Spanish Social Services Reveal Three Digital Skill Profiles

Digital transformation is changing how social services assess needs, coordinate care and communicate with clients, but professionals in Spain are not entering that transformation with the same capabilities. A study of 541 social services professionals has identified three distinct digital competence profiles, ranging from advanced users able to solve complex technological problems to a digitally constrained group with substantial difficulty creating content, collaborating online and working independently through technical issues. The findings suggest that digitalisation is not simply a matter of providing new software or moving records onto electronic platforms. It is also a question of whether staff can use information critically, protect sensitive data, create and adapt digital resources, collaborate across systems and respond when technology fails. The researchers argue that training should be matched to these different starting points rather than delivered as a single programme for an entire workforce. They also highlight a less visible risk: professionals may be digitally connected yet struggle with screen-related well-being, while others may overestimate their abilities and therefore miss opportunities for further development.

The research team surveyed professionals working in public and private social services across Spain between June and August 2023. Participants completed an online questionnaire adapted from Spain’s Digital Competence Framework, itself aligned with the European DigComp 2.2 framework. The sample had an average age of 42.9 years and was predominantly female, with women representing 82.6% of respondents. Social Work was the main area of professional training, accounting for 76.7% of the sample, followed by Social Education and Psychology. Just over half worked in the public sector, while others were employed by third-sector organisations or private entities. The survey used 63 yes-or-no items distributed across five competence areas: information and data literacy, communication and collaboration, digital content creation, safety, and problem solving. Researchers converted the responses into standardised scores from zero to 100, then used hierarchical cluster analysis with Ward’s method and squared Euclidean distance to detect groups with similar patterns of competence.

Across the sample, average performance was approximately 70% in most areas, but the overall figures concealed pronounced differences between individuals. Communication and collaboration was the strongest dimension, indicating that routine digital messaging, media sharing, online procedures and basic interaction are widely established in professional practice. Digital content creation was the weakest area overall. The distinction matters because content creation involves more than producing ordinary documents: it can include selecting tools for a particular purpose, integrating material from different sources, managing web content, understanding licensing, using artificial intelligence and producing complex resources for others. The study also found substantial variation in problem solving, the capacity to diagnose and resolve technical difficulties without immediately relying on external support. Safety scores were generally adequate, particularly for passwords, digital certificates and secure transactions, although digital well-being and misinformation protection were less consistent. Information and data literacy showed a similar pattern: basic tasks were common, while analytical and more advanced uses of information were much less widespread.

Cluster analysis produced three groups with statistically significant differences across all five dimensions. The first, comprising 283 professionals, was described as a consolidating profile. Its average digital competence score was 72.15, close to the overall sample level, and its members had an average age of 41.8 years. About one-third held postgraduate qualifications, and employment was divided relatively evenly between the public sector and other organisations. This group was capable in routine communication and collaboration and could usually resolve basic technical problems, but its performance declined when tasks required more specialised content production, advanced analysis or creative uses of technology. Only 16.3% reported using artificial intelligence tools for content creation, while 19.8% managed website content and 17.0% could debug code. In problem solving, 91.2% could resolve basic technical issues independently, but only 47.7% reported creative uses of technology. The group’s self-assessment averaged 6.72 out of 10, lower than might be expected from its measured score, suggesting caution or awareness of the complexity of digital work.

The second group, containing 152 professionals, showed the strongest performance. This advanced profile had a mean competence score of 89.77 and was the youngest of the three groups, with an average age of 40.2 years. More than half held master’s or doctoral qualifications, and the group had a lower representation in the public sector than the other profiles. Its members performed strongly in every competence area, particularly in digital content creation and problem solving. Their mean score for content creation was 81.47, and their problem-solving score reached 93.26. Nearly all could address routine technical problems, while 97.4% reported responding proactively to their own digital needs and 99.3% to the needs of others. The group also showed the highest engagement with training or self-directed learning, reported by 90.8% of its members. Advanced capabilities were not limited to personal use: participants commonly helped colleagues search for and verify information, selected tools according to content needs, produced complex content for third parties and used digital resources for creative or civic purposes. Their self-perceived competence, 7.82 out of 10, was still below the level indicated by the broader assessment.

The third group, comprising 106 professionals, had the lowest measured competence, with a mean score of 52.62. Its members were older on average, at 49.5 years, had the longest average tenure in their current organisations, at approximately 15 years, and were predominantly employed in public administration. Only 20.6% held postgraduate qualifications. The largest gaps appeared in digital content creation and problem solving, where mean scores were 38.05 and 32.23, respectively. Fewer than half could solve a simple video-call problem or independently search online for a solution, and only 9.4% used technology creatively. Use of artificial intelligence tools for content creation was reported by 7.5%, while only 8.5% reported debugging programmes and 16.0% using smart-home technologies. Communication skills were also limited when tasks moved beyond essential functions: 16.0% co-edited documents and 21.7% could explain collaborative digital services to others. Safety was a relative strength, but weaknesses remained in app-permission management and protection against misinformation. This group rated its own competence at 5.93 out of 10, slightly higher than its measured performance, a mismatch that could reduce motivation to seek training.

Differences between the profiles were not merely statistical. The researchers calculated partial eta-squared values to estimate how much variation in each competence dimension was associated with cluster membership. The values ranged from 0.237 for safety to 0.619 for problem solving, with particularly strong separation in problem solving, content creation and communication. The results therefore point to distinct patterns of capability rather than a simple continuum in which every skill rises at the same rate. The advanced group was consistently above the sample average, while the constrained group was below it in all five dimensions. The consolidating group occupied an intermediate position, with notable competence in communication and collaboration but less confidence or experience with complex tasks. Item-level results also revealed that basic digital activity is not equivalent to digital maturity. For example, many professionals could organise files, exchange messages or use secure transactions, yet far fewer could analyse data, manage online content, apply artificial intelligence or create sophisticated solutions for colleagues and clients.

The findings have direct implications for social services, where professionals handle sensitive information about people’s finances, family circumstances, health, legal situations and use of support. Digital case-management platforms and interconnected regional systems can improve continuity and coordination, but they also raise demands for privacy, cybersecurity, ethical decision-making and careful communication. The authors argue that digital competence should therefore be treated as a professional requirement linked to service quality and the protection of users’ rights, not as an optional technical extra. They recommend strengthening foundational skills and learning networks for the constrained profile, helping the consolidating group progress toward advanced competence, and supporting advanced professionals as digital mentors or agents of organisational change. Training should also address digital well-being. The intermediate group reported particular difficulties with posture and screen-time control, illustrating how frequent technology use can coexist with occupational vulnerability and technostress. Sustainable digital transformation will require organisational investment, protected time for learning and policies that treat continuous development as a professional right rather than a one-time response to new software.

The study’s conclusions should be interpreted alongside its limitations. Because participation relied on an online questionnaire, the sample may overrepresent professionals already comfortable with digital tools. The instrument measured self-reported competence rather than performance observed in practical tasks, leaving room for self-efficacy and social-desirability bias. Spain’s decentralised social services system also varies across autonomous communities in administration, resources, infrastructure and organisational culture, but the available data did not allow those regional differences to be analysed in detail. Even so, the three-profile structure provides a useful framework for planning more precise interventions. The researchers call for regular competence assessments, longitudinal studies and evaluations conducted before and after training. Such work could show whether targeted programmes improve practical ability, reduce digital stress and strengthen service delivery without widening inequalities between organisations. As social services continue to adopt digital records, remote communication, automated processes and emerging artificial-intelligence tools, the central challenge will be ensuring that technological change expands professional capacity and client access rather than reproducing existing divisions inside the system.

Subject of Research: Digital competence profiles among social services professionals in Spain

Article Title: Assessment of digital competences: characterisation of professional profiles in Spanish social services

Article References: Gómez-Rasco, T., Fernández-Borrero, M. A., Muñoz-Moreno, R., & Ferri-Fuentevilla, E. (2026). Assessment of digital competences: characterisation of professional profiles in Spanish social services. SN Social Sciences, 6(9), Article 390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-026-01666-4

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s43545-026-01666-4

Keywords: digital competence, social services, Spain, DigComp 2.2, digital skills, professional training, digital resilience, problem solving, digital well-being, Assessment, digital, competences