Computer anxiety in individuals with serious mental illness

Computer anxiety in individuals with seriousmental illness

S.M. Sa�ord a,*, J.E. Worthington b

aDepartment of Psychology, Weiss Hall, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USAbUniversity of South Florida, Florida Mental Health Institute, Division of Training, Research,

Evaluation and Demonstration, Tampa, FL 33612, USA

Abstract

This study was designed to compare computer anxiety in individuals with severe mentalillness to a normative college sample and to examine whether computer training would be

e�ective in reducing computer anxiety in individuals with severe mental illnesses. The Com-puter Anxiety Rating Scale (CARS) was used to assess the self-reported computer anxiety of30 individuals with severe psychiatric disorders enrolled in computer training at a mental

health facility's employment training center. The CARS was administered prior to training,after 1 month of training, and after 3 months. Anxiety levels before computer training beganwere compared to the computer anxiety levels of 35 community college students enrolled in

a course providing similar computer training. The individuals with severe mental illnesswere found to have signi®cantly higher initial computer anxiety scores than the comparisongroup. Computer anxiety was not signi®cantly reduced by the computer training in either group.# 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Computer anxiety; Mental illness; Computer training; Anxiety reduction

1. Introduction

A great deal of research has been done on computer anxiety over the last 20 years,covering such topics as the development of techniques to measure computer anxiety(Campbell & Dobson, 1987; Heinssen, Glass & Knight, 1987; Meier, 1988), deter-mining etiological factors to assist in predicting computer anxiety (FarinÄ a, Arce,Sobral & Carames, 1991; Maurer, 1994; Pope-Davis & Twing, 1991; Weil, Rosen &Wugalter, 1990), and developing methods of alleviating computer anxiety (Banks

Computers in Human Behavior 15 (1999) 735±745

www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

0747-5632/99/$ - see front matter # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PI I : S0747-5632(99 )00043 -6

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-215-204-9595 ext. 83051.

E-mail address: ssa�[email protected] (S.M. Sa�ord)

& Havice, 1989; Bloom & Hautaluoma, 1990; Rosen, Sears & Weil, 1993). Many ofthe studies of computer anxiety have produced contradictory results, as cited byMaurer (1994) in his literature review. For example, Maurer presents several studiesthat have found di�erences in computer anxiety based on such factors as gender andage, with older adults typically having more computer anxiety than younger adultsand females typically having more anxiety than males. However, he points out thatother studies have found no statistical di�erence based on these factors. In fact, onerecent study even reported the reverse ®nding in regard to age, with older adultsbeing less computer anxious than younger adults (Dyck & Smither, 1994).Maurer (1994) suggests that computer experience is the factor that has been most

consistently associated with computer anxiety. Some studies have even suggestedthat the relationship often found between females and higher computer anxiety isdue to women typically having less computer experience than men (Anderson, 1996;Dyck & Smither, 1994). However, the results of studies on the relationship of com-puter experience to computer anxiety have been somewhat equivocal as well. Pope-Davis and Twing (1991) found no signi®cant di�erences in computer anxiety whenevaluating the number of years of prior computer experience in college students.Maurer (1994) presents several studies that show previous computer experience to bestrongly inversely correlated with computer anxiety while he states that other studieshave suggested that mere exposure to computers does not necessarily lead toreduced anxiety levels. In addition, one study of the e�ects of a computer trainingcourse on anxiety reduction (Leso & Peck, 1992) suggested that certain types ofcomputer experience are more likely to reduce computer anxiety than others.Namely, software application training reduced anxiety signi®cantly more thantraining that involved computer programming. These studies indicate that it may bethe quality or type of the computer experience that is the determining factor, notsimply the quantity of computer experience.The equivocal ®ndings of the various computer anxiety studies makes it quite

evident that there is a need for more extensive investigation of this topic. One issuethat has received little attention is the limited range of populations from whichcomputer anxiety study participants have been acquired. The vast majority of com-puter anxiety studies have been conducted using young adults, typically in collegepopulations. In addition to the various studies comparing older adults to youngeradults, there have been a handful of studies designed exclusively to study computeranxiety in older adults in such environments as education programs (Massoud,1991) and in the work place (Harrington, 1988). However, all of these studies onyounger and older adults have involved healthy individuals in environments wherecomputers have been heavily integrated; namely schools and business settings. Therehave been virtually no studies of computer anxiety in individuals with physical ormental disabilities who might have had very little exposure to, or experience with,computers. While there have been a few studies investigating the bene®ts of com-puter training for individuals with physical or mental disabilities (Bradt, Crilly &Timvik, 1993; Brie�, 1994; Crimando & Godley, 1985), none of these studies inves-tigated computer anxiety and how it might a�ect these individuals' ability to workwith or learn computers.

736 S.M. Sa�ord, J.E. Worthington /Computers in Human Behavior 15 (1999) 735±745

In today's job market, some basic level of computer skill has become a pre-requisite for almost any job, even for such manual labor positions as a warehousestock person who might now need to use computers to enter supply and stockinginformation. While the amount of computer training available in schools, collegesand businesses is on the rise, older adults with psychiatric disorders who have beenunable to make use of these resources may not have had the opportunity to keepabreast of this trend toward computerization in the job market (Herr, 1985).Because of this lack of computer exposure, it is believed that analysis of computeranxiety in this particular population is necessary to help determine how to moste�ectively integrate computer training into vocational rehabilitation programs forindividuals with serious mental illnesses. Such studies need to be done to determineif special measures must be taken to reduce computer anxiety in this unique popu-lation as attempts are made to provide them with the necessary computer skills tocompete e�ectively for jobs.The purpose of the current study was two-fold: (1) to compare the computer

anxiety level of individuals with severe psychiatric disorders to that of college stu-dents; and (2) to determine if computer training would e�ectively reduce computeranxiety in this unique population. It was hypothesized that individuals su�eringfrom severe psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia, chronic major depression,and bipolar disorder, would be likely to experience higher computer anxiety levelsthan a normative population of college students. It was believed that these individ-uals were likely to not have had as many opportunities to work with computers as atypical college student and, therefore, would experience more anxiety toward com-puters. Di�erences in computer anxiety regarding gender, age, and between variouscategories of serious mental illness were explored as well. In regard to the secondhypothesis, it was proposed that computer training would reduce computer anxietyin these individuals by providing them with the experience they need to feel morecomfortable with computers.

2. Methods

2.1. Subjects

Participants for this study were obtained from two sources. The test subjects wereselected from a group of patients enrolled in computer courses o�ered by theemployment training center of an outpatient mental health facility that services ser-iously mentally ill adults in a large Northwestern city in the US. Initially, 36 studentsagreed to participate in the study. Thirty individuals actually completed the study byparticipating in the 1-month and/or 3-month assessments (29 completed the initialand 1-month assessment, 14 completed the initial and 3-month assessment, and 13completed all three assessmentsÐthere was one individual who completed the initialand 3-month assessment, but was unavailable to complete the 1-month assessment).Seventy percent of the test group were male (n=21) and subjects ranged in agefrom 25 to 54 years (mean=40; SD=7.66). Although ethnicity was not speci®cally

S.M. Sa�ord, J.E. Worthington /Computers in Human Behavior 15 (1999) 735±745 737

assessed, the group was primarily Caucasian. Twenty of the students were diag-nosed with some form of schizophrenia, schizoa�ective disorder, delusional dis-order, or psychotic disorder; six students were diagnosed with an a�ective disorder(major depression or bipolar disorder); and four students had other disorders (oneanorexia nervosa, one borderline personality disorder, two diagnoses deferred). Ofthe six students who did not complete the study, two dropped the computer train-ing course because of physical illness; one dropped the course without giving areason; one did not ®ll in all the answers on the initial questionnaire or the follow-up questionnaires and, therefore, could not be evaluated; one could not be con-tacted for follow-up assessment, and one had di�culty reading the follow-upquestionnaire (it is unknown how or why this subject completed the initial pre-class questionnaire).The comparison subjects (representing a normative college population) were

selected from a group of students enrolled in an introductory-level computer train-ing course at a local community college. Initially, 49 students agreed to participatein the study. Thirty-®ve students completed the study by participating in the1-month and/or 3-month follow-up assessments (33 completed the initial and 1-monthassessment, 28 completed the initial and 3-month assessment, and 26 completed allthree assessmentsÐthere were two individuals who completed the initial and3-month assessments who did not complete the 1-month assessment). Forty percentof this group were male (n=14) and the subjects ranged in age from 17 to 49 years(mean=27.3; SD=10.28). Although no direct assessment of ethnicity was made,the group was primarily Caucasian. Of the 14 students who did not complete thestudy, one did not ®ll in all the answers on the initial questionnaire or the follow-upquestionnaires and, therefore, could not be evaluated and 13 students either droppedthe course, were not present on the day the follow-up assessments were administeredor forgot their self-selected identi®cation numbers used to match their follow-upquestionnaires to their initial questionnaire.

2.2. Apparatus and measures

Test subjects worked with IBM-compatible personal computers and attendedclasses covering Microsoft Windows, WordPerfect 6.1 for Windows, Excel 5.0 forWindows, and a computerized typing tutorial program. Comparison group subjectsworked with IBM-compatible personal computers in a computer course cover-ing Microsoft Windows and word processing, spreadsheets, and databases usingMicrosoft Works 3.0 for Windows.1

Subjects were given the Computer Anxiety Rating Scale (CARS) designed byHeinssen et al. (1987) on the ®rst day of classes, after 1 month of classes, and againafter 3 months. The CARS is a 19-item inventory designed to measure self-reportedcomputer anxiety levels. The items are scored on a ®ve-point scale (1=strongly

1 Because the two groups were not exposed to identical course designs, they will not be directly com-

pared in terms of their response to computer training. Instead, the test group and comparison group will

only be compared to each other based on their initial computer anxiety levels.


disagree; 5=strongly agree) with 11 negatively worded and nine positively wordedstatements. The scores on the nine positively worded statements were reversedbefore the total score was computed. The total score on the CARS can range from19 (low anxiety) to 95 (high anxiety).

2.3. Course designs

The computer training courses o�ered by the mental health facility were each 1month in length and met an hour a day, 3 days a week, with ample lab time avail-able for out-of-class work on skills covered during class time. The ®rst 1-monthcourse provided an introduction to the computer and computer terminology,instruction on using the mouse, the Microsoft Windows operating system, andcommon uses for computers. The second course was a self-paced class designed toimprove typing skills by using a computerized typing tutorial program. This coursewas either taken concurrently or subsequently to the ®rst course by students witheither no prior typing experience or those who wished to improve their typing skills.The third course available provided training in word processing using WordPerfect6.1 for Windows. The fourth and ®nal course available provided training inspreadsheets using Excel 5.0 for Windows. Although all of these courses wereo�ered, not all subjects completed all courses. The courses were designed to providebasic o�ce computing skills and were structured in this way to give students theopportunity to learn whatever computer skills they were interested in withoutrequiring them to spend a great deal of time studying computer skills outside theirinterests. For those students who did not take some or any of the subsequent com-puter courses, the computer lab was available for ongoing practice of the computerskills of their choice. Individuals were included in the present study if they hadcompleted the ®rst course (for the 1-month assessment) and had completed 3months of training (for the 3-month assessment). The group of participants whocompleted the 3-month assessment included those who took any combination of thefour courses. For example, some individuals took all four courses while others mayhave only taken two courses, but had repeated one of the courses to increase theircomprehension and understanding of the material. The focus of the current studywas on the length of exposure to computer training, not on the breadth of contentlearned by the various individuals.The courses were designed with a maximum of ®ve students in each class, with

each student having access to his or her own computer. These courses were notgraded. Instead, assessment of the students' abilities was based mainly on in-classassignments during the course. This particular class design was implemented tofacilitate su�cient one-on-one interaction between the students and the instructorand to allow for the fact that many students had di�culties being in large groups ofpeople, concentrating for long periods of time, or concentrating when there is agreat deal of distraction. The primary focus of the class design was on teaching thestudents computer skills and increasing their comfort level in being around andinteracting with computers. The anxiety study itself played a tertiary role to assist inenhancing the class design for the bene®t of future students.


For the comparison students enrolled at the community college, their computertraining course was designed with a typical college lecture-plus-lab format. All par-ticipants were in the same class for one 3-month quarter. This class met one night aweek for 1 h and 50 min of lecture with open computer lab times available for thecompletion of assignments and practicing computer skills. The course coveredintroductory computer information, including a discussion of hardware, software,networking, computer terminology, the Microsoft Windows operating system, andan introduction to word processing, spreadsheets, and databases using MicrosoftWorks 3.0 for Windows. This course had regularly scheduled, graded lab assign-ments, quizzes and exams.

2.4. Informed consent

Prior to beginning class, all students were informed that participation in the studywas not mandatory for enrollment in the class and that their answers to the ques-tionnaires would be completely con®dential and anonymous. All subjects wereinformed that the purpose of the study was to evaluate how computer traininga�ects students' comfort levels when working with computers.

3. Results

3.1. Pre-class results

Table 1 presents pre-class mean CARS scores for each group. The mean totalCARS score for the test group before classes began (n=30) was 42.22 (SD=12.55)with a range of 22±66. The mean total score for the comparison group (n=35) was34.61 (SD=10.76) with a range of 19±61. Based on independent samples t-tests, thestudents who did not complete the study had mean initial computer anxiety levelscomparable to their respective group (n=5, M=40.8, t(33)=0.24, p=0.81, two-tailed for the test group and n=12, M=33.08, t(45)=0.46, p=0.65, two-tailed forthe comparison group), suggesting that there was no di�erence in anxiety levelsbetween those who participated in the study and those who did not. An independentsamples t-test revealed that prior to beginning classes, the mean computer anxietyscore for the test group was signi®cantly higher than the mean pre-class score of thecomparison group; t(63)=2.63, p<0.01, one-tailed.In analyzing gender, there was a signi®cant di�erence between men and women in

their pre-class anxiety levels in the test group, with women having a higher meananxiety (nfemale=9, Mfemale=50.33; nmale=21, Mmale=38.74; t(28)=2.53, p<0.05,two-tailed), but not in the comparison group (nfemale=21, Mfemale=36.69;Nmale=14, Mmale=31.50; t(33)=1.42, p=0.17, two-tailed). Upon dividing the testgroup and the comparison groups into three age levels, analyses of variance(ANOVA) revealed no signi®cant di�erences in computer anxiety based on age ineither group; F(2,27)=0.31, p =0.74 for the test group and F(2,32)=0.41, p=0.66for the comparison group.


In the test group, an ANOVA was conducted on computer anxiety based onthe participants' diagnostic categories. The test group was divided into three sub-groups; those with schizophrenic/delusional disorders (n=20), those with a�ectivedisorders (n=6), and those with other disorders (n=4). No signi®cant di�erence inreported computer anxiety levels was found at pre-test between these three groups(Mschizophrenia=41.50; Ma�ective=43.83; Mother=43.25; F(2,27)=0.088, p=0.92).

3.2. Pre-class versus follow-up results

In examining the data for the subjects who completed all three assessment phases(pre-class, 1-month, 3-month), an ANOVA test revealed that, although there wassome decrease in computer anxiety following computer training in both groups,it was not statistically signi®cant in either the test group (n=13; Mpre=42.00,M1-mo=37.85, M3-mo=37.19; F(2,36)=0.56, p=0.58) or the comparison group(n=26; Mpre=34.52, M1-mo=33.04, M3-mo=31.04; F(2,75)=0.56, p=0.57).Because less than half of the original test group completed all three assessments, it

was of interest to determine if there were any di�erences in initial computer anxietybetween those who completed 3 months of training and those who did not. Using anindependent samples t-test, there was no signi®cant di�erence between those parti-cipants who completed the third assessment and those who did not (ncompleter=14,

Table 1

Pre-class mean computer anxiety (CARS) scores

Test group

(individuals with mental illness)

Comparison group

(community college students)

n Mean (M) n Mean (M)

Total 30 42.22 35 34.61a

Gender

Male 21 38.74 14 31.50

Female 9 50.33b 21 36.69

Age c

25±35 9 42.28 17±20 13 32.81

36±42 10 45.50 21±30 12 34.58

>42 11 40.09 >30 10 37.00

Diagnosis

Psychotic disorder 20 41.50

A�ective disorder 6 43.83

Other disorder 4 43.25

a The test group's mean CARS score was signi®cantly higher than the comparison group's mean CARS

score; t(63)=2.63, p<0.01, one-tailed.b There was a signi®cant di�erence in mean CARS scores between males and females within the test

group; t(28)=2.53, p<0.05, two-tailed.c Note that the age ranges used were di�erent between groups. Comparative analyses for age were only

conducted within groups and the authors chose to maintain roughly equivalent sample sizes for each age

range within each group.


Mcompleter=42.79; nnoncompleter=16, Mnoncompleter=41.72; t(28)=ÿ0.23, p=0.82,two-tailed). Likewise, in the comparison group, there was no di�erence betweenthose who completed the third assessment and those who did not (ncompleter=28,Mcompleter=34.80; nnoncompleter=7, Mnoncompleter=33.86; t(33)=ÿ0.21, p=0.83).This suggests that the ®nding of no signi®cant reduction in computer anxiety aftertraining was not simply due to individuals with the highest computer anxietydropping out of the computer training early.

4. Discussion

Individuals with serious mental illness enrolled in computer training at an out-patient mental health facility were found to have signi®cantly more computer anxi-ety than a comparison group of community college students. Forty-six percent ofthe mentally ill participants had high computer anxiety (CARS score 545) whileonly 23% of the comparison group had high anxiety. Although previous computerexperience was not directly assessed in a way that could be quanti®ed in this study,many of the individuals with mental illness reported on a demographic ques-tionnaire that they had had very limited exposure to computers prior to enrolling inthe computer training classes while many of the community college students report-ed that they frequently used computers in school or in their job. Based on thisinformation and based on research suggesting that previous computer experience isa signi®cant factor in predicting decreased levels of computer anxiety (Bowers &Bowers, 1996; Bradley & Russell, 1997; FarinÄ a et al., 1991; Maurer, 1994), it ispossible that a discrepancy in previous computer experience accounts for the di�er-ences in anxiety scores between these two groups. Considering the fact that seriousmental illnesses often begin in late adolescence or early adulthood, if not sooner, it ispossible that onset of mental illness prevented these individuals from participating inopportunities where young adults often are exposed to computers, such as in highschool, college and jobs. This is an issue that requires further exploration to deter-mine what role lack of prior computer experience plays in the higher computeranxiety of individuals with serious mental illnesses.Another potential explanation for the higher computer anxiety in the individuals

with mental illnesses is the possibility that the higher reported computer anxietycould be due to an overall higher level of general, or trait, anxiety rather than spe-ci®cally due to a higher level of computer anxiety. Such an explanation is supportedby the research of FarinÄ a et al. (1991) who found computer anxiety to be sig-ni®cantly related to trait anxiety in college students. Future studies will need tocontrol for this potential confound by speci®cally testing trait anxiety levels.In this study, neither older age nor type of mental illness diagnosis was found to

be related to higher computer anxiety. The results based on gender were mixed;females with mental illness had higher computer anxiety scores than males withmental illness, but no di�erence was found based on gender for participants in thecommunity college group. As Maurer (1994) has suggested, the relationship betweencomputer anxiety and age and gender is not clear. The present study suggests that


age and gender are not reliable factors in regard to predicting computer anxietylevels.The more distressing results of this study were that computer anxiety was not

signi®cantly reduced in either group by 3 months of computer training. If 3-monthsof computer training cannot signi®cantly reduce an individual's computer anxiety,then what measures need to be taken in order to do so? There are several potentialexplanations for these non-signi®cant ®ndings. One is that the training was notdesigned in such a way as to signi®cantly alter the participants' views of computersand their comfort level in working with them. However, several steps were takenwithin the computer classes at the mental health facility to reduce this likelihood.E�orts were made to make the computer learning experience as comfort and non-threatening as possible, including having very small class sizes with a great deal ofone-on-one attention from the instructor, no graded assignments, and ample classand lab time available for practicing computer skills. Therefore, this potentialexplanation seems unlikely, at least within the mental health facility setting.Another potential explanation is that the majority of individuals did not have a

high enough initial computer anxiety level to require or allow for reduction.Although the CARS has been found to be a valid measure of computer anxiety (Chu& Spires, 1991; Heinssen et al., 1987), no indication has been made as to what scoreconstitutes a signi®cantly high level of computer anxiety to warrant a problem.Perhaps the average level of computer anxiety reported in the current study does notrepresent an unacceptably high level. In fact, for those individuals with the highestcomputer anxiety, analyses revealed that their anxiety was signi®cantly reduced bythe training. This suggests that individuals who do indeed have high computeranxiety may experience a needed reduction following computer training. Although,this interpretation must be made with caution as the reduction in computer anxietyfor those with the highest scores could simply represent a regression to the mean.This explanation for the lack of signi®cant results is less than adequate because onemight expect some reduction in computer anxiety to occur after 3 months of trainingregardless of what the initial anxiety levels were.While both of the explanations above are plausible, the most likely explanation

for the non-signi®cant ®ndings is due to statistical reasons. The sample sizes werequite small and there simply may not have been enough power to detect a reductionin computer anxiety. Looking at the mean scores for the pre-test, 1-month test, and3-month test, one sees that the scores were, in fact, reduced to some extent. Largersample sizes may have allowed for these mean di�erences to be detected statistically.A larger available sample size would also have potentially allowed for the use of await-list control to detect whether the reduction in computer anxiety observed mayhave been due to re-test e�ects. Another statistical reason for the non-signi®cant®nding was that individuals di�ered greatly on how much their computer anxietywas reduced. Some individuals experienced substantial reductions of computeranxiety across the training while others exhibited no reduction at all or even a slightincrease. A larger sample size would allow one to more adequately explore the rea-sons for and statistically control for the e�ects of these individual di�erences ratherthan relying only on mean score comparisons.


Another issue that needs exploration is the representativeness of the sample used.The individuals in the test group had voluntarily signed up for computer trainingand to participate in the current study. It is di�cult to assess whether their computeranxiety levels are representative of all individuals with serious mental illness. Theircomputer anxiety may, in fact, be lower than others simply because those withextremely high computer anxiety may be reluctant to participate in computer train-ing at all. Likewise, the ethnic make-up of the current sample may limit the gen-eralizability of the current results as well.With the increasing necessity of computer knowledge within the workforce, more

concerted e�orts need to be made to provide computer training to select populationswho have not had the opportunity to learn computer skills. Individuals with severemental illness constitute such a group. Only through providing computer trainingcan such individuals be most successfully re-integrated back into the work force.However, in designing computer courses for this group of individuals, e�orts need tobe made to address the potential computer anxiety they may experience, as illu-strated in the current study. Further study of computer anxiety in this uniquepopulation needs to be conducted to substantiate the ®ndings obtained in the cur-rent study and to determine how best to structure vocational rehabilitation compu-ter training courses for severely mentally ill adults, both to reduce their computeranxiety and to enhance their overall learning of computers.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Michelle Heckman at Mt. Hood Community College forallowing her introductory computer class to participate in this study. We would alsolike to thank Gail Budde, formerly of Mental Health Services West, and SandyGooch of Mental Health Services West for permitting this study to be conducted intheir vocational rehabilitation computer training classes.

References

Anderson, A. A. (1996). Predictors of computer anxiety and performance in information systems. Com-

puters in Human Behavior, 12, 61±77.

Banks, M. J., & Havice, M. J. (1989). Strategies for dealing with computer anxiety: two case studies.

Educational Technology, 29, 22±26.

Bloom, A. J., & Hautaluoma, J. E. (1990). Anxiety management training as a strategy for enhancing

computer user performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 6, 337±349.

Bowers, D. A., & Bowers, V. M. (1996). Assessing and coping with computer anxiety in the social science

classroom. Social Science Computer Review, 14, 439±443.

Bradley, G., & Russell, G. (1997). Computer experience, school support and computer anxieties. Educa-

tional Psychology, 17, 267±284.

Bradt, S., Crilly, J., & Timvik, U. (1993). Computer training for the young adult patient with chronic

mental illness. Journal of Rehabilitation, 59, 51±54.

Brie�, R. (1994). Personal computers in psychiatric rehabilitation: a new approach to Skills Training.

Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 45, 257±260.


Campbell, N. J., & Dobson, J. E. (1987). An inventory of student computer anxiety. Elementary School

Guidance and Counseling, 22, 149±156.

Chu, P. C., & Spires, E. E. (1991). Validating the computer anxiety rating scale: e�ects of cognitive style

and computer courses on computer anxiety. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 7±21.

Crimando, W., & Godley, S. H. (1985). The computer's potential in enhancing employment opportunities

of persons with disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 28, 275±282.

Dyck, J. L., & Smither, J. A.-A. (1994). Age di�erences in computer anxiety: the role of computer

experience, gender and education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 10, 239±249.

FarinÄ a, F., Arce, R., Sobral, J., & Carames, R. (1991). Predictors of anxiety towards computers. Compu-

ters in Human Behavior, 7, 263±267.

Harrington, K. V. (1988). Computer anxiety: a cloud on the horizon of technological interventions.

Organization Development Journal, 6, 51±55.

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.

Herr, E. L. (1985). Advanced technology, theory, and rehabilitation counseling. Rehabilitation Counseling

Bulletin, 29, 6±19.

Leso, T., & Peck, K. L. (1992). Computer anxiety and di�erent types of computer courses. Journal of

Educational Computing Research, 8, 469±478.

Massoud, S. L. (1991). Computer attitudes and computer knowledge of adult students. Journal of Edu-

cational Computing Research, 7, 269±291.

Maurer, M. (1994). Computer anxiety correlates and what they tell us: a literature review. Computers in

Human Behavior, 10, 369±376.

Meier, S. T. (1988). Predicting individual di�erences in performance on computer-administered tests and

tasks: development of the computer aversion scale. Computers in Human Behavior, 4, 175±187.

Pope-Davis, D. B., & Twing, J. S. (1991). The e�ects of age, gender, and experience on measures of atti-

tude regarding computers. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 333±339.

Rosen, L. D., Sears, D. C., & Weil, M. M. (1993). Treating technophobia: a longitudinal evaluation of the

computerphobia reduction program. Computers in Human Behavior, 9, 27±50.

Weil, M. M., Rosen, L. D., & Wugalter, S. E. (1990). The etiology of computerphobia. Computers in

Human Behavior, 6, 361±379.


Documents

Computer anxiety in individuals with serious mental illness