DigCompSAT: A Self-reflection Tool for DigComp
Annex 10 - Partner Feedback on Pilot 2
Before the start of the piloting process clear instructions about the tool, piloting process, target groups and
deadlines were sent to the coordinators, all important issues were explained and clarified during an online
meeting before the start of the process.
In Latvia, BDA felt that the time for carrying out piloting (June -July) was not seen as ideal as people were not
keen to get involved and spend time on the SAT in the summer. As a result, some refused mentioning ‘lack of
time’, ‘being away from home’ and some who filled in the initial questionnaire did not then do the SAT.
A significant level of effort was required by BDA to find people who matched the following specific demographic
young people (aged 16-24) with higher education and basic digital skills;
age group 55-65 people with low education and advanced digital skills.
In Spain, Ibermática found that some types of users were very difficult to find o r directly impossible:
Older people with low education and high digital skills
For a n umber of user s, receiving the second reminder mail from Ibermática was a surprise, as t hey thought
that the SAT was already done with the sampling survey. Difficulties in reaching the expected number of users
forced Ibermática to personally phone people who had left the questionnaire unfinished to encourage them to
At the end o f July, Ibermática found a new group of user s: the staff who do telemarketing and call handling
for various customers within Ibermática i tself. These belonged to groups 16 -24 and 25-54 and were not IT
technicians. Thanks to the agreement with their supervisors, we were able to reach the expected number of
users. Ibermática felt that receiving this ta sk from their supervisor might have affected their view of the SAT,
even though they were explicitly informed that the SAT was anonymous.
Observations about Sampling and Selection
In Latvia, in the initial survey people tended to indicate a higher level of educati on than they had. For those
participants who were close to finishing their degree of education they i ndicated it as already finished. Also
because of delay between the initial survey and the self-assessment test (May /J une / July) some of the
participants had actually finished their degrees during that time period and would fall into a different education
Some of the participants with higher digital skills were very critical about their skill level because they
understood the skill better and realised how much knowledge they are still missing. S o they would score
Some of the people who filled in the initial questionnai re in the centres afterwards discussed the meaning of
the question “Troubleshooting your printer” and “Managing website s with content management systems”.
Obviously, each respondent depending on their skills had own understanding of the complexity of the question.
People who considered their digital skills to be better were more responsive to participating. People who thought
their digital skills were lower were anxious to participate, even though they later achieved goo d results in the
Some of the parti cipants who participated were contacted via thei r managers. Although they were instructed
that this is purely self-assessment and nobody will judge t hem, they still felt a bit nervous about the test and
some confessed that when in doubt they chose the more d esirable answer just to make sure there was to be
no implication of “failing”.
Observations (when present) of participants by coordinators In Latvia
Generally, people who agreed to participate in the SAT were positive about it and we did not receive any
negative remarks about the process or tool itself.
Male respondents were less responsive and needed more effort than female respondents.