Beyond the Digital Divide

Abstract

An essential, and rapidly-developing, aspect of electronic government is the growing use of online resources for government activities such as e-rulemaking, citizen participation, and the provision of information, referral, and assistance for users with needs for service delivery. Major developments in the use of electronic government resources for services needed by the elder and disability populations are the primary focus of this chapter. We focus here on the results of a large-scale statewide survey of residents of the state of Iowa, and on the findings from evaluations of aging and disability resource Websites in the United States and in other countries. Current and future trends in service delivery that may help to bridge digital divides for the elder and disability populations are discussed.

Full text

Beyond the Digital Divide: Closing the Generation and Disability Gaps?
Beyond the Digital Divide: Closing the
Generation and Disability Gaps?
Seongyeon Auh, Chung-Ang University, Republic of Korea
Stuart W. Shulman, University of Massachusetts Amherst, United States
Lisa E. Thrane, Wichita State University, United States
Mack C. Shelley, II, Iowa State University, United States
ABSTRACT
An essential, and rapidly-developing, aspect of electronic government is the growing use of online
resources for government activities such as e-rulemaking, citizen participation, and the provision of
information, referral, and assistance for users with needs for service delivery. Major developments in the
use of electronic government resources for services needed by the elder and disability populations are the
primary focus of this chapter. We focus here on the results of a large-scale statewide survey of residents
of the state of Iowa, and on the findings from evaluations of aging and disability resource Websites in the
United States and in other countries. Current and future trends in service delivery that may help to bridge
digital divides for the elder and disability populations are discussed.

Beyond the Digital Divide: Closing the Generation and Disability Gaps?
INTRODUCTION
E-government is a key concept in scholarly and policymaker dialogues about democratic government.
Generational differences play an important role in linking information and communications technologies
(ICT) literacy and usage with political outcomes such as partisanship, elections, or public policy decisions
(Fox, 2004). Complex contemporary issues regarding full participation by older members of the political
community revolve around the rapidly expanding reliance on electronic information and communication
technologies. All too often older adults are unfamiliar with opportunities commenting on pending
government rules and regulations and the corresponding use of online “e-rulemaking” by public agencies
(e.g., Garson, 2005; Shulman, Thrane, & Shelley, 2005).
Other socio-demographic differences, together with generational effects, define what has become
known as the “digital divide” (Castells, 1999; Compaine, 2001; Mossberger, Tolbert, & Stansbury, 2003;
Servon, 2002; Warschauer, 2003). Age, race, language, and disabilities are significant predictors of ICT
literacy, even when controlling for socioeconomic status (Cooper, 2000; Dennis, 2001; Goslee, 1998;
Lenhart et al.; Loges & Jung, 2001; Novak & Hoffman, 1998). Previous research has shown that age and
disability are closely related to the digital divide in political participation, access to electronic media, and
the use of services available through electronic sources.
E-government—delivering government services through a Website or other ICT application—can
provide quicker and better services (Daukantas, 2003; Holmes & Miller, 2003), improved interactions
with business and industry (Krueger, 2002), citizen empowerment through access to information and
participation (Takao, 2004; Watkins, 2004), and more efficient government management (Cohen &
Eimicke, 2001). However, e-government provides accurate and reliable information to only those with
Internet access.
The “gray gap” in service delivery is an important dimension of the digital divide. The elderly are
largely unaware of existing services, experience difficulties in expressing their needs and in negotiating
the human services system, and may go without needed help. In particular, determining how best to
provide and fund care for vulnerable elderly with functional deficits in daily activities who need
assistance in home management such as household chores is a major national-level policy need. As a
result, a significant portion of the elderly are counted among society’s information disadvantaged groups.
The Aging and Disability Resource Center (ADRC) initiative of the U.S. Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Administration on Aging (AoA), in the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), is one current national effort to meet these challenges by establishing
information and referral capability for the elderly and disabled in nearly every state. By integrating
online, telephone, and in-person contacts, the ADRC cuts across generational barriers and serves as a
virtual source of information for and about service providers that is intended to address the needs of the
elderly and disabled population. Our study, in part, assesses the effectiveness of e-government,
specifically the ADRC, in meeting the needs of the elderly and disabled (particularly in Iowa). We
compare state-level and pilot-level ADRC Websites, and separately compare the information and services
provided in other countries’ equivalent online sources to assist in plans for long-term care, retirement, and
family-based caregiving between countries with higher and more modest levels of e-readiness as
measured by multiple international criteria. In sum, we address how e-government is being used in the
United States to deliver information and services for the needs of the elderly and disabled, and explore
how these needs are being addressed in other countries. Within the U.S., the comparison between state-
level and pilot-level sites is meaningful to evaluate whether there is a differential effect on Website
quality—and thus implicitly on the delivery of information and services—from programs with a statewide
emphasis versus those with a more narrow pilot site orientation. Comparing international Websites
between countries with relatively more and relatively less readiness for electronic government has a
somewhat different purpose: to ascertain whether the often vast differences in national infrastructure
precondition the performance capability of e-government efforts to provide information and deliver
services. Direct comparisons between the U.S. ADRC Websites and the international Websites are not

Beyond the Digital Divide: Closing the Generation and Disability Gaps?
undertaken here, because of major differences in national priorities and differences in the intent behind
the respective national and sub-national systems for aging and disability services.
BACKGROUND: THE AGING AND DISABILITY LINK
In the United States, the elderly represent the fastest growing demographic group in the population. In
July 2003, 35.9 million people were aged 65 and older in the U.S., or 12% of the total population, of
whom 18.3 million were aged 65-74, 12.9 million 75-84, and 4.7 million 85 and older. The U.S. Census
Bureau projects the older population in 2030 to double in size over its 2000 estimate, to 72 million (nearly
20% of the total U.S. population) (He, Sengupta, Velkoff, & DeBarros, 2005). Elderly citizens need
instrumental services related to aging, as physical and cognitive abilities decrease and social interactions
and financial status diminish (Bull, 1994; Chatman, 1991; Levinson, 1996).
One dimension of digital divide research looks at the need to provide and evaluate functional online
information and referral systems for services supporting the elderly—and especially the disabled
elderly—that cut across generationally different modes of seeking and following up on sources of
assistance for service delivery (e.g., Auh & Shelley, 2006; Shelley & Auh, 2006).
The need for service delivery to aging and disabled populations poses major challenges to government
ICT developers. While recent efforts have been undertaken through the ADRC program, rapidly aging
populations remain a world-wide phenomenon with significant policy implications. A related
development is the greater survival rate and extended life expectancy of those who suffer disabilities and
who might not have survived into adulthood or old age in previous generations.
An emergent ICT research front is the global need to adapt technologies that often have been
developed by and for the young to the needs of the elderly (e.g., Jaeger, 2005; Thrane, Shelley, Shulman,
Beisser, & Larson, 2005). Making “young technologies” available and functional to older users requires
careful attention to cognitive, social, and education differences as well as to the vastly divergent life
histories, that separate younger, “with it” technology users from their elders.
Shelley, Thrane, and Shulman (2008) summarized structural equation model (SEM; Jöreskog &
Sörbom, 1996a, 1996b) analysis of data from a 2003 national random sample survey (n=478) reveals that
younger respondents were significantly more supportive of ICT and saw significantly fewer
disadvantages, compared to older respondents (Shelley, Thrane, Shulman, Lang, Beisser, Larson, &
Mutiti, 2004). Younger respondents showed significantly more desire for public ICT availability and e-
political participation, whereas older respondents preferred traditional electoral involvement. More
educated respondents held significantly more favorable views of ICT generally and public access more
specifically, compared to less educated respondents; they also were more active in both traditional and
electronic forms of civic participation. More supportive views of ICT were associated with significantly
greater levels of e-political participation and significantly stronger interest in e-elections. Respondents
with less concern and fear about ICT were significantly more likely to act as digital citizens and involved
in e-politics and e-elections. Stronger support of public ICT access was related to significantly greater
support of e-elections. Whether e-citizenry will compound existing social divisions as non-electronic
voices are marginalized and electronic voices are amplified or expand opportunities for more egalitarian
access to public resources remains an open question. In this chapter, we explore the implications of e-
government access to information and services for the elder and disability populations in the United
States and in other countries.
In addition to the traditional service-delivery media such as walk-in visits, telephone, or “snail mail,”
visiting Websites or emailing requests have become popular service delivery media for information and
referral service agencies and services for aging and disability. In the U.S., state governments provide
electronic case management services to their citizens, who are able to access information and enroll
through the e-application process to federal benefit programs such as Medicaid or the Women, Infants,
and Children (WIC) program (Auh & Shelley, 2008; Cook, Lavigne, Pagano, Dawes, & Pardo, 2002;
Holmes & Miller, 2003). Increasingly, government agencies use the Internet to provide information and
technologies that have the ability to transform relations with citizens, business, and other arms of

Beyond the Digital Divide: Closing the Generation and Disability Gaps?
government (Auh & Shelley, 2008; World Bank, 2006).
As part of that initiative, the ADRC Grant Program was initiated as a joint effort of the HHS, AoA,
and CMS to overcome barriers to community-based caregiving for people with disabilities of all ages
(HHS, 2004). One out of three adults required information related to long-term care for themselves, a
spouse, parent(s), child(ren), or friend(s) (Keitzman, Scharlach, & Santo, 2004). For families lacking
information about available resources or services, institutionalized care could be the only option
available. To citizens without e-literacy, only limited information and services may be available. The
“knowledge gap hypothesis” (Tichenor, Donohue, & Olien, 1987) leads to the conclusion that limited
access to information and services may produce greater inequality of opportunity and outcomes.
Community-based caregiving for the elderly has emerged as a major public policy issue. The ADRC is
meant to fulfill the needs for information and referral services for the elderly, caregivers, and disability
populations. Currently, 43 U.S. geopolitical units are participating in the national ADRC (Figure 1).
Figure 1. States Participating in the Aging and Disability Resource Center
Figure 1 here
The international dimensions of the work conducted by the ADRC were highlighted by the
presentation of related results at the Third International Conference on Healthy Ageing and Longevity, in
Melbourne, Australia, October 13-16, 2006. With more than 20 countries represented, the focus was on
how to maximize lifespan and health. The aims of the ADRC are directly relevant to many of the aging
and disability-related needs confronting societies around the globe such as the provision of supportive
services and preventive measures for the aged and disabled that promote quality of life (e.g.,
psychological adjustment, alleviation of social isolation), “aging in place,” financial planning, and
reducing the uneven development of services within and between countries while controlling health care
costs.
We contend that there is a great deal of variety in Website provisions, functionality, service
availability, and usability for aging and disability resources. This has implications for aging and disability
resource policy specifically, and for many other applications of e-government. Our study investigates
perceptions of elder and disability services among survey respondents in Iowa and their participation in e-
government services. In addition, we examine the effectiveness of ADRC U.S. Websites and their
international counterparts on the traits of ease of use, content and information, interaction, and
accountability, as well as e-readiness, target population, and life domains. This comparison shows clear
gaps among the international Websites and differences between these and their U.S. equivalents. Many
weaknesses of the Websites are evident in the subsequent discussion.
SURVEYING PUBLIC NEEDS FOR ADRC AND E-GOVERNMENT
As a joint effort of the Iowa Department of Elder Affairs (the state’s ADRC grantee), with Iowa State
University’s Family Policy Center (FPC) and Research Institute for Studies in Education, representative
statewide data were collected from 4,002 households. A 63% response rate was achieved with the
Dillman (2007) method. The sample overrepresents older Iowans and gives a richer description of their e-
government needs for service delivery (Auh & Shelley, 2006). The mean age of the participants was
56.03 years (SD=16.64 years). Two-fifths were at least 60 years old, 39% were between 42-59 years, and
the remaining 21% were younger than 42.
Overall, 73% reported Internet access either at home, work, school, a library, or somewhere else. A
logistic regression model (Nagelkerke pseudo R2=.44, percentage of cases correctly classified=80%;
χ2=4.90, df=8, p=.77) revealed that Iowans who were 41 years and younger were nearly 3 times as likely
to have Internet access compared to their middle-aged (42-59 years) contemporaries, and 7.2 times as
likely as their older counterparts (60+ years) (Auh & Shelley, 2008). The odds of Internet access were 2.7
times as high for seniors with another adult present in the household compared to elders who lived alone.

Beyond the Digital Divide: Closing the Generation and Disability Gaps?
Living in a non-metropolitan area decreased the likelihood of Internet access by 31%, in contrast to urban
dwellers. The odds of Internet access declined by 10% among seniors who lived alone, rather than with
another adult, in less populated areas of the state (Shelley & Auh, 2007).
The most universal Internet activities were gathering information (67%) and email (67%), followed by
shopping (45%), banking (33%), and other purposes (24%). The average respondent participated in
roughly two Internet activities (M=2.22, SD=1.69). These items were summed to yield an “e-literacy”
scale, with Cronbach alpha value of .85 (Auh & Shelley, 2006; Shelley & Auh 2007). Common
benchmarks for acceptable reliability of a scale, as measured by Cronbach’s coefficient alpha, are values
of at least .70 for exploratory research, and .80 for well-established scales (Nunnally, 1978); Cronbach
alpha values are reported extensively throughout this chapter, to establish the substantive usefulness of
the various scales employed. The attained value of .85 demonstrates that the “e-literacy” scale provides a
useful and meaningful measure of the extent of engagement in electronic activities. In a multiple
regression analysis (R2=0.52), older Iowans reported significantly lower levels of e-literacy and seniors
living alone were significantly less likely to use the Internet (Shelley & Auh, 2007).
Internet access and e-literacy are key issues in bridging the digital divide, particularly among
underserved rural seniors who may be left behind in an e-government age and may face greater risk of e-
exclusion. Survey respondents emphasized the need for user-friendly functional options and customized
Website information. They sought specifically a Website instruction section, clear descriptions of the
three major search vehicles, service definitions in lay terms, note space, and customized information
(Shelley & Auh, 2007). Major gaps were found in the type of information that was sought. Of survey
participants aged 60+, 48% responded that disability and/or elder service information was “Very or
Somewhat needed,” as did 41% of participants aged 42-59 and 28% of participants aged less than 42.
Extrapolating to the entire population of the state, this implies that ADRC information may be needed by
nearly 270,000 older Iowans, over 300,000 baby-boomers, and over 250,000 young Iowans. (Auh &
Shelley, 2006, 2007). If these results are indicative of national, or even global, trends, the need for
information about aging and disability services is exceedingly high and may be addressed by enhancing e-
government capacity to provide information and assistance for service delivery. The information and
access needs related to elderly and disabled persons expressed in these survey results inform the
subsequent findings on how well Websites in the United States and other countries have addressed these
needs.
Profiles of ADRC Websites
The 25 U.S. statewide and pilot site ADRC Websites that were sufficiently well-developed at the time of
this study and reported on the ADRC technical assistance Website maintained by the Lewin Group (the
national evaluators for the ADRC program) were tested for their ability to provide aging and disability
resource information and assistance making appropriate use of ICT (Auh & Shelley, 2007). Of the 25
tested Websites, 11 were developed to cover statewide services, whereas 14 were developed as pilot sites
covering multiple counties within those states. Of the 25 tested U.S. ADRC Websites, 6 were
implemented in 2003, 15 in 2004, and 4 in 2005. Support for this research was received from the IBM
Center for the Business of Government (Auh & Shelley, 2007).
These Websites were evaluated by research staff and graduate research assistants at the Research
Institute for Studies in Education at Iowa State University. An Observation Check List was developed
(Auh & Shelley, 2007). This allowed raters to use a series of investigative procedures to study
systematically the effectiveness of a Web-based information and referral service delivery system. It
allowed systematic investigation of the following core areas of the e-government efforts as manifested
through the various ADRC Websites in the U.S. and relevant Websites from other countries: ease of use,
content and information, interaction, and accountability. To ensure the reliability and validity of these
assessments, multiple evaluators were assigned for each individual Website.
The scope of the tested Websites included services directed to aging and disability populations and to
their caregivers or families. Most of the Websites served elderly populations (n=24), elderly with a

Beyond the Digital Divide: Closing the Generation and Disability Gaps?
disability (n=23), and caregivers (n=20); whereas only 9 offered services for children with disabilities and
6 offered services for their caregivers. Compared to the pilot-level ADRC Websites, the state-level
Websites were more likely to serve the needs of wider populations. Only 3 of the 14 pilot-level Websites
(21%) offered services for children with a disability; compared to 6 of the 11 state-level Websites (55%).
There is no statistically significant difference (as measured by chi-square statistics and associated p-
values) between state-level and pilot-level ADRC Websites in the provision of services to children with
disability, elderly with disability, elderly in general, caregivers for children with disability, caregivers for
the elderly, and the general public. In these and other hypothesis testing results reported the number of
observations available is not large, so there is limited statistical power to test for differences between
types of Websites; accordingly, we focus on reporting relative frequencies together with hypothesis
testing outcomes.
Ease of Use
Ease of use is defined as the overall rating of the ability to find desired information, helpfulness of the
information provided, speed of loading, navigability, Website design, font size, trustworthiness of the
information provided, finding needed services, convenience for finding services, whether the observer
would recommend the Website to a friend or relative, and comfort using the Internet to get information
(see Table 1; Auh & Shelly, 2007, p. 18). To measure the overall performance of the Websites on ease of
use, a scale was created based on the mean of 15 items (Cronbach’s alpha=.94). The mean Ease of Use
score across all Websites was 6 out of a maximum of 9. There were no statistically significant differences
between pilot-level and state-level ADRC Websites.
Table 1. Scale Formation for U.S. and International Websites
Scale (Number of items)
U.S. or
International
Standardized
Cronbach’s
Alpha
Ease of Use (15 question items x 2 testers=30 items)
I was able to find the information that I am looking for.
The information provided by the Website is helpful.
The speed of loading the Website is not appropriate.
It is easy to navigate through the Website.
I like the design of the Website.
I like the font size of the Website.
I trust the information provided by the Website.
The information I found from the Website helped me find the
services I needed.
I think that the Website is convenient for finding services.
I would recommend the Website to a friend or relative.
I feel comfortable about using the Internet to get information.
The scope of the Website is clearly stated.
The contents and links match the needs of the expected audience.
The contents have a rich and unique quality that inspires users to
visit regularly for information.
The content is written in a clear and consistent language style that is
easy to understand.
U.S.
.94
International
.90
Ease of Use: Readability (2 question items x 2 testers =4 items)
Icons are understandable and make sense. U.S. .60

Beyond the Digital Divide: Closing the Generation and Disability Gaps?
The content is written in a clear and consistent language style that is
easy to understand. International .76
Ease of Use: Design (3 question items x 2 testers=6 items)
The format is consistent throughout the Website.
I like the design of the Website.
I like the font size of the Website.
U.S.
.81
International .70
Accountability: Responsiveness (6 question items x 2 testers=12
items)
The contents and links match the needs of the expected audience.
The contents have a rich and unique quality that inspires users to
visit regularly for information.
I was able to find the information that I am looking for.
The information provided by the Website is helpful.
The information I found from the Website helped me find the
services I needed.
I think that the Website is convenient for finding services.
U.S. .95
International .89
Accountability: Satisfaction (4 question items x 2 testers =4
items)
The content is written in a clear and consistent language style that is
easy to understand.
I would recommend the Website to a friend or relative.
Two more questions?
U.S.
.74
International
.76
(Source: Auh & Shelley, 2007, p. 18.)
The first sub-domain of Ease of Use, Readability, was measured with two items about writing style
and layout/design (Table 1). The composite score had a Cronbach’s alpha value of .60. The total mean
score of Readability of the U.S. ADRC Websites was 6.69, which falls into the “satisfactory” level of the
9-point scale. As assessed by a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), there was a statistically
significant difference (p=.04) in the mean Readability score between state-level and pilot-level ADRC
Websites (7.2, vs. 6.3, respectively).
The second sub-component of Ease of Use, Design, was a composite score assessing whether the
format was consistent throughout the Website, the users liked the design, and the user liked the font size
(Table 1). Cronbach’s alpha was .81. The total mean score of the Design composite was 6.14, which falls
into the “satisfactory” level of the 9-point range. There were no statistically significant differences
between the pilot-level and state-level ADRC Websites.
The third subcomponent of Ease of Use, Accessibility, addressed whether ADRC Websites were
functional for people with disabilities such as visual impairment or colorblindness. Accessibility was
tested using criteria based on U.S. Section 508 of the amended Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Appendix A),
and the Web Content Accessibility Guideline (WCAG) by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C),
which established standards for federal and nonfederal Websites to make information technology
accessible to people with disabilities. For example, the criteria for accessibility include that the Website
use the clearest and simplest language appropriate for a site’s content, and that all information conveyed
with color is also available without color. WCAG Level A is the basic level, where the WCAG’s Priority
1 criteria are met; WCAG Level AA is the medium level, where the WCAG’s Priority 1 and 2 criteria are
met. Of the 25 U.S. ADRC Websites, only 5 (20%) passed the U.S. Section 508 criteria.

Beyond the Digital Divide: Closing the Generation and Disability Gaps?
There were no appreciable differences between pilot-level and state-level ADRC Websites that passed
the Section 508 criteria (n=3, vs. n=2, respectively). The accessibility evaluation based on the
international WCAG guidelines showed similar results. Only 4 of the U.S. ADRC Websites passed
WCAG Level A and none of them passed WCAG Level AA. A chi-square test shows that there is no
statistically significant difference between the state-level and pilot-level Websites (18% vs. 14% passing,
respectively).
A “spider chart” (or “radar char”) is useful way to visualize differences across a complex range of
multiple variables. Figure 2, for example, compares the performance of state-level and pilot-level U.S.
ADRC Websites on an array of criteria addressing the ease of use and the content and information
provided. Higher performance is demonstrated by a point on the graph farther away from the center. As
seen in Figure 2, the results of this study showed very poor performance in terms of accessibility (Auh &
Shelley, 2007, p. 58).
Figure 2. Ease of Use and Content and Information of the U.S. ADRC Websites
Figure 2 here
(Source: Auh & Shelley, 2007, p. 58.)
Content and Information
Content and information is the core element of e-government services. Seven major life domains were
based on the taxonomies employed in the ADRC program: health, family, legal, finances, community
support, environment (Housing/Assistive Technology), and life’s transition and changes. Testers rated the
sample Websites using a 9-point scale, where 1 represents a minimum-level of information and 9
corresponds with comprehensive information and content.
All 25 U.S. ADRC Websites covered the 7 major life domains. Overall mean levels of information
ranged from 5.2 to 6.3, which indicated medium levels of comprehensiveness of information about the
major life domains. Long-term care for the elderly and health and environment (Housing/Assistive
Technology) domains received the highest ratings, followed by the community, finance, legal, and family
domains.
As is evident in Figure 2, overall ratings of comprehensiveness of the information and services
provided by the U.S. ADRC Websites were not high. There were no meaningful differences between
state-level and pilot-level Websites. The goal of the U.S. ADRC program is to provide comprehensive
services, but after five years to date the needs of the targeted population in some respects are not met
adequately.
Of the 25 U.S. ADRC Websites, 18 were characterized by an optimized search engine. Nine (82%)
state-level ADRC Websites had an optimized search engine as did 9 (64%) pilot-level ADRC Websites.
Of the ADRC Websites with an optimized search engine, most (8 statewide and 8 pilot-level) provided
information and referral services by county. About 70% of state-level ADRC Websites had a search
engine by county, as did 64% of pilot-level ADRC Websites (Figure 2). To meet the targeted population’s
needs and support their community and home-based care, this search option is an essential function.
Interaction
Interaction includes the availability and levels of customized option and feedback components. The
customized option was very important to users, with a discussion board (or Bulletin Board Service) the
basic mechanism for user-Website interactions. Higher-level interactions could include individualized
functions such as a log-on capacity, the ability to save visit information, and a search history. The most
advanced level of this facet of human-computer interaction could be the integration of customized

Beyond the Digital Divide: Closing the Generation and Disability Gaps?
functions with the government’s administrative process, such as by providing easy access to e-application
forms for any state or local agency.
Half (n=13) of the U.S. Websites included at least one customized option. Of these, 5 provided a wide
array of customized services, whereas 8 provided more limited customized options. There were no
significant differences between pilot-level and state-level ADRC Websites in the number that provided
customized options, search history services, log-on functions, or e-application forms and services (Figure
3, from Auh & Shelley, 2007, p. 58).
Figure 3. Interaction and Accountability of the U.S. ADRC Websites
Figure 3 here
(Source: Auh & Shelley, 2007, p. 58.)
The U.S. ADRC Websites included feedback components, such as an online customer feedback
capacity, user satisfaction survey, comment box, and Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) board. Customer
feedback was the most common feedback component; 15 Websites included this type of service. Eight
Websites included a user satisfaction survey or comment box, and 5 Websites included a FAQ board
among their feedback components. There was no statistically significant difference in feedback options
available on the state-level and pilot-level ADRC Websites.
Accountability (Responsiveness/Satisfaction/Trust)
Because the aim of the ADRC Websites is to target the delivery of long-term care and make the best
quality resources and services available, the Websites should be responsive to needs of the aging and
disability populations, provide satisfactory services, and build trust among users. The Responsiveness
composite score, the first subcomponent of Accountability, assessed the convenience of locating services
and usefulness of the content to connect users with available resources in their communities (Table 1).
Cronbach’s alpha was .95. The mean Responsiveness score of 6.0 indicated a medium level of
responsiveness. There were no statistically significant differences between state-level and pilot-level
ADRC Websites.
The Satisfaction composite score, the second subcomponent of Accountability, assessed such aspects
as ease of understanding Website content and Website referrals. Cronbach’s alpha was .74. Raters
reported a medium level of satisfaction with ADRC Websites (M=6.32). There were no statistically
significant differences between state-level and pilot-level ADRC Websites. Level of trust was measured
with one question, “I trust the information provided by the Website,” by using a 9-point Likert measure.
The mean was 7.3, implying a high level of trust in the ADRC Websites. Compared to the pilot-level
ADRC Websites (M=7), the Website testers rated the trustworthiness of the state-level ADRC Websites
(M=7.7) to be significantly higher (p=.04).
Profiles of ADRC-equivalent International Websites
A total of 28 ADRC-equivalent Websites from 9 countries were evaluated (Auh & Shelley, 2007). These
countries were selected based upon the availability of reviewers fluent in major languages and the
distribution of countries across multiple continents. For each country, 2-5 Websites were identified as
ADRC-equivalent Websites at the national or regional level, except for Brazil, for which only one
Website was identified. Five Websites were evaluated from Australia, 1 from Brazil, 2 from Canada (1
French, 1 English), 2 from Chile, 3 from France, 3 from Israel, 5 from South Korea, 3 from Mexico, and 4
(1 national and 3 regional (for Scotland, Ireland, and Wales) from the United Kingdom (UK).
The ADRC-equivalent international Websites were funded by various sources, including a national
agency, local government, and other nonprofit organizations. Nineteen Websites (68%) were funded by a

Beyond the Digital Divide: Closing the Generation and Disability Gaps?
national agency only; 5 (18%) were cosponsored with a combination of state and federal funding; 2 (7%)
were cosponsored by local government only, and 2 others (7%) were cosponsored by other nonprofit
organizations. The funding resources for these Websites were not significantly different by e-readiness
groups (Table 2).
All Websites within each country were selected that shared the mission and goals of the U.S. ADRC
Websites and provided equivalent services. Websites that supported the independence and home-based
care of the elderly and disabled in their own communities in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France,
Israel, (South) Korea, Mexico, and the United Kingdom were examined.
Raters with expertise in a major world language (Korean, Spanish, French, Arabic, Portuguese,
Hebrew) and with those nationalities were recruited from students in various Ph.D. programs at Iowa
State University. The raters identified ADRC-equivalent Websites in each country by scanning relevant
Websites in each language to assess the content and format of sites addressing needs for the elderly and
disabled.
E-readiness indicators of the 9 countries were studied to determine the status of the country’s ICT
infrastructure and the degree of access to the Internet and computers (Table 2, in Auh & Shelley, 2007, p.
37). Based on the set of indicators summarized in Table 2, the countries were categorized into two groups.
MER countries—Brazil, Chile, Israel, France, and Mexico—had medium levels of e-readiness and HER
countries—Australia, Canada, South Korea, and UK—reported higher levels of e-readiness.
Table 2. E-readiness Indicators
Country
Internet
Users
(000s)
20061
Personal
Computers
(per 1,000
people)2
Government
Prioritization
of ICT (1-7)3
ICT
expenditure
(%
of GDP)4
Schools
connected to
the Internet
(%)5
E-Gov
Readiness
Index (0-1)
UN (2005)6
E-Readi-
ness
Index (1-
10) The
Econo-
mist
7
Australia
15,300.0
683
4.3
6.2
97
.8679
8.50
Brazil
42,600.0
105
4.0
7.8
50
.5981
5.29
Canada
22,000.0
700
4.5
5.9
98
.8425
8.37
Chile
4,155.6
141
4.9
6.1
62
.6963
6.19
France
30,100.0
575
5.1
6.3
89
.6925
7.86
Israel
1,899.1
740
4.9
8.3
95
.6903
7.59
Jordan
796.9
56
5.5
8.4
18
.4639
4.22
Korea
34,120.0
545
5.7
6.9
100
.8727
7.90
Mexico
18,091.8
136
4.0
3.3
60
.6061
5.30
United
States
208,000.0
762
5.3
8.8
100
.9062
8.88
UK
33,534.0
600
5.0
7.3
99
.8777
8.64
1International Telecommunication Union. 2006. http://www.itu.int/ITUD/icteye/Indicators/Indicators.aspx#
2World Bank. ICT at Glance. 2005.
http://Web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,,contentMDK:20459133~menuPK:
1192714~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175~theSitePK:239419,00.html
3World Bank. ICT at Glance. 2005.
http://Web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,,contentMDK:20459133~menuPK:
1192714~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175~theSitePK:239419,00.html
4World Bank. ICT at Glance. 2005.
http://Web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,,contentMDK:20459133~menuPK:
1192714~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175~theSitePK:239419,00.html
5World Bank. ICT at Glance. 2005.
http://Web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,,contentMDK:20459133~menuPK:
1192714~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175~theSitePK:239419,00.html

Beyond the Digital Divide: Closing the Generation and Disability Gaps?
6UN Global E-Government Readiness Report. 2005.
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan021888.pdf
7Economist Intelligence Unit E-Readiness rankings, 2006.
http://a330.g.akamai.net/7/330/2540/20060424215053/graphics.eiu.com/files/ad_pdfs/2006Ereadiness_R
anking_WP.pdf
(Source: Auh & Shelley, 2007, p. 37.)
The scope of services of the tested Websites included aging and disability populations and their
caregivers or families. Of the 28 international Websites, 13 served only the elderly population and 15
served both the elderly and disability populations. Regarding the targeted populations of the e-
government services provided by the sample Websites (Table 3, Auh & Shelley, 2007, p. 39), there was
no statistically significant difference between countries with higher-level and medium-level e-readiness.
The selected Websites served different specific targeted populations, including the elderly, elderly with
disability, caregivers for the elderly, children with disability, and caregivers for children with disability.
Table 3 reports the percentage of each country’s ADRC-like international Websites that provide online
services directed to each targeted group; higher percentages demonstrate a more widespread commitment
to serving each targeted group. These targeted populations were matched with those of the U.S. ADRC
Websites. As the countries were not selected randomly, our reported estimates combining all the sites in
the MER or HER countries may not be representative of all ADRC-like sites in countries that we were
unable to examine.
Table 3. Targeted Population of International Websites
Country
Targeted Population
(number of sites)
Level
Elderly
Caregivers
for elderly
Disabled
elderly
Disabled
children
Caregivers for
disabled children
Australia
(n = 5)
National
4
5
4
2
2
80.0%
100%
80%
40%
40%
Brazil
(n = 1)
National
0
1
1
1
1
.0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Canada
(n = 2)
National
2
1
2
1
0
100%
50%
100%
50%
.0%
Chile
(n = 2)
National
2
2
1
0
0
100%
100%
50%
.0%
.0%
France
(n = 3)
National
3
3
3
1
1
100%
100%
100%
33%
33%
Israel
(n = 3)
National
2
2
2
1
1
67%
67%
67%
33%
33%
South Korea
(n = 5)
National
4
1
1
1
1
80%
20%
20%
20%
20%
Mexico
(n = 3)
National
3
3
2
2
2
100%
100%
67%
67%
67%
UK
(n = 1 national, n
= 3 pilot)
National
1
1
1
1
1
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Pilot*
3
3
2
3
3
100%
100%
67%
100%
100%
*The UK was the only country with pilot-level Websites.
(Source: Auh & Shelley, 2007, p. 39)
Ease of Use

Beyond the Digital Divide: Closing the Generation and Disability Gaps?
Unless otherwise indicated, the U.S. ADRC Websites’ measures and scoring system were employed in
the evaluation of the international Websites. The overall mean Ease of Use score for the Websites was
7.4. The scores ranged from 6.3 (Brazil) to 8.5 (Canada). Cronbach’s alpha was .90. The first sub-domain
of Ease of Use, Readability, ranged from 7.4 (U.K.) to 8.9 (Canada). The average score was 7.89.
Cronbach’s alpha was .76. Design, the second sub-domain of Ease of Use, ranged from 4 (Brazil) to 8.6
(Canada) with mean of 7.23. Cronbach’s alpha was .70.
The Accessibility measure, the third sub-domain of Ease of Use, indicated that only 8 (30%) of
international ADRC-equivalent Websites passed the U.S. Section 508 criteria. All of the Canadian
Websites passed the U.S. Section 508 criteria and about half of the Websites from Australia, Israel, and
the U.K. passed the criterion. The Websites from Brazil, Chile, France, (South) Korea, and Mexico did
not pass the U.S. Section 508 criteria. Nine Websites (34%) passed the WCAG Level A criteria. All of the
Canadian Websites passed the WCAG Level A and about half of the Websites from Australia, Israel, and
the U.K. passed that guideline. Brazil, Chile, France, (South) Korea, and Mexico did not pass the WCAG
Level A. Only one Website from the U.K. passed the WCAG Level AA guideline. HER Websites were
more likely to be accessible for people with disabilities such as vision or hearing impairments; differences
between the MER and HER countries in percentage of Websites that passed the U.S. Section 508 or
WCAG Level A were statistically significant (p=.002 and p<.001, respectively). As seen in Figure 4, the
imbalance of effectiveness among the Websites from the MER and HER countries was noticeable (Auh &
Shelley, 2007, p. 57). Despite the fact that the scope of services in the ADRC-equivalent Websites should
be related to the needs of the aging and disability populations in those countries, the ADRC-equivalent
Websites from the MER countries had limited accessibility, which was the most critical element in e-
government services targeting the disability population.
Figure 4. Ease of Use, and Content and Information of the International Websites
Figure 4 here
(Source: Auh & Shelley, 2007, p. 57.)
Content and Information
Content and information is the core element of e-government services. All 28 international Websites
provided information and resources about the 7 major life domains (Table 4). Average ratings varied
greatly by type of domain and country. The overall mean levels of comprehensiveness in information and
referral services for life domains ranged from 4.63 (Life Transition) to 7.41 (Health). The level of
comprehensiveness on Environment (Housing/Assistive Technology) issues of the Websites differed
significantly across countries (p<.001). HER Websites provided significantly more comprehensive
information about Finance (p=.001), Environment (p=.002), and Life Transition (p=.037) issues to users
than did MER Websites. Compared to HER countries, the information and referral services related to life
transition and environment (such as housing options and technical assistance) were not provided at
sufficiently comprehensive levels to meet the targeted population’s needs in MER countries (Figure 4).
Table 4. Scope of Life Domains Covered by the ADRC-Equivalent Websites, by Country
Country
N
Health
Mean
(SD)
Family
Mean
(SD)
Legal
Mean
(SD)
Finance
Mean
(SD)
Community
Mean
(SD)
Environment
Mean
(SD)
Life
Transition
Mean
(SD)
Australia
5
8.5000
(.707)
6.9000
(2.04)
7.8000
(1.036)
7.3000
(1.717)
7.6000
(1.387)
7.6000
(1.140)
7.5000
(1.369)
Brazil
1
9.0000
(0.00)
6.0000
(0.00)
9.0000
(0.00)
1.0000
(0.000)
9.0000
(0.00)
1.0000
(0.00)
1.0000
(0.000)

Beyond the Digital Divide: Closing the Generation and Disability Gaps?
Canada
2
8.5000
(.707)
6.2500
(2.474)
7.7500
(1.060)
8.7500
(0.353)
6.5000
(2.121)
8.7500
(0.353)
6.2500
(3.181)
Chile
2
9.0000
(0.00)
6.0000
(4.242)
8.2500
(1.060)
3.0000
(2.828)
5.0000
(5.656)
1.0000
(0.00)
1.0000
(0.000)
France
3
5.3333
(3.055)
6.6667
(2.309)
5.6667
(2.516)
3.3333
(1.527)
5.0000
(2.598)
3.0000
(1.732)
2.0000
(1.323)
Israel
3
6.1667
(4.072)
6.0000
(4.358)
3.6667
(4.618)
2.8333
(2.753)
6.3333
(4.618)
6.6667
(2.516)
5.5000
(4.092)
Korea
5
5.3000
(3.154)
2.0000
(0.707)
3.7000
(2.049)
4.3000
(2.489)
3.6000
(2.162)
3.2000
(2.109)
3.0000
(2.574)
Mexico
3
9.0000
(0.00)
6.0000
(2.646)
8.6667
(0.577)
4.0000
(2.645)
8.0000
(1.732)
1.6667
(1.154)
4.3333
(4.163)
UK
4
8.2500
(1.190)
7.2500
(1.554)
6.8750
(2.839)
7.2500
(1.500)
8.5000
(0.707)
8.6250
(0.478)
6.5000
(2.380)
Total
28
7.4107
(2.469)
5.7143
(2.736)
6.4286
(2.771)
5.0714
(2.801)
6.4286
(2.821)
5.1071
(3.204)
4.6250
(3.158)
F
(p-value)
28
1.597
(0.191)
1.885
(0.123)
2.381
(0.58)
3.523
(0.12)
1.657
(.174)
12.207
(< 0.001)
2.442
(0.53)
(Source: Auh & Shelley, 2007, p. 46.)
Search engine optimization, especially for community-based aging and disability resources, is the key
element of ADRC-equivalent international Websites, as was true for the U.S. ADRC Websites. Of the 28
international Websites, 24 were characterized by an optimized search engine. Thirteen (81%) of the HER
Websites had an optimized search engine, as did 11 (92%) of the MER Websites. Of the Websites from
countries with optimized search engines, 17 (11 from HER countries and 6 from MER countries) offered
an advanced level of service by providing information and referral services by county. There were no
meaningful differences between HER and MER Websites.
Interaction
The human-computer interaction dimension explored such factors as whether ADRC-equivalent Websites
had customized options, discussion boards (or BBS), log-on functions, or an integration of customized
functions with the government’s administrative process, such as by providing easy access to e-application
forms for any national or local government or agency in the other countries.
Of the International Websites, less than half (n=13) included at least one customized option. Of the
Websites with customized option(s), 9 provided a wide array of customized services, whereas 4 provided
more limited customized option(s). For more advanced levels of customized services, a higher percentage
of the HER Websites (10, or 62%) provided those services than did the MER Websites (3, or 25%), and
the difference was statistically significant (p=.032). In terms of customization, the differences between
ADRC-equivalent MER and HER Websites were quite dramatic. As shown in Figure 5, HER Websites
were more likely to optimize customization functions such as (saving personal) search history, log-on
function, and e-application forms, compared to MER Websites.
Figure 5. Interaction and Accountability of the International Websites
Figure 5 here
(Source: Auh & Shelley, 2007, p. 58.)
On-line bulletin (or discussion) board system was the most common feedback component; but only 8
Websites included this type of service and all of them came from HER countries. Of the 8 Websites that

Beyond the Digital Divide: Closing the Generation and Disability Gaps?
included BBS, only 2 allowed users the autonomy to create a chat room for user interaction (25%) while 5
allowed the Webmaster to create a chat room (62%). The differences in availability of BBS or
Webmaster-created chat rooms between the Websites from MER and HER countries both were
statistically significant (p<.001 and p=.008, respectively). Thus, compared to MER Websites, HER
Websites were more likely to provide feedback components promoting interactions with and the active
involvement of users.
Accountability (Responsiveness/Satisfaction/Trust)
The total mean Responsiveness score was 7.44, ranging from a low in Korea of 6.56 to a high in Canada
of 8.5. Cronbach’s alpha was .89. The total mean Satisfaction score was 7.77, ranging from 7.3 (Korea) to
8.6 (Canada). Cronbach’s alpha was .76. The total mean perceived Trustworthiness score was 7.92.
Results from the comparisons between MER and HER countries did not show any dramatic difference in
the effectiveness of the ADRC-equivalent Websites.
FUTURE TRENDS
Information and referral services are a crucial part of e-government. If Websites in areas of need, such as
aging and disability, are not fully functional and do not meet a broad array of needs in user-friendly ways,
the future growth of e-government and democratic citizenship likely will be stunted. International
comparisons indicate major differences between the United States and other countries in the usability and
comprehensiveness of information and referral Websites. Online services provided in some countries by a
central government may be provided by local or provincial governments elsewhere. Still other countries
may provide such services through nonprofits or other private-sector entities if they exist at all.
We do not recommend a one-size-fits-all version of e-government but believe that greater variability
will increase the chances of optimization. On the other hand, however, there is a great deal of utility in
logging in to just about any Website (in a readable language) and being able to get information with
minimal effort and frustration. A major unresolved policy issue is whether there is sufficient agreement
within the United States, or among other countries, on the standards for Website design. Commonly-
accepted standards would make it possible to set a baseline and establish uniform tests of Website quality
that would apply anywhere.
The findings of this research are relevant to both practitioners and the academic community. For those
who practice the art of policymaking and administration, the major relevance is to realize the complexities
of satisfying the needs for information and service provision within the elderly and disabled policy nexus.
For the research community, our findings are linked directly to the corpus of knowledge regarding e-
government and public policy, as discussed in the literature review. In addition, we believe the results of
this study will contribute to future research on the digital divide and e-government.
We believe that our results lead to specific suggestions for further research. Our research agenda is not
complete. Clearly, we have not covered all relevant aging and disability information and referral-type
Websites in the United States, let alone in other countries. Nor have all countries been addressed here. We
view these results as preliminary, and even embryonic, and anticipate growing what we know at this point
exponentially by expanding the number of sites examined, as well as the number of countries (and
languages), and by diving more deeply into what often have turned out to be uncharted waters that differ
greatly across cultures, political traditions, and types of government. The following testable propositions
are among those that beckon in future research on this aspect of e-government:
• How does the quality of online service delivery vary by type of government? For example, are
unitary governments better able to provide high-quality online resources due to a greater and
tighter span of control, compared to more decentralized federal-type systems of government?

Beyond the Digital Divide: Closing the Generation and Disability Gaps?
• Does the nature of party control (e.g., Democratic vs. Republican in the U.S. states, or capitalist
vs. social democratic vs. socialist in the broader global arena) affect the usability, depth, and
informational quality of Websites?
• Are better Websites provided by more local levels of government, e.g.., by provincial/state or
municipal units, rather than by regional or national entities?
• How much difference is there in the quality of services delivered by multinational organizations
(the United Nations, for example), compared to those based in a single nation?
• What (inter)national standards should be applied for Website design, and who should best enforce
them?
This at best scratches the surface of where we believe future research is headed. We hope that at least
tentative answers are found to these and other researchable propositions through reasonable extensions of
the current research agenda.
CONCLUSION
Several policy implications arise from these findings. First, public agencies need to provide the most user-
friendly Websites possible, to maximize the impact and spread of the information that is meant to be
available at Web users’ fingertips. This will require expanded training for seniors who are not yet
computer-literate, and demonstrates the need for agency budgets to accommodate both such training
sessions and the expenses associated with staffing both live and broadcast/Webcast outreach efforts.
Second, agencies working on ADRC-type Websites need to consider how best to provide information and
referral services online to the disabled, and in particular to the disabled elderly. In addition to enhancing
assistive technology, it may be productive to make use of the much greater e-literacy skills of the elders’
adult children and, even more so, of the elders’ grandchildren who in many cases have grown up from
birth with intimate knowledge of how to take maximum advantage of online resources. Third, it is
reasonable to expect (in fact, to hope) that the experience gained in seniors’ and those with disability
seeking out information online and making use of that information can contribute to positive spillover
effects.
One likely consequence would be heightened participation by older members of society and the
disability population in e-government and e-lobbying, and e-politics in general. Older voters already have
a disproportionate impact on election outcomes and on many aspects of public policy (Social Security and
Medicare are obvious examples), and it will be important to see how the body politic responds to seniors
engaged more actively online. New and different methods are needed to provide a more fully elaborated
understanding of the interplay of aging and technology in a changing society.
In addition, SEM results (Cho, Cook, Martin, & Russell, 2007) have demonstrated that willingness of
community home-based long-term care is significantly higher with better perceived health and lower with
increased depression. They also showed that awareness of community resources significantly decreased
loneliness and depression and increased perceived health; greater loneliness was associated with greater
depression; and greater depression was associated with lower perceived health.
The imbalance of effectiveness among the Websites from the MER and HER countries is noticeable.
Despite the fact that the scope of services in the ADRC-equivalent Websites should be related to the
needs of the aging and disability populations in those countries, the sample ADRC-equivalent Websites
from the MER countries had limited accessibility, which was the most critical element in e-government
services targeting the disability population. Also, the information and referral services related to life
transition and environment (such as housing options and technical assistance) were not provided at
sufficiently comprehensive levels to meet the needs of their targeted populations.
Imbalances among the U.S. ADRC Websites were also noticeable. Compared to state-level ADRC
Websites, pilot-level Websites showed limited effectiveness. The U.S. ADRC program was implemented
to target the aging and disability population; thus, Website accessibility is a high priority issue. However,
the results of this study showed very poor performance in terms of accessibility. If the Website is not

Beyond the Digital Divide: Closing the Generation and Disability Gaps?
accessible for users with visual impairment or who are colorblind, the e-government services provided by
the Website will not be available for them and may introduce or reinforce social inequality. Also, overall
ratings of comprehensiveness of the information and services provided by the U.S. ADRC Websites were
not high; both state-level and pilot-level Websites were rated as having at best medium or medium-high
levels of comprehensiveness.
The broader impact of these findings should accentuate the need for more carefully targeted, more
purposeful, and better-funded initiatives in the United States and in other countries to attain a higher level
of delivery of information and services. Meeting the needs of the planet with a rapidly aging population
with higher proportions of people with disabilities will strain resources now and in the future. Satisfying
those needs and “ramping up” currently existing structures and processes to deal with ever-expanding
volumes of unsatisfied demands for information and service delivery can be attained through wider
application of e-government and through enhanced capability of online resources to provide ease of use,
content and information, interaction, and accountability. To do so will require heavier commitments of
resources and the political will to overcome resistance to the needed innovations. Developments such as
the election of Barak Obama as president of the United States may portend the emergence of governments
with the capacity and will to resolve these needs.

Beyond the Digital Divide: Closing the Generation and Disability Gaps?
REFERENCES
Auh, S, & Shelley, M.C., II. (2006, April). Iowans’ needs assessment for the Iowa Aging and Disability
Resource Center: The Iowa family survey report. Report to the Iowa Department of Elder Affairs and the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Ames, IA: Research Institute for Studies in Education.
Auh, S., & Shelley, M.C., II. (2007, November). A comparison study on the e-government services:
Focusing on aging and disability resources in the U.S. and the other countries. Ames, IA: Research
Institute for Studies in Education.
Auh, S., & Shelley, M.C., II. (2008, submitted). Who’s at risk of digital divide?: A model test with Iowa
Family Survey. International Journal of Human Ecology.
Bull, M.J. (1994). Use of formal community services by elders and their family caregivers 2 weeks
following hospital discharge. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19, 503-508.
Castells, M. (1999). The informational city is a dual city: Can it be reversed? In D.A. Schön, B. Sanyal, &
W.J. Mitchell (Eds.), High technology and low-income communities (pp. 24-42). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Chatman, E.A. (1991). Channels to a larger social world: Older women staying in contact with the Great
Society. Library and Information Science Research, 13, 281-300.
Compaine, B. (2001). Declare the war won. In B.M. Compaine (Ed.), The digital divide: Facing a crisis
or creating a myth (pp. 315-335). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cohen, S., & Eimicke, W. (2001) The use of the Internet in government service delivery. New York:
Pricewaterhouse Coopers Endowment for the Business of Government.
Cook, M.E., LaVigne, M.F., Pagano, C.M., Dawes, S.S., & Pardo, T.A. (2002) Making a case for local e-
government. Albany, NY: University at Albany, State University of New York.
Cooper, M.N. (2000). Disconnected, disadvantaged, and disenfranchised: Explorations in the digital
divide. Retrieved on December 15, 2000, from http://www.consumersunion.org/pdf/disconnect.pdf.
Daukantas, P. (2003, September 22). E-gov sites score high on user satisfaction survey (Webworks;
American Customer Satisfaction Index). Government Computer News, 22, 11.
Dillman, D.A. (2007). Mail and Internet surveys (2nd ed., 2007 update). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Dennis, E.E. (2001). Older Americans and the digital revolution. In L.K. Grossman & N.N. Minow
(Eds.), A digital gift to the nation: Fulfilling the promise of the digital and Internet age (pp. 175-182).
New York: Century Foundation Press.
Fox, S. (2004). Older Americans and the Internet. Retrieved on June 8, 2005, from
http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Seniors_Online_2004.pdf.
Garson, G.D. (Ed.). (2005). Handbook of public information systems (2nd ed., revised and expanded).
New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
Goslee, S. (1998). Losing ground bit by bit: Low-income communities in the information age. Retrieved
on December 15, 2000, from http://www.benton.org/Library/Low-Income/home.html.
He, W., Sengupta, M., Velkoff, V.A., & DeBarros, K.A. (2005) 65+ in the United States: 2005. (U.S.
Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P23-209). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.

Beyond the Digital Divide: Closing the Generation and Disability Gaps?
Holmes, S.C., & Miller, R.H. (2003). The strategic role of e-commerce in the supply chain of the
healthcare industry. International Journal of Services Technology and Management, 4(4-6), 507.
Jaeger, B. (Ed.). (2005). Young technologies in old hands—An international view on senior citizens’
utilization of ict. Copenhagen, Denmark: DJØF.
Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1996a). LISREL 8: User's reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific
Software International.
Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1996b). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS
command language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
Krueger, C.C. (2002). Assessing the potential of Internet political participation in the United States.
American Politics Research, 30(5), 476-498.
Lenhart, A., Horrigan, J., Rainie. L., Allen, K., Boyce, A., Madden, M., & O’Grady, E. (2003). The ever-
shifting Internet population: A new look at Internet access and the digital divide. Retrieved on April 20,
2003, from http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=88.Pdf. Pew Internet & American Life
Project.
Levinson, R. (1996). Expanding i&r services for older adults in public libraries: Senior connections
(1984-1995). Information and Referral, 18, 21-39.
Loges, W., & Jung, J. (2001). Exploring the digital divide: Internet connectedness and age.
Communication Research, 28(4), 536-562.
Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C.J., & Stansbury, M. (2003). Virtual inequality: Beyond the digital divide.
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Novak, T.P., & Hoffman, D.L. (1998). Bridging the digital divide: The impact of race on computer
access and Internet use. Retrieved on October 24, 2000 from
http://ecommerce.vanderbilt.edu/papers/race/ science.html.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Servon, L.J. (2002). Bridging the digital divide: Technology, community, and public policy. Malden, MA:
Blackwell Press.
Shelley, M.C., II, & Auh, S. (2006, October). The needs and satisfactions of aging and disabilities
resources in a rural state in the U.S.: Lessons from the Iowa case. Paper presented at The 3rd International
Conference on Healthy Ageing & Longevity, Melbourne, Australia.
Shelley, M.C., & Auh, S. (2007). The aging and disability resource center in global perspective. In D.
Remenyi (Ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on e-government. (pp. 271-278). Reading,
UK: Academic Conferences Limited.
Shelley, M.C., Thrane, L.E., & Shulman, S.W. (2006). Generational differences in informational
technology use and political involvement. International Journal of Electronic Government Research,
2(1), 36-53.
Shelley, M.C., II, Thrane, L.E., & Shulman, S.W. (2008). Generational differences in informational
technology use and political involvement: New directions. In D.F. Norris (Ed.), E-government research:
Policy and management (pp. 336-356). Hershey, PA: IGI.
Shelley, M., Thrane, L., Shulman, S., Lang, E., Beisser, S., Larson, T., & Mutiti, J. (2004). Digital
citizenship: Parameters of the digital divide. Social Science Computer Review, 22(2), 256-269.
Shulman, S., Thrane, L., & Shelley, M. (2005). Erulemaking. In G.D. Garson (Ed.), Handbook of public

Beyond the Digital Divide: Closing the Generation and Disability Gaps?
information systems (2nd ed., revised and expanded) (pp. 237-254). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
Takao, Y. (2004). Democratic renewal by “digital” local government in Japan. Pacific Affairs, 77(2) 180-
181.
Thrane, L.E., Shulman, S.W., Shelley, M.C., Beisser, S.R., & Larson, T.B. (2005). Does computer
training translate to e-political empowerment among midwestern senior citizens? In B. Jaeger (Ed.),
Young technologies in old hands—An international view on senior citizens’ utilization of ict (pp. 159-
173). Copenhagen, Denmark: DJØF.
Thrane, L., Shelley, M.C., II, Shulman, S., Beisser, S.R., & Larson, T.J. (2004). E-political
empowerment: Age effects and attitudinal barriers. Journal of E-Government, 1(4), 21-37.
Tichenor, P.J., Donohue, A., & Olien, C.N. (1987). Effect of use of metro dailies on knowledge gap in
small towns. Journalism Quarterly, 64(2-3), 329-337.
Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press.
Watkins, M. (2004). Electronic government forges new partnerships: Learn more about federal e-gov
initiatives and how efforts with a focus on nonprofit capacity building are taking shape in Illinois,
Indiana, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia (Information Technology Management). The Public Manager,
33(1), 13-21.
World Bank (Nov. 2006). Definition of e-government. [online], retrieved from
http://Web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTINFORMATIONANDCOMMUNICATI
ONANDTECHNOLOGIES/EXTEGOVERNMEN/0,,contentMDK:20507153~menuPK:702592~pagePK
:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:702586.00.html on November 1, 2006.

Beyond the Digital Divide: Closing the Generation and Disability Gaps?
KEY TERMS & DEFINITIONS
Accountability—making the best quality resources and services available by being
responsive to the needs of target populations (responsiveness), providing satisfactory
services (satisfaction), and building trust among users (trustworthiness).
Aging and Disability Resource Center (ADRC)—a policy initiative by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services to provide information and referral
assistance for adults over age 60 and persons with disability age 19-60, implemented in
some states as a primarily online system.
Content and information—the core element of e-government services, spanning seven
major life domains: health, family, legal, finances, community support, environment
(Housing/Assistive Technology), and life’s transition and changes.
Cronbach’s alpha—provides a measure of the reliability of a scale formed by a linear
combination of separate items, which in standardized form is a function of the average
correlation of the measures underlying the scale.
Ease of use—the ability to find desired information, helpfulness of the information
provided, speed of loading, navigability, Website design, font size, trustworthiness of
the information provided, finding needed services, convenience for finding services,
whether the observer would recommend the Website to a friend or relative, and comfort
using the Internet to get information
E-government—delivering government services through a Website or information and
communications technologies (ICT)—can provide quicker and better services
(Daukantas, 2003; Holmes & Miller, 2003), improved interactions with business and
industry (Krueger, 2002), citizen empowerment through access to information and
participation (Takao, 2004; Watkins, 2004), or more efficient government management
(Cohen & Eimicke, 2001).
Gray gap—the tendency for older demographic groups to lag behind younger cohorts in
information and communications technology literacy.
Interaction—the availability and levels of customized option and feedback components,
including a discussion board (or Bulletin Board Service), log-on capacity, the ability to
save visit information, search history, and integration of customized functions with the
government’s administrative process, such as by providing easy access to e-application
forms for any agency.

Beyond the Digital Divide: Closing the Generation and Disability Gaps?
APPENDIX A
U.S. Section 508. In 1998, Congress amended the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to require Federal agencies to
make their electronic and information technology accessible to people with disabilities. Section 508 was
enacted to eliminate barriers in information technology, to make available new opportunities for people with
disabilities, and to encourage development of technologies that will help achieve these goals. The law applies
to all Federal agencies when they develop, procure, maintain, or use electronic and information technology.
Under Section 508 (29 U.S.C. 794d), agencies must give disabled employees and members of the public
access to information that is comparable to the access available to others. Section 508 also requires that
individuals with disabilities, who are members of the public seeking information or services from a Federal
agency, have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to that provided to the public who
are not individuals with disabilities, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the agency.