Digital Skills Assessments in Occupational Therapy: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Importance:

Digital skills are increasingly essential in performing daily activities. Occupational therapy practitioners require valid and accessible assessments to evaluate and address these competencies. However, the availability and quality of these assessments have not been established.

Objective:

To identify and map existing, accessible, low-cost measures to assess digital skills in adult populations, supporting occupational therapy practitioners.

Data Sources:

Literature searches were conducted using the CINAHL, PsycINFO, and PubMed/MEDLINE databases and the American Journal of Occupational Therapy archives, supplemented with Google Scholar and online resources covering 2000 to May 2024.

Study Selection and Data Collection:

This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. It included tools for adults ages 18 yr and older that were published in English, available online or through author contact, and free or low cost. Tools requiring substantial training or high cost were excluded. Two reviewers independently screened records for inclusion; a third reviewer verified final selections against the criteria.

Findings:

Twenty-seven assessments were included, covering the Computer Skills, Mobile and Tablet Skills, Technology and Internet Skills, Technology Proficiency for Students, and IADLs domains. Most demonstrated high reliability (Cronbach’s α > .80) and validity; however, normative data and test–retest reliability were limited. Notably missing were assessments of touchscreen skills, online safety, and artificial intelligence competency.

Conclusions and Relevance:

This review identified multiple validated and accessible assessments for clinical practice; however, significant gaps remain. Future studies should address these gaps to enable comprehensive evaluation of and intervention for emerging digital competencies in occupational therapy.

Plain-Language Summary

This review examined assessments that can be used by occupational therapy practitioners to measure the digital skills adults need for various daily tasks. Twenty-seven practical tools were identified, with most being reliable and easy to use. However, there is a lack of tools addressing touchscreen skills, internet safety, and artificial intelligence use. Filling these gaps will help occupational therapy practitioners better support clients in their daily digital activities.

This review examined assessments that can be used by occupational therapy practitioners to measure the digital skills adults need for various daily tasks.

Digital skills (i.e., competencies such as operating devices, navigating software interfaces, managing online communication, and troubleshooting technical issues) have become essential as technology is integrated into daily activities. As automation and digital platforms transform work and personal tasks, many individuals struggle to keep pace with the skills required to perform their jobs and engage in everyday roles. Furthermore, instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs), such as banking, shopping, socializing, and transportation, are all rapidly becoming digitized. These technological advancements affect occupational therapy practitioners’ use of assessment and intervention. Traditional IADL assessments that focus on nondigital tasks now need to encompass clients’ capacity to perform these activities digitally, such as managing online banking or scheduling telehealth appointments via smartphone apps. Also, some assessments may become outdated, such as the clock drawing test, a widely used cognitive evaluation that may no longer reflect all clients’ competencies in a time when digital clocks are used (Ilardi et al., 2020; Liu & Mihailidis, 2019). Consequently, occupational therapy interventions are expanding to include digital skills training, guiding clients in navigating app interfaces, implementing online safety measures, and developing problem-solving strategies for evolving digital environments.

This trend necessitates that occupational therapists and occupational therapy assistants, who support clients’ daily occupations, conduct comprehensive assessments of an individual’s digital skills, digital environment, and related capabilities. Such assessments must comprehensively address problem-solving, critical thinking, creativity, and constant learning about changing digital platforms (van Laar et al., 2020). Our previous study revealed that only 5% of occupational therapy practitioners report that they always evaluate their clients’ digital skills, and 22% report they never do; furthermore, almost half report that the barriers to addressing their clients’ digital functioning are insufficient knowledge (24%) and lack of standardized assessments (20%; Segal & Doyle, 2024). In this scoping review, we aimed to systematically identify and map existing, relevant, and accessible low-cost outcome measures in English that assess adult clients’ digital skills to support their digital participation.

Method

This scoping review was conducted and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist (Tricco et al., 2018). We followed the methodological framework described in Arksey and O’Malley (2005). First, we identified a research question aimed at exploring existing assessment measures that occupational therapy practitioners can use to evaluate adult clients’ digital skills and proficiency. Second, we conducted a comprehensive search for relevant studies using the CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed/MEDLINE databases, and the American Journal of Occupational Therapy archives. The search was supplemented with Google Scholar to ensure broader coverage. Additionally, we conducted an online search to identify unstandardized online tools that may be suitable for occupational therapy practitioners in clinical practice. The search was restricted to publications in English from 2000 to May 2024.

The search terms used can be found in the Supplemental Material (available online with this article at https://research.aota.org/ajot).

Two investigators (Addie Segal and Nancy W. Doyle) independently reviewed all titles and abstracts for inclusion and relevance. In the third step (see Figure 1), all three investigators screened the full-text articles to determine final inclusion on the basis of predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria specified that assessments must have been developed since 2000 and be designed for adult populations, published in English, free or low cost, and easily accessible. Tools that required extensive training or incurred significant costs were excluded. Additionally, articles were excluded if the assessment tool described was inaccessible, either online or through author contact. This process resulted in 66 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Two investigators (Segal and Doyle) located the complete tools by searching online, reviewing article appendixes, or directly contacting the authors; only 22 assessments that were easily accessible and cost-free were ultimately included. An additional 5 tools were located through an online search for digital skills assessments. A third investigator, Yuval Yaffe, reviewed the 27 included measures to ensure their compatibility with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. In the fourth step, we charted the data using Excel (Table A.1), categorizing information such as author, publication year, population, accessibility, and coding criteria. Finally, we analyzed the data and reviewed additional resources for each assessment.

Figure 1.

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) flow diagram for the scoping review.

Results

In this scoping review, we identified 27 digital skills assessments and examined their type, domain, target population, validity and reliability, scoring, cost, and accessibility. Of these, 22 were validated in academic publications, and 5 were found on online platforms. Tables A.1 and A.2 summarize these factors for each assessment.

Assessment Type

We categorized the assessments into two types. The first category consists of questionnaires (n = 20), including both online and printable forms. These can be administered by the respondent independently or with the guidance of an occupational therapy practitioner. These assessments encompass subjective scales and knowledge-based scales. The subjective scales (n = 16) assess the level of agreement, frequency, confidence, and difficulty associated with digital skills or activities. Knowledge-based scales (n = 4) assess participants’ understanding of relevant digital skills (see Table A.1). The second category, observations (n = 7), involves the client completing a digital task, such as paying a bill or placing an order online while the clinician observes. The clinician may provide cues or support, as specified in the assessment manual.

Assessment Domain

We identified five domains of digital skills addressed in the included assessments:

Computer Skills: This domain measures proficiency in essential tasks, such as navigating operating systems, managing files, using internet browsers, performing basic software functions, and interacting with digital interfaces through typing and mouse control. The Computer Proficiency Questionnaire (CPQ; Boot et al., 2015) is an example of this digital skill domain.

Mobile and Tablet Skills: These assessments cover mobile device skills, such as smartphones and tablets, for communication, productivity, and accessibility. Examples include the Mobile Digital Device Abilities Test (MDAT; Andrade et al., 2023) and the Mobile Device Proficiency Questionnaire (MDPQ; Roque & Boot, 2018).

Technology and Internet Skills: These tools address general digital literacy, the ability to navigate the internet, and skills such as setting up wireless networks. Examples include the Wireless Network Proficiency Questionnaire (WNPQ; Roque & Boot, 2021) and Internet Skills Scale (ISS; van Deursen et al., 2016).

Technology Proficiency for Students: These assessments evaluate students’ readiness to engage with technology in academic settings, including using digital tools for research, communication, and learning. Examples are the Technology Proficiency Self-Assessment Questionnaire (TPSA C-21; Christensen & Knezek, 2017) and the Digital Skills Quiz for Students (Alphaplus, n.d.).

IADLs: These tools assess how digital skills are applied to manage everyday activities, such as banking, shopping, or health management. Two examples are the Electronic Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Satisfaction Assessment (EISA; Quamar et al., 2023) and the eHealth Literacy Assessment Toolkit (eHLA; Karnoe et al., 2018).

 Table A.2 indicates the domains addressed by each assessment.

Population

All the identified assessments are designed for adults age 18 and older. We examined which assessments could be used with specific populations, including individuals with disabilities and older adults. We identified six assessments with published evidence of group validity or group differences for individuals with disabilities and four assessments with published evidence of group validity or group differences for older adults. One assessment, the Technology Use Survey, did not have an associated article but is available through an organization focused on aging and technology (Oregon Center for Aging and Technology, 2020). Because it was specifically designed with this population in mind, we included it as the fifth assessment for older adults. Of the 27 assessments reviewed, 6 were explicitly developed for research purposes. Table A.3 lists the assessments meeting these criteria.

Validity and Reliability

Most of the tools we examined demonstrated good to excellent internal consistency, with Cronbach’s α values typically exceeding .80, indicating strong reliability. For example, the CPQ (Boot et al., 2015), the Internet Knowledge Measure (iKnow; Potosky, 2007), and the MDAT (Andrade et al., 2023) were validated using standard psychometric techniques, such as factor analysis and Rasch models, supporting their effectiveness in assessing specific aspects of digital competence, including computer proficiency, internet knowledge, and mobile device performance. However, several tools, such as the Test Your Digital Skills, Digital Skills Quiz for Students, Typing Test, and Technology Use Survey, lacked published data on validity or reliability. These assessments were designed as self-assessments without formal validation studies.

Fifteen assessments, such as the MDAT (Andrade et al., 2023), the eHLA (Karnoe et al., 2018), and the Web Users Self-Efficacy scale (Eachus & Cassidy, 2006), had normative data. For this review, assessments were considered to have normative data if they reported results based on a sample of more than 100 participants. This threshold reflects established recommendations in the measurement development literature, where a sample size of approximately 100 participants is often considered sufficient for preliminary norm development in health measurement tools intended for modest research or clinical use (Prinsen et al., 2018; Streiner et al., 2015). Furthermore, only three assessments demonstrated test–retest reliability: the EISA (Quamar et al., 2023), the Digital Health Literacy Instrument (DHLI; van der Vaart & Drossaert, 2017), and the Assessment of Computer Task Performance (ACTP; Dumont et al., 2002). Table A.4 includes psychometric details for each assessment.

Scoring

The assessments were divided into three scoring categories:

Therapist coding (n = 13): These assessments require therapists to evaluate and code participants’ skills and performance manually. Examples include the MDPQ, ACTP, DHLI, and EISA.

Computer output (n = 4): These assessments are automatically scored by software or online platforms, generating reports that range from detailed practice recommendations to an overall digital proficiency level. Examples include the Northstar Assessment of Digital Literacy, the Typing Test, and the Digital Skills Quiz for Students.

No scoring (n = 10): These assessments do not have a formal scoring mechanism and rely solely on subjective self-reporting. Examples include the WNPQ, ISS, and Net Generation Encountering e-Learning at University.

Additional details on scoring and interpretation are provided in Table A.1.

Cost and Accessibility

In this scoping review, we focused on identifying measures that are low-cost and easily accessible. The vast majority of the included assessments are free or very low cost, such as the iKnow (Potosky, 2007), which is $2. The assessments can be found as appendixes in published articles or through online access. Some tools, such as the WNPQ (Roque & Boot, 2021) and CPQ (Boot et al., 2015), require contacting the administrators. These assessments often involve observational tasks or simulations, requiring a setup that simulates real digital experiences. Most of the assessments require no preparation, such as the Typing Test (Typing Speed; TypingTest.com, 2025) and Test Your Digital Skills (European Union self-assessment; European Commission, 2015). Other tools, such as the Digital Tools Test (DIGI; Randerath et al., 2023) and the Actual Reality Assessment (Goverover & DeLuca, 2015), require extensive preparation and resources, such as internet access and computers. The Functional Simulated Technology Task (FSTT; Cardell et al., 2013) requires detailed preparation to create realistic scenarios that accurately reflect clients’ digital activities. The assessments are appropriate for home health, outpatient rehabilitation, academic settings, community centers, telehealth services, vocational training programs, clinical research studies, and more.

Discussion

Digital skills have become an essential part of life, making it essential for occupational therapy practitioners to evaluate those skills and understand clients’ participation in this area. This scoping review yields information about the available assessments.

Assessment Type

Of the 27 digital skills assessments reviewed, 20 are questionnaires and 7 are observational tools. Each type of assessment has strengths and limitations, and selecting the right kind of assessment is crucial for client outcomes. The observational tools and the digital skills test are performance based and focus on measuring task execution, including error rates, success levels, independence, cues, and other task-specific outcomes. Although time-consuming, observations may offer a more accurate and detailed understanding of clients’ abilities in real-world settings (Weston et al., 2021). By observing activities in a realistic setting, occupational therapy practitioners can analyze task processes, identify errors, and determine the need for assistance or cueing, allowing for more individualized interventions, particularly for individuals with disabilities or cognitive impairments. An article examining occupational therapists’ perspectives on using observation to assess adults with cognitive impairments highlighted the importance and strengths of informal observations while also emphasizing the need to use more structured and standardized assessment tools (Stigen et al., 2023). The standardized observation tools discussed in this scoping review, such as the Actual Reality Assessment and the DIGI, may mitigate this issue by combining the benefits of a performance-based observation that is structured and validated.

A notable gap is the absence of observation-based assessments that directly evaluate digital skills using the person’s own device, such as their smartphone or tablet (Stoll et al., 2024). Occupational therapists emphasize the value of informal observation in the person’s usual context (Stigen et al., 2023; Stoll et al., 2024). When addressing digital skills, this could mean the digital environment and the digital devices the person uses. Most current tools rely on questionnaires or simulated tasks, which may not fully capture how individuals navigate their devices, missing essential aspects of real-world usage and personal customization. An optimal approach to digital skills assessment would involve combining self-report questionnaires for initial screening with observational assessments for detailed evaluations.

In contrast to performance-based measures, self-report subjective questionnaires reflect the participants’ self-perceived digital skills, offering insights into self-efficacy, experience, and attitudes. Although these questionnaires are often shorter and easier to administer, they may be limited by subjective bias. For example, participants may overestimate or underestimate their abilities, leading to discrepancies between perceived and actual skills (Spitzer & Weber, 2019). Unlike subjective questionnaires, knowledge-based questionnaires provide a more objective and in-depth assessment of the person’s digital competence. One example of an item from a knowledge-based questionnaire (the Test Your Digital Skills) is “You need to send a 200MB file. Which of the following services would be most advisable?” Furthermore, it is essential to note that although the online questionnaires are not explicitly labeled as observation measures, they can also serve as an opportunity for informal performance-based assessment, because they are conducted online and require specific digital skills, such as mouse or keyboard use.

Assessment Domain

Having grouped the assessments by type, we then categorized the evaluation measures into five domains: Computer Skills, Mobile and Tablet Skills, Technology and Internet Skills, Technology Proficiency for Students, and IADLs. Although many assessments address fundamental digital competencies, such as using computers, mobile devices, and common software (e.g., email, PowerPoint, Word), several domains are underaddressed. We did not find any evaluations of touchscreen skills that met our inclusion criteria, specifically those that were free and accessible. This skill is especially important because mobile devices are used by 90% of adults older than 18 and 76% of adults 65 and older (Pew Research Center, 2025). This highlights the need for more accessible and affordable tools to ensure a broader range of competencies are adequately assessed across different populations. This is particularly relevant for older adults or individuals with physical or cognitive challenges, for whom touchscreen interfaces can present significant difficulties. Furthermore, older adults have lower touchscreen skills than middle-aged adults (Elboim-Gabyzon et al., 2021). Another study found that individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities are less likely to use computers, tablets, and smartphones (Davitt & Brown, 2022). The inability to use a touchscreen can lead to increased isolation. This is further emphasized as touchscreen use becomes more integrated into community services such as health care devices, banking, and other everyday activities.

Another significant gap is the lack of attention to online safety and artificial intelligence (AI) skills. As AI becomes increasingly integrated into everyday tasks, particularly with digital tools such as chatbots, voice assistants, and smart systems, there is a growing need for assessments that evaluate proficiency in these areas (Ramya & Khandelwal, 2024). The absence of assessments that measure AI-related skills likely reflects the recent and still limited use of AI in daily occupations, but as this technology becomes more widespread, future measures will need to evolve to evaluate these competencies. Many assessments, such as the TPSA C-21 (Christensen & Knezek, 2017), are also aimed at students and academic settings. Although these assessments focus on tools such as email, word processing, and online etiquette (netiquette), they can also be beneficial for adults outside academia who use these technologies in various professional contexts.

Overall, although the assessments reviewed provide valuable insights into digital proficiency, there is a clear need to expand their scope to include emerging technologies such as AI, job-specific digital skills, and daily digital skills such as touchscreen competency or app navigation. This will help ensure that, as digital demands grow, individuals in various settings, especially older adults and people with disabilities, are adequately supported in developing their digital competencies to fully engage in their daily occupations and roles.

Population

We examined which populations the tools were validated for and the settings in which they could be administered. All of the assessments were designed for adults, with some targeting specific populations. We identified six assessments that had established validity for individuals with disabilities, five observational tools and one questionnaire. Additionally, five assessments referenced validation for older adults. Among these, four had articles that demonstrated their significant validity and age-related differences in assessment scores and performance. Different populations exhibit varying levels of proficiency. For example, several reviewed studies found significant differences in technology use between individuals with cognitive impairments and healthy control groups (Goverover & DeLuca, 2015; Goverover et al., 2013). Another study showed that although technology use is increasing among older adults, many still face significant barriers to its effective use (Blazic & Blazic, 2018). These findings emphasize the need for adapted evaluations for individuals with cognitive deficits or older adults, particularly observational assessments, which rely on measuring both performance and proficiency. Another reason to select an instrument validated for a specific population is when the goal is to assess cognitive or motor skills in an ecological context. Evidence in the literature supports a significant relationship among digital skills performance, cognitive abilities, and their impact on daily functioning (Goverover et al., 2010; Nadler Tzadok et al., 2022).

One of the primary goals of evaluating individuals with special needs is to assess the level of assistance they require to complete daily activities (Rimmer, 2006). In this scoping review, observational assessments designed for individuals with acquired cognitive disabilities used a range of performance indicators, such as independence scales and the level of cues provided, to determine participants’ ability to use technology autonomously. For example, in the Actual Reality Assessment (Goverover & DeLuca, 2015), the number of errors is counted, cues are assessed on a 0–4 scale, and 10 observational capacities are rated on a 0–2 scale. In contrast, observational measures designed for students used simpler checklists. For instance, in the Digital Skills for Postsecondary Readiness, the tester rates whether the participant “needs improvement” or is “proficient” in each skill assessed.

It is also important to acknowledge other factors influencing digital literacy, such as socioeconomic status (Hargittai et al., 2019). Assessments evaluating cognitive or motor abilities through digital performance should consider these factors. However, none of the reviewed articles accounted for participants’ socioeconomic status. The study validating the CPQ (Boot et al., 2015) distinguished between groups with minimal versus high levels of technology experience but did not specifically address socioeconomic differences.

We identified six research-designed assessments. Although these instruments may present limitations in clinical settings, such as the inclusion of extensive sections collecting detailed socioeconomic and contextual information or a primary focus on usage patterns, they offer several advantages. When constructing a reliable assessment battery, selecting tools that were specifically developed for research purposes can enhance the validity and appropriateness of the evaluation process (Eignor, 2013).

Validity and Reliability

Most of the assessments identified are reliable and valid for clinical use. These tools may be useful in supporting standardized and nonstandardized observations and guiding intervention activities. However, five assessments lacked validation, such as the Typing Test, which offers an unstandardized method for evaluating digital skills, as well as academic-related digital skills assessments, such as the Digital Skills Quiz for Students and the Test Your Digital Skills. Despite the lack of validation, these assessments may still benefit intervention activities targeting digital skills. However, it is essential to exercise caution when using tools without validation data, because they pose potential risks, including inaccurate results (Boone et al., 2022).

Some of the identified evaluations lack normative data, which limits their ability to provide information on the comparability of results to general or specific populations. Furthermore, most of the assessments did not have test–retest validity. As highlighted by Wales et al. (2016), there is a critical need for assessment tools that measure patient change over time and allow for comparisons with normative samples. This raises concerns regarding the suitability of an assessment lacking test–retest reliability for evaluating intervention outcomes, because the lack of stability over time may introduce measurement error (Dutil et al., 2017).

Scoring

The scoring methods of the identified assessments were categorized into three groups: therapist coding, computer output, and no scoring. Therapist-rated assessments, although offering clinical insight, are time consuming and heavily reliant on the clinician’s experience to ensure an accurate representation of performance. This is particularly relevant in observational assessments, where subjective interpretation may lead to variability in scoring across different raters. However, this method offers the therapist the advantage of transparency and contextual understanding. In contrast, computer-based scoring is typically more efficient and less time intensive. For instance, the Typing Test assessment provides information about the duration and accuracy of the typing, including tricky keys that were most often typed incorrectly. Nonetheless, it may lack transparency or detail in reporting. For example, the output report for the Digital Skills Quiz for Students does not provide details regarding common mistakes or explanations. Regarding self-report questionnaires, most tools used Likert-type scales and were designed for self-administration. These assessments were primarily descriptive, providing general insight rather than in-depth diagnostic information.

Cost and Accessibility

None of the tools requires the administrator to go through a training course. Most assessments have a short version. Brief assessments with fewer than 50 items are less challenging to administer, making them more likely to be used in clinical practice (Beidas et al., 2015). Examples of these assessments include the WNPQ (Roque & Boot, 2021), CPQ (Boot et al., 2015), and iKnow (Potosky, 2007). However, some structured observations—such as the Actual Reality Assessment (Goverover & DeLuca, 2015), DIGI (Randerath et al., 2023), and FSTT (Cardell et al., 2013)—require the therapist to review the manual, prepare, and familiarize themselves with the assessment. The vast majority require a computer and an internet connection unless printed questionnaires are used. Free and low-cost assessment measures have a significant impact on implementation in clinical settings, especially for low-resource settings. These tools support early assessment and intervention and may improve the quality of practice and client outcomes (Beidas et al., 2015).

Limitations

This scoping review has several limitations to consider. First, the search was restricted to English-language publications, potentially excluding valuable assessments published in other languages or validated internationally. Additionally, focusing on accessible, low-cost, or free tools may have excluded some high-quality assessments that require training or carry higher fees, thereby narrowing the scope of instruments included in this review. The reliance on online availability or direct author contact for inclusion may also have excluded relevant but less easily accessible instruments. Furthermore, although scoping reviews are effective for broadly mapping available resources, they do not evaluate the methodological rigor or quality of evidence as comprehensively as systematic reviews, potentially affecting the clinical use of the identified tools. Last, because of rapid technological advancements, new tools could emerge quickly, underscoring the need for continuous updating beyond the scope of this review.

Implications for Occupational Therapy Practice

Digital skills are increasingly required for adults to participate in everyday activities, such as communication, education, work tasks, and IADLs. This scoping review identifies accessible and low-cost assessment tools that occupational therapy practitioners can use to evaluate digital skills across domains, including computer skills, mobile and tablet use, technology and internet skills, technology proficiency for students, and technology-supported IADLs. This review has the following implications for occupational therapy practice:

▪ Occupational therapy practitioners can use existing free or low-cost digital skills assessments to more systematically evaluate clients’ abilities related to computer use, mobile device use, internet navigation, and technology-supported daily activities rather than relying solely on informal observation.

▪ Self-report questionnaires may be useful as initial screening tools to evaluate clients’ perceived confidence, frequency of use, and attitudes toward technology, particularly in settings with limited time or resources.

▪ Performance-based and observational assessments can provide detailed information about task execution, error patterns, cueing needs, and safety, which may support clinical reasoning and individualized intervention planning.

▪ Practitioners should be aware that few available assessments address touchscreen skills, online safety, or emerging technologies such as AI. In the absence of standardized tools, occupational therapy practitioners may consider incorporating structured informal observation of clients using their own devices, such as smartphones or tablets, to better understand real-world performance.

▪ When selecting assessments, practitioners should consider population-specific validation, scoring method, administration demands, and accessibility, particularly when working with older adults or individuals with disabilities.

▪ Because several tools lack normative data or test–retest reliability, they should be used to inform clinical reasoning, goal setting, and intervention planning rather than as stand-alone measures for monitoring change over time.

These practice considerations highlight how currently available assessments can be integrated into occupational therapy practice while acknowledging the boundaries of the existing evidence base.

Conclusion

As digital participation becomes integral to daily life, occupational therapy practitioners must routinely assess clients’ digital skills to support their occupational engagement. This scoping review identified 27 accessible and affordable assessment tools that address a range of digital competencies across adult populations. Although many tools focus on general computer and mobile device skills, notable gaps remain, particularly in areas such as touchscreen use, online safety, AI, and assessments directly conducted on personal devices. The available measures offer varying formats, including self-report questionnaires, knowledge-based tests, and performance-based observations, each with distinct advantages and limitations. Although most tools demonstrate acceptable reliability and validity, the lack of normative data and test–retest reliability for many assessments limits their use for tracking intervention outcomes over time. Still, these tools can serve as valuable resources to complement clinical reasoning, support intervention planning, and broaden the scope of occupational therapy practice to address clients’ digital functioning.

Given that most occupational therapy practitioners currently rely on informal observations and report limited awareness of standardized digital assessments, increasing familiarity with these tools is critical. Incorporating digital skills assessments into routine practice can enhance therapists’ ability to identify client needs; promote participation in digitally mediated occupations; and address barriers related to cognitive, physical, or contextual challenges. Continued research is needed to refine existing measures, address emerging digital demands, and ensure assessments remain responsive to diverse client populations and rapidly evolving technologies.