined by analysing
the pooled data; that is, the data collected from potential users of mobile computers
across different organisations were considered together. Because the primary purpose of
this study was to develop a standardised instrument with desirable psychometric prop-
erties for measuring MCA, the pooling of the sample data was considered appropriate
and justified.

The first step in purifying the MCAS is to calculate the coefficient alpha and the item-
to-total correlations that are used to delete garbage items (Cronbach, 1951). To avoid
spurious part–whole correlation, the criterion used in this study for determining
whether to delete an item or not was the item’s corrected item-to-total correlation.
Additionally, it seems appropriate and justified to assume that MCA is a simple construct
prior to identifying its underlying dimensions using exploratory factor analysis. Thus,

© 2006 The Author. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
996 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 38 No 6 2007

Table 1: Characteristics of the respondents

Characteristic Number Percentage

Gender
Female 131 45.6
Male 156 54.5
Age
<=20 10 3.5
21–30 187 65.1
31–40 51 17.8
41–50 31 10.8
>50 8 2.8
Education
Junior high school 4 1.4
Senior high school 20 7.0
Junior college 53 18.5
Bachelor 145 50.5
Master 62 21.6
PhD 3 1.0
Industry
Manufacturing 16 5.6
Services 32 11.2
Computer & telecommunication 25 8.7
Finance 37 12.9
Education and research 52 18.1
Government agencies 78 27.2
Electric & electronics 7 2.4
Trade 8 2.8
Real estate 3 1.1
Healthcare 2 0.7
Culture & publishing 15 5.2
Others 12 4.1

based on the assumption that all items in the MCAS share a common core, the coeffi-
cient alpha and the corrected item-to-total correlations for the 50-item MCAS were
calculated. The 50-item MCAS had a reliability (Cronbach’s a) of 0.948. This study
screened the collected data by eliminating items that show low corrected item-to-total
correlations, ie, <0.40. Because each item’s corrected item-to-total correlation was
above 0.4, no item was eliminated in this stage.

Identifying the factor structure of the MCA construct

An exploratory factor analysis was conducted to further examine the factor structure of
the 50-item MCAS. Before identifying the factor structure of the MCA construct using
factor analysis, a chi-square value of 7,067 and significance level of <0.001 were
obtained using Bartlett’s sphericity test, which suggests that the intercorrelation matrix
contains sufficient common variance to make factor analysis worthwhile. The sample
data of 287 responses was examined using a principal-components factor analysis as

© 2006 The Author. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
 Mobile computer anxiety scale 997

the extraction technique, and varimax as the orthogonal rotation method. To improve
the convergent validity and discriminant validity (Price & Mueller, 1986) of the MCAS
through exploratory factor analysis, four commonly employed decision rules (Hair,
Anderson, Tatham & Black, 1998; Straub, 1989) were applied to identify the factors
underlying the MCA construct: (1) using a minimum eigenvalue of 1 as a cut-off value
for extraction; (2) deleting items with factor loadings less than 0.5 on all factors or
greater than 0.5 on two or more factors; (3) a simple factor structure; and (4) the
exclusion of single-item factors from the standpoint of parsimony.

The iterative sequence of factor analysis and item deletion was repeated, resulting in an
MCAS of 38 items representing seven distinct factors with eigenvalue of ⱖ1. These
seven factors were interpreted as learning, Internet use, equipment limitation, job
replacement, computer use, computer configuration and Internet stability, explaining
65.69% of the variance in the dataset. Table 2 summarises the factor loadings for the
condensed 38-item MCAS. The significant loading of all the items on the single factor
indicates convergent validity, while the fact that no cross-loading items were found
supports the discriminant validity of the scale.

Assessing reliability and validity

Reliability
Reliability was evaluated by assessing the internal consistency of the items representing
each factor using Cronbach’s a. The 38-item instrument had a very high reliability of
0.975, exceeding the minimum standard of 0.80 suggested for basic research. The
reliability of each factor was as follows: learning = 0.916; Internet use = 0.878; equip-
ment limitation = 0.879; job replacement = 0.832; computer use = 0.828; computer
configuration = 0.843; and Internet stability = 0.799. Furthermore, each of the 38
items had a corrected item-to-total correlation of above 0.4 (see Table 3).

Content validity
The MCAS met the requirements of reliability and had a consistent factor structure.
However, while high reliability and internal consistency are necessary conditions for a
scale’s construct validity (the extent to which a scale fully and unambiguously captures
the underlying, unobservable construct it is intended to measure), they are not suffi-
cient (Nunnally, 1978). The basic qualitative criterion concerning construct validity is
content validity. Content validity implies that the scale considers all aspects of the
construct being measured. Churchill (1979) contends that ‘specifying the domain of
the construct, generating items that exhaust the domain, and subsequently purifying
the resulting scale should produce a measure which is content or face valid and reli-
able’. Therefore, the rigorous procedures used in conceptualising the MCA construct,
generating items and purifying the MCA measures suggest that the MCAS has strong
content validity.

Criterion-related validity
The criterion-related validity was assessed by the correlation between the total scores
on the MCAS (sum for 38 items) and the measures of valid criterion (sum of two

© 2006 The Author. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
998 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 38 No 6 2007

Table 2: Rotated factor loadings for the 38-item mobile computer anxiety scale

Item Internet Equipment Job Computer Computer Internet

Code Learning use limitation replacement use configuration stability

Q44 0.844
Q45 0.815
Q47 0.788
Q43 0.786
Q41 0.762
Q40 0.631
Q46 0.606
Q48 0.570
Q2 0.765
Q4 0.727
Q6 0.699
Q5 0.688
Q3 0.628
Q19 0.624
Q1 0.618
Q7 0.572
Q14 0.859
Q15 0.844
Q13 0.832
Q16 0.657
Q17 0.538
Q25 0.699
Q26 0.695
Q24 0.641
Q27 0.584
Q28 0.554
Q23 0.550
Q35 0.693
Q34 0.679
Q37 0.605
Q38 0.575
Q31 0.709
Q30 0.705
Q32 0.663
Q33 0.605
Q22 0.759
Q21 0.756
Q18 0.624

Suppress absolute values <0.50.

global items). The two criterion items had a reliability (Cronbach’s a) of 0.86.
Criterion-related validity refers to concurrent validity in this study where the scores on
the MCAS and the two criterion items are measured at the same time. A positive
relationship was expected between the total score and the valid criterion if the MCAS
was capable of measuring the MCA construct. The 38-item scale had a criterion-related

© 2006 The Author. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
 Mobile computer anxiety scale 999

Table 3: Item-to-total correlations of mobile computer anxiety measures

Item Original Corrected item-to-

code item code Item description total correlation

L1 Q44 Taking a class about the use of mobile 0.469

computer
L2 Q45 Learning to operate mobile computers 0.532
L3 Q47 Learning to understand all the special keys 0.448
contained on a mobile computer
L4 Q43 Learning how a mobile computer works 0.587
L5 Q41 Learning to use calendar and notes functions 0.614
on a mobile computer
L6 Q40 Learning to use multimedia functions (eg, 0.570
video playing) on a mobile computer
L7 Q46 Being unable to keep up with the advance of 0.557
mobile computers
L8 Q48 Reading a mobile computer manual 0.480
I1 Q2 Searching for information on the Internet 0.477
using a mobile computer
I2 Q4 Receiving and sending documents (eg, email) 0.532
over the Internet using a mobile computer
I3 Q6 The use of the Internet with a mobile 0.467
computer is required for an information
society
I4 Q5 Getting software and data from remote sites 0.508
using a mobile computer
I5 Q3 Searching particular information from 0.490
numerous Internet resources using a mobile
computer
I6 Q19 Browsing web pages using a mobile computer 0.566
I7 Q1 Connecting a mobile computer to the Internet 0.582
I8 Q7 Posting an article onto the Bulletin Board 0.506
System using a mobile computer
E1 Q14 Using a mobile computer with a limited 0.547
memory
E2 Q15 Using a mobile computer with a limited disk 0.499
capacity
E3 Q13 Using a mobile computer with a limited 0.517
computational power
E4 Q16 Using a mobile computer with a limited electric 0.571
power
E5 Q17 Using a mobile computer with complicated text 0.587
input mechanisms
J1 Q25 Mobile computers would replace someone’s job 0.651
J2 Q26 Working on mobile computer 0.598
J3 Q24 I am afraid that if I begin to use mobile 0.492
computers I will become dependent upon
them and lose some of my reasoning skills
J4 Q27 Mobile computers would increase role in 0.664
society
J5 Q28 Talking to friends/colleagues about mobile 0.654
computer

© 2006 The Author. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
1000 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 38 No 6 2007

Table 3: Continued

Item Original Corrected item-to-

code item code Item description total correlation

J6 Q23 It is necessary to use a mobile computer in my 0.628

job
U1 Q35 Interpreting a mobile computer output 0.611
U2 Q34 Getting error messages while operating a 0.458
mobile computer
U3 Q37 Causing a large amount of data be destroyed 0.664
while using a mobile computer
U4 Q38 Using a specific mobile computer you never 0.625
used before
C1 Q31 Disassembling hardware components, such as 0.527
memory card, battery, etc
C2 Q30 Looking at disassembled mobile computer 0.653
components, such as SIM card, battery, etc
C3 Q32 Configuring a mobile computer to use the 0.588
Internet
C4 Q33 Setting up the configuration of a mobile 0.613
computer
S1 Q22 Using a mobile computer in the context of 0.638
slower wireless network
S2 Q21 Using a mobile computer in the context of less 0.602
stable wireless network
S3 Q18 Using a mobile computer in the context of 0.628
higher risk of transmission errors

validity of 0.58 and a significant level of 0.01, representing an acceptable criterion-

related validity.

Discriminant and convergent validity

While the previous factor analysis has preliminarily demonstrated the discriminant and
convergent validity, this study further used the correlation matrix approach to evaluate
these two validities of the MCAS. Convergent validity tests whether the correlations
between measures of the same factor are different from zero and large enough to
warrant further investigation of discriminant validity. The smallest within-factor cor-
relations are: learning = 0.31; Internet use = 0.29; equipment limitation = 0.40; job
replacement = 0.35; computer use = 0.42; computer configuration = 0.50; Internet
stability = 0.45. These correlations are significantly higher than zero (p < 0.001) and
large enough to proceed with discriminant validity analysis.

Discriminant validity was assessed with the confidence interval approach recom-
mended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). Table 4 indicated the correlations among
the seven dimensions. The seven dimensions correlated significantly with each other,
implying the existence of a common MCA construct governing the seven dimensions.

© 2006 The Author. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
 Mobile computer anxiety scale 1001

Table 4: Correlations among mobile computer anxiety dimensions

Factor 2: Factor 3: Factor 4: Factor 5: Factor 6: Factor 7:

Factor 1: Internet equipment job computer computer internet
learning use limitation replacement use configuration stability

Factor 1 1.00
Factor 2 0.537** 1.00
Factor 3 0.308** 0.338** 1.00
Factor 4 0.567** 0.523** 0.443** 1.00
Factor 5 0.467** 0.468** 0.521** 0.577** 1.00
Factor 6 0.589** 0.523** 0.364** 0.585** 0.554** 1.00
Factor 7 0.344** 0.480** 0.484** 0.446** 0.556** 0.388** 1.00

**p < 0.01.

However, confidence intervals constructed around the pairwise correlation between

seven factors do not contain the value of 1.00. These results support the discriminant
validity of the multiple-item scales.

Nomological validity
Nomological validity was evaluated by testing Hypotheses 1 and 2. A negative relation-
ship was expected between the total score on the MCAS and the two instruments
representing the mobile computer self-efficacy and usage intention, if the scale has
nomological validity. Using correlation analysis, Hypotheses 1 and 2 were significantly
supported at p < 0.01 (r = -0.226 and r = -0.391 respectively), thus supporting the
nomological validity of the proposed MCAS. The intent of nomological validity test was
not to test hypotheses per se or explain the result obtained, but rather to illustrate the
usefulness of the MCAS in developing and testing more precise research questions.

Implications for practice

In summary, the 38-item MCAS that emerged was demonstrated to produce acceptable
psychometric properties, including reliability, content validity, criterion-related
(concurrent) validity, discriminant validity, convergent validity and nomological valid-
ity. The MCAS can be utilised to assess an individual’s MCA. However, a better way of
assessing individual MCA is to compare individual anxiety levels with norms—the total
distribution of the anxiety levels rated by other people. The diversity nature of the
sample data used in this study makes it appropriate for the development of tentative
standards. Table 5 lists percentile scores for the 38-item MCAS. Other relevant sample
statistics are: minimum = 40; maximum = 221; mean = 134.68; median = 135;
mode = 140; standard deviation = 32.503; skewness = -0.152; and kurtosis = 0.08.
These statistics may be useful for more precisely evaluating user anxiety of mobile
computers. This evaluation may provide a fast and early feedback to end-users, educa-
tors and m-learning managers.

Mobile service, such as mobile learning and mobile banking, will increase significantly
in the near future. However, the MCA perceived by individuals is an important inhibitor

© 2006 The Author. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
1002 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 38 No 6 2007

Table 5: Percentile scores—38-item Mobile Computer

Anxiety Scale

Percentile Value

10 93.0
20 110.0
30 118.4
40 126.0
50 135.0
60 142.0
70 151.0
80 164.0
90 177.0

to the proliferation of mobile learning systems. Moreover, the usage of mobile comput-
ing and learning is quasi-voluntary, and the target user group may consist of a large
number of people with very diverse backgrounds. Given these facts, decreasing
individuals’ anxiety towards using mobile computers is crucial for educators and
m-learning practitioners to promote mobile learning usage. As the concise MCAS with
good reliability and validity is periodically administered to a representative set of end-
users, educators and m-learning managers can employ this MCAS to enhance their
understanding of users’ MCA and take corrective actions for improvement. Organising
education and training courses in various mobile computing technologies can facilitate
individuals’ familiarity with mobile computers and help them decrease MCA, which, in
turn, influences the behavioural intention to use mobile computers and learning
systems.

This empirically validated MCAS emphasised the importance of assuming a multi-

dimensional analytical approach. It is imperative for educators to put emphasis on
various anxiety dimensions (ie, learning, Internet use, equipment limitation, job
replacement, computer use, computer configuration and Internet stability). In addition
to making an overall assessment, the MCAS can be used to compare the difference of
individuals in one or some of the anxiety dimensions. If educators and m-learning
managers find someone lacking in any of these dimensions, then they may do a more
detailed analysis and take necessary corrective actions for improvement.

Implications for research

It is believed that mobile computers depart significantly from stationary computers,
thus necessitating the development of a new scale for measuring user anxiety in the
context of mobile computers. This study conceptualised a construct of MCA and devel-
oped a generic scale with desirable psychometric properties for measuring the con-
struct. The validated 38-item MCAS consists of seven factors: learning, Internet use,
equipment limitation, job replacement, computer use, computer configuration and
Internet stability.

© 2006 The Author. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
 Mobile computer anxiety scale 1003

It was also found that the MCA construct in the mobile computing environment was
somewhat different than the computer anxiety construct in the stationary computer
environment (Heller & Martin, 1987; Mcinerney et al, 1994; Rosen & Weil, 1995a) as
well as the Internet anxiety construct in the wire-based Internet environment (Chou,
2003). In fact, our proposed MCAS can be characterised as containing three distinct
components: (1) dimensions similar to the traditional computer anxiety construct (eg,
learning); (2) facets much the same as the Internet anxiety construct (eg, Internet use)
and (3) special factors making up the MCA construct (eg, equipment limitation).

Conventional research that focuses primarily on computer anxiety can be divided into
three categories: (1) identifying the relationship between computer anxiety, demo-
graphic variables and prior computer experience (eg, Beckers & Schmidt 2003; Bozion-
elos 2001, Chua et al, 1999; Farina, 1991; Igbaria & Chakrabarti 1990, Jones & Wall,
1989; Laguna & Babcock 1997; Liu, Reed & Phillips, 1992; Maurer, 1994; Reed &
Palumbo, 1987–1988; Rosen & Weil 1995b; Torkzadeh & Angulo 1992); (2) discuss-
ing the reciprocal relationship between computer anxiety and computer self-efficacy
(eg, Compeau & Higgins, 1995; Compeau et al, 1999; Thatcher & Perrewé, 2002); and
(3) considering the computer anxiety construct as an antecedent of the IS usage or task
performance. (eg, Barbeite & Weiss, 2004; Compeau & Higgins, 1995; Compeau et al,
1999).

However, much of the literature that attempts to correlate computer anxiety with other
factors appears to be inconsistent, contradictory and subsequently of little help to those
who would deal with computer anxiety (Worthington & Zhao, 1999). Using the stan-
dardised, multidimensional MCAS, we would be better able to explain the contradic-
tions in the literature, predict which groups will experience MCA, as well as make more
convincing predictions about the occurrence of MCA. Through the proposed scale,
future research efforts could also develop and test research hypotheses and theories
relating to user/student behaviour in the context of mobile learning. Based on past
literature, researchers could investigate the causal relationship between constructs,
such as individual differences, MCA, self-efficacy and mobile learning usage. These
findings can provide more insights into how to implement successful mobile learning.
The 7-factor, 38-item MCAS with good reliability and validity can provide researchers
with a tool for measuring MCA, and a basis for explaining, justifying and comparing
differences among the results.

Conclusion and limitations

A primary contribution of this work was to have started a stream of work to develop a
generic MCA scale and investigate relationships between MCA and mobile user/learner
behaviour. The development and validation of an MCA scale also represent an impor-
tant step in the development of the theories concerning MCA and mobile computer/
learning usage. Based on previous literature, this study conceptually defined the
domain of an MCA construct, operationally designed the initial MCA item list and
empirically validated the generic MCA scale. The result revealed that the proposed
MCAS had desirable psychometric properties, which is of value not only to educators

© 2006 The Author. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
1004 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 38 No 6 2007

and m-learning practitioners responsible for the implementation and promotion of

m-learning, but also to researchers interested in developing theories explaining and
predicting mobile learner behaviours. This study recommends that researchers, educa-
tors and practitioners use this scale in the context of mobile computing and learning.
The generality of the MCAS provides a common framework for the comparative analy-
sis of results from various studies.

While this study developed and validated the generic MCAS using a rigorous procedure,
this research still has some limitations that could be addressed in the future. Firstly, the
language used in the stages of item generation, personal interviews and data collection
was traditional Chinese. However, the final form of the MCAS was expressed in English.
Cultural differences and language barriers are important concerns in the study of scale
development. Having done work with scales in multiple languages, there is no assur-
ance that the results translate into English without an additional validation study on
English speaking users. As present, the MCAS should be limited to the Chinese audience
until such a study is completed. Thus, future researchers could conduct a cross-cultural
validation to further test the psychometric properties of the proposed scale.

Secondly, the findings discussed and their implications were obtained from one single
study that gathered data from a specific user group in Taiwan. The use of a nonrandom
sample of convenience and volunteers in this study may have a risk of sampling bias.
This sampling bias may limit the generalisability of the study results beyond the study
sample because of the potential lack of representativeness of the current sample. If
future researchers wish to make glittering generalities, they should first randomise their
sample to include other nationalities and geographical areas besides Taiwan. Therefore,
continued research is needed to generalise the findings of this study and extend the
discussion to include additional cultural areas or groups.

Thirdly, a test–retest reliability of the MCA scale should be evaluated. Measures of

reliability include internal consistency, generally evaluated by coefficient alpha, and
stability, while test–retest reliability examines the stability of a scale over time. Galletta
and Lederer (1989) also contend that test–retest reliability is necessary for establishing
the reliability of a scale. Therefore, the stability of the MCAS, including short- and
long-range stability, should be further investigated using the test–retest correlation
method.

Finally, a confirmatory analysis should be conducted to confirm and refine the factor
structure of the MCAS and to assess its reliability and validity. While exploratory factor
analysis may be a satisfactory technique during the early stages of research on a
construct, the subsequent use of confirmatory factor analysis seems to be required in
later stages.

Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank Mr. Jia-Chium Tsai for his assistance in collecting the
sample data.

© 2006 The Author. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
 Mobile computer anxiety scale 1005

References
Agarwal, R. & Prasad, J. (1999). Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new
information technologies? Decision Sciences, 30, 2, 361–391.
Anderson, J. C. & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 3, 411–423.
Bandalos, D. & Benson, J. (1990). Testing the factor structure invariance of a computer
attitude scale over two grouping conditions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50,
49–60.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Barbeite, F. G. & Weiss, E. M. (2004). Computer self-efficacy and anxiety scales for an Internet
sample: testing measurement equivalence of existing measures and development of new
scales. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 1, 1–15.
Beckers, J. J. & Schmidt, H. G. (2003). Computer experience and computer anxiety. Computers in
Human Behavior, 19, 6, 789–797.
Bellotti, F., Berta, R., Gloria, D. & Margarone, M. (2003). MADE: developing edutainment appli-
cations on mobile computers. Computers & Graphics, 27, 4, 617–634.
Bozionelos, N. (2001). Computer anxiety: relationship with computer experience and prevalence.
Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 2, 213–224.
Brewster, S. (2002). Overcoming the lack of screen space on mobile computers. Personal and
Ubiquitous Computing, 6, 3, 188–205.
Cambre, M. A. & Cook, D. L. (1985). Computer anxiety: definition, measurement and correlates.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1, 1, 37–54.
Charlton, J. P. & Birkett, P. E. (1995). The development and validation of the computer apathy and
anxiety scale. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13, 1, 41–59.
Charlton, J. P. & Birkett, P. E. (1998). Psychological characteristics of students taking program-
ming oriented and applications-oriented computing courses. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 18, 2, 163–182.
Chou, C. (2003). Incidences and correlates of Internet anxiety among high school teachers in
Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 6, 731–749.
Chua, S. L., Chen, D.-T. & Wong, A. F. L. (1999). Computer anxiety and its correlates: a meta-
analysis. Computer in Human Behavior, 15, 2, 609–623.
Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs.
Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 1, 64–73.
Churchill, G. A. (1995). Marketing research: methodological foundations (6th ed.). Chicago: The
Dryden Press.
Cohen, B. A. & Waugh, G. W. (1989). Assessing computer anxiety. Psychological Reports, 65,
735–738.
Compeau, D. R. & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: development of a measure and
initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19, 2, 189–211.
Compeau, D. R., Higgins, C. A. & Huff, S. (1999). Social cognitive theory and individual reactions
to computing technology: a longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly, 3, 2, 145–158.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient a and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 13,
297–334.
Dukes, R. L., Discenza, R. & Couger, J. D. (1989). Convergent validity of four computer anxiety
scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 195–203.
Dunlop, M. & Brewster, S. (2002). The challenge of mobile devices for human computer inter-
action. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 6, 4, 235–236.
Farina, F. (1991). Predictors of computer anxiety. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 3, 69–291.
Fennema, E. & Sherman, J. A. (1976). Fennema–Sherman mathematics attitude scales. Instru-
ments designed to measure attitudes toward the learning of mathematics by females and
males. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 7, 324–326.

© 2006 The Author. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
1006 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 38 No 6 2007

Francis, L. J. & Evans, T. E. (1995). The reliability and validity of the Bath County Computer
Attitude Scale. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12, 2, 135–146.
Galletta, D. F. & Lederer, A. L. (1989). Some cautions on the measurement of user information
satisfaction. Decision Sciences, 20, 3, 419–438.
Hair, J. E., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Heinssen, R. K., Glass, C. R. & Knight, L. A. (1987). Assessing computer anxiety: development
and validation of the computer anxiety rating scale. Computers in Human Behavior, 3, 49–59.
Heller, R. S. & Martin, C. D. (1987). Measuring the level of teacher concerns over microcomputers
in instruction. Education and Computing, 3, 133–139.
Herdman, P. C. (1983). High tech anxiety. Management Focus, 30, 3, 29–31.
Howard, G. S. (1986). Computer anxiety and management use of microcomputers. Ann Arbor, MI:
Umi Research Press.
Igbaria, M. & Chakrabarti, A. (1990). Computer anxiety and attitudes towards microcomputer
use. Behavior and Information Technology, 9, 229–241.
James, C. L. & Reischel, K. M. (2001). Text input for mobile devices: comparing model prediction to
actual performance. The proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (pp. 365–371). Seattle, WA: ACM Press.
Jones, P. E. & Wall, R. E. (1989). Components of computer anxiety. Journal of Educational Tech-
nology Systems, 18, 3, 161–168.
Kernan, M. C. & Howard, G. S. (1990). Computer anxiety and computer attitudes: an investiga-
tion of construct and predictive validity issues. Education and Psychological Measurement, 50,
681–690.
Laguna, K. & Babcock, R. L. (1997). Computer anxiety in young and older adults: implications for
human–computer interactions in older populations. Computers in Human Behavior, 13, 3, 317–
326.
Liu, M., Reed, W. & Phillips, P. (1992). Teacher education students and computers: gender, major,
prior computer experience, occurrence and anxiety. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
24, 4, 457–467.
Loyd, B. H. & Gressard, C. (1984). Reliability and factorial validity of computer attitude scales.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44, 2, 501–505.
Marakas, G. M., Yi, M. Y. & Johnson, R. D. (1998). The multilevel and multifaceted character of
computer self-efficacy: toward clarification on the construct and an integrative framework for
research. Information Systems Research, 9, 2, 126–163.
Marcoulides, G. A. (1989). Measuring computer anxiety: the computer anxiety scale. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 49, 733–738.
Marcoulides, G. A., Mayes, B. T. & Wiseman, R. L. (1995). Measuring computer anxiety in the
work environment. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 5, 804–810.
Maurer, M. M. (1994). Computer anxiety correlates and what they tell us: a literature review.
Computers in Human Behavior, 10, 3, 369–376.
Maurer, M. M. & Simonson, M. R. (1984). Development and validation of a measure of computer
anxiety. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communi-
cation and Technology. Dallas, TX: ERIC.
Mcinerney, V., Mcinerney, D. M. & Sinclair, K. E. (1994). Student teachers, computer anxiety and
computer experience. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 11, 1, 27–50.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oetting, E. R. (1983). Oetting’s computer anxiety scale. Port Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain. Behav-
ioral Science Institute.
Pope-Davis, D. B. & Twing, J. S. (1991). The effects of age, gender, and experience on measures of
attitude regarding computers. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 333–339.
Presno, C. (1998). Taking the byte out of Internet anxiety: instructional techniques that reduce
computer/Internet anxiety in the classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18, 2,
147–161.

© 2006 The Author. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
 Mobile computer anxiety scale 1007

Price, J. L. & Mueller, C. W. (1986). Handbook of organizational measurement. Marshfield, MA:

Pitman Publishing, Inc.
Raub, A. C. (1981). Correlates of computer anxiety in college students (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, PA).
Reed, W. M., Palumbo, D. B. (1987–1988). The effect of the BASIC programming language on
problem solving skills and computer anxiety. Computers in the Schools, 4, 3/4, 91–104.
Richardson, F. C. & Suinn, R. M. (1972). The mathematics anxiety rating scale: psychometric
data. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 19, 551–554.
Rosen, L. D. & Weil, M. M. (1995a). Computer anxiety: a cross-cultural comparison of university
students in ten countries. Computers in Human Behavior, 11, 1, 45–64.
Rosen, L. D. & Weil, M. M. (1995b). Computer availability, computer experience and technopho-
bia among public school teachers. Computers in Human Behavior, 11, 1, 9–31.
Siau, K., Lim, E.-P. & Shen, Z. (2001). Mobile commerce: promises, challenges, and research
agenda. Journal of Database Management, 12, 3, 4–13.
Straub, D. W. (1989). Validating instruments in MIS research. MIS Quarterly, 13, 2, 147–169.
Thatcher, J. B. & Perrewé, P. L. (2002). An empirical examination of individual traits as anteced-
ents to computer anxiety and computer self-efficacy. MIS Quarterly, 26, 4, 381–396.
Torkzadeh, G. & Angulo, I. (1992). The concept and correlates of computer anxiety. Behaviour &
Information Technology, 11, 2, 99–108.
Tsalgatidou, A. & Pitoura, E. (2001). Business models and transactions in mobile electronic
commerce: requirements and properties. Computer Networks, 37, 2, 221–236.
Varshney, U. (1999). Networking support for mobile computing. Communications of the Associa-
tion for Information Systems, 1, 1, 1–30.
Venkatesh, V. & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: devel-
opment and test. Decision Sciences, 27, 3, 451–481.
Weil, M. M. & Rosen, L. D. (1995a). The psychological impact of technology from a global
perspective: a study of technological sophistication and technophobia in university students
from twenty three countries. Computers in Human Behavior, 11, 1, 95–133.
Worthington, V. L. & Zhao, Y. (1999). Existential computer anxiety and changes in computer
technology: what past research on computer anxiety has missed. Journal of Educational Com-
puting Research, 20, 4, 299–315.

Appendix: Survey items used in the study

Measurement of mobile computer anxiety—50 items used in the scale purification
Q1. Connecting a mobile computer to the Internet.
Q2. Searching for information on the Internet using a mobile computer.
Q3. Searching particular information from numerous Internet resources using a
mobile computer.
Q4. Receiving and sending documents (eg, email) over the Internet using a mobile
computer.
Q5. Getting software and data from remote sites using a mobile computer.
Q6. The use of the Internet with a mobile computer is required for an information
society.
Q7. Posting an article onto the Bulletin Board System (BBS) using a mobile computer.
Q8. Learning about mobile computer terminology.
Q9. Operating new mobile computer software.
Q10. Purchasing products and services on the Internet using a mobile computer.
Q11. Using a mobile computer with a small screen.
Q12. Using a mobile computer with a small keyboard.

© 2006 The Author. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
1008 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 38 No 6 2007

Q13. Using a mobile computer with a limited computational power.

Q14. Using a mobile computer with a limited memory.
Q15. Using a mobile computer with a limited disk capacity.
Q16. Using a mobile computer with a limited electric power.
Q17. Using a mobile computer with complicated text input mechanisms.
Q18. Using a mobile computer in the context of higher risk of transmission errors.
Q19. Browsing web pages using a mobile computer.
Q20. Using a mobile computer with unfriendly user interfaces.
Q21. Using a mobile computer in the context of less stable wireless network.
Q22. Using a mobile computer in the context of slower wireless network.
Q23. It is necessary to use a mobile computer in my job.
Q24. I am afraid that if I begin to use mobile computers I will become dependent upon
them and lose some of my reasoning skills.
Q25. Mobile computers would replace someone’s job.
Q26. Working on mobile computer.
Q27. Mobile computers would increase role in society.
Q28. Talking to friends/colleagues about mobile computer.
Q29. Installing new software into the mobile computer.
Q30. Looking at disassembled mobile computer components, such as SIM card,
battery, etc.
Q31. Disassembling hardware components, such as memory card, battery, etc.
Q32. Configuring a mobile computer to use the Internet.
Q33. Setting up the configuration of a mobile computer.
Q34. Getting error messages while operating a mobile computer.
Q35. Interpreting a mobile computer output.
Q36. Using office automation software on a mobile computer.
Q37. Causing a large amount of data be destroyed while using a mobile computer.
Q38. Using a specific mobile computer you never used before.
Q39. Synchronizing the mobile computer with a PC.
Q40. Learning to use multimedia functions (eg, video playing) on a mobile
computer.
Q41. Learning to use calendar and notes functions on a mobile computer.
Q42. Backuping a mobile computer.
Q43. Learning how a mobile computer works.
Q44. Taking a class about the use of mobile computer.
Q45. Learning to operate mobile computers.
Q46. Being unable to keep up with the advance of mobile computers.
Q47. Learning to understand all the special keys contained on a mobile computer.
Q48. Reading a mobile computer manual.
Q49. Learning how to set up Internet facilities in a mobile computer.
Q50. Learning mobile computer technology.

Criterion
Q51. As a whole, I am anxious about using a mobile computer.
Q52. As a whole, I am afraid of using a mobile computer.

© 2006 The Author. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
 Mobile computer anxiety scale 1009

Intention to use a mobile computer

Q53. Assuming I had a mobile computer, I intend to use it.
Q54. I intend to increase my use of mobile computer in the future.
Mobile computer self-efficacy
Q55. I would be confident in using mobile computer even if I have only the user
manual for reference.
Q56. I would be confident in using mobile computer even if there is no one around to
show me how to use it.
Q57. I would be confident in using mobile computer if I had use a similar computer
before this one to do the same job.

© 2006 The Author. Journal compilation © 2006 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.