An Exploratory Factor Analysis of the Online Information Literacy Self-Efficacy (OILS) Instrument

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v27i3.8889

Keywords:

information literacy, self-efficacy, online learning, factor analysis, undergraduate education

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to develop and validate an effective instrument to measure undergraduate students’ self-efficacy in engaging with information for online coursework. Recognizing the increasing importance of information literacy in online learning environments, the Online Information Literacy Self-Efficacy (OILS) instrument was designed to assess key competencies associated with students’ abilities to engage with information effectively. The validity and reliability of the OILS instrument were examined using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and reliability analysis. The instrument initially comprised 30 items, grounded in two authoritative frameworks: the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Framework for Information Literacy and the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) Information Literacy VALUE Rubric. Survey responses from 259 undergraduate students enrolled in online courses at a large Midwestern US R1 institution were analyzed using EFA and reliability analysis. EFA results revealed a four-factor structure explaining substantial variance in the item response patterns: scoping research topics, obtaining information, evaluating information quality and producing research documents, and crediting sources. These four factors demonstrated high reliability, with omega coefficients ranging from 0.891 to 0.960. One item was recommended for removal due to cross-loadings and skewness. Exploratory measurement invariance analyses suggested that the factor structure was comparable for students with and without prior online learning experience. The findings support the OILS instrument’s utility in measuring students’ confidence in applying information literacy skills in online learning contexts, offering valuable insights for educators and librarians to enhance instructional strategies and support student success.

Author Biographies

Wei Zakharov, Libraries and School of Information Studies, Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA

Dr. Wei Zakharov is an Associate Professor in Libraries and School of Information Studies and (by courtesy) the School of Engineering Education at Purdue University. Her research focuses on data and information literacy education, and online learning.

Anne Traynor, College of Education, Educational Psychology & Research Methodology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA

Dr. Anne Traynor is an Associate Professor in the College of Education at Purdue University. Her research evaluates content validation methods for educational tests and survey questionnaires.

Clarence Maybee, Libraries and School of Information Studies, Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA

Dr. Clarence Maybee is the Associate Dean for Learning and the W. Wayne Booker Endowed Chair in Information Literacy at Purdue University Libraries and School of Information Studies. He is a leading information literacy educator and researcher whose work explores teaching and learning of information literacy in higher education.  Dr. Maybee is the director of the Institute for Information Literacy at Purdue, which supports research that explores the role of information literacy in addressing information challenges.

References

Adigue, A. P., Tumacder, J. R. O., & Urbano, J. M. (2023). Self-efficacy and learning strategies in the context of online learning. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Education and Technology (ICETECH 2022) (pp. 547–564). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-056-5_55

Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2009). Information literacy VALUE rubric. https://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/information-literacy

Association of College and Research Libraries. (2015). Framework for information literacy for higher education. American Library Association. https://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.

Bradley, C. (2013). Information literacy in the programmatic university accreditation standards of select professions in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Journal of Information Literacy, 7(1), 44–68. https://doi.org/10.11645/7.1.1785

DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications. SAGE Publications.

Giannakos, M., Azevedo, R., Brusilovsky, P., Cukurova, M., Dimitriadis, Y., Hernandez-Leo, D., Järvelä, S., Mavrikis, M., & Rienties, B. (2024). The promise and challenges of generative AI in education. Behaviour & Information Technology, 44(11), 2518–2544. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2024.2394886

Honicke, T., & Broadbent, J. (2016). The influence of academic self-efficacy on academic performance: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 17, 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.11.002

Hovious, A. (2024). Information creation as an AI prompt: Implications for the ACRL framework. Kansas Library Association College and University Libraries Section Proceedings, 14(1), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.4148/2160-942X.1094

Johnston, N. (2010). Is an online learning module an effective way to develop information literacy skills? Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 41(3), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2010.10721464

Kassorla, M., Georgieva, M., & Papini, A. (2024). AI literacy in teaching and learning: A durable framework for higher education. EDUCAUSE. https://www.educause.edu/content/2024/ai-literacy-in-teaching-and-learning/executive-summary

Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.

McClellan, S. (2016). Teaching critical thinking skills through commonly used resources in course-embedded online modules. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 23(3), 313–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691316.2014.987416

McDonald, R. P. (1970). The theoretical foundations of principal factor analysis, canonical factor analysis, and alpha factor analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 23(1), 1–21. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1970.tb00432.x

McGrew, S., Breakstone, J., Ortega, T., Smith, M., & Wineburg, S. (2018). Can students evaluate online sources? Learning from assessments of civic online reasoning. Theory & Research in Social Education, 46(2), 165–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2017.1416320

Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2011). Introduction to psychometric theory. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203841624

UNESCO. (2023, September 7). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/guidance-generative-ai-education-and-research

Weaver, K. D. (2024). The artificial intelligence disclosure (AID) framework: An introduction. College & Research Libraries News, 85(10), 407–411. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.85.10.407

Downloads

Published

2026-08-07

How to Cite

Zakharov, W., Traynor, A., & Maybee, C. (2026). An Exploratory Factor Analysis of the Online Information Literacy Self-Efficacy (OILS) Instrument. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 27(3), 275–292. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v27i3.8889

Issue

Vol. 27 No. 3 (2026)

Section

Research Articles

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The copyright for all content published in IRRODL remains with the authors.

This copyright agreement and usage license ensure that the article is distributed as widely as possible and can be included in any scientific or scholarly archive.

You are free to

  • Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
  • Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.

The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms below:

  • No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.