CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 135

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Development and validation of an instrument to measure undergraduate students’ attitudes toward the ethics of artificial intelligence (AT-EAI) and analysis of its difference by gender and experience of AI education

Jang, Yeonju, Choi, Seongyune, Kim, Hyeoncheol·2022·Education and Information Technologies
DOI 10.1007/s10639-022-11086-5
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10639-022-11086-5

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 19 references

Research works printed but not linked: 72

  1. AccessNow Conference Declaration (2018). The Toronto declaration: protecting the rights to equality and non-discrimination in machine learning systems.
  2. Aday, L. A., & Cornelius, L. J. (2006). Designing and conducting health surveys: A comprehensive guide. John Wiley & Sons.
  3. Aiken, L. R. (1997). Psychological testing and assessment. Allyn & Bacon.
  4. Asan, O., Bayrak, A. E., & Choudhury, A. (2020). Artificial intelligence and human trust in healthcare: Focus on clinicians. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(6), 15154. https://doi.org/10.2196/15154 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on multiplying factors for various chi-squared approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (methodological), 16(2), 296–298. · DOI
  6. Bernacki, M. L., Chavez, M. M., & Uesbeck, P. M. (2020). Predicting achievement and providing support before STEM majors begin to fail. Computers & Education, 158, 103999. · DOI
  7. Borenstein, J., & Howard, A. (2021). Emerging challenges in AI and the need for AI ethics education. AI and Ethics, 1(1), 61–65. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Van Brummelen, J., & Lin, P. (2020). Engaging Teachers to Co-Design Integrated AI Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.11100. · arXiv
  9. Van Brummelen, J., Heng, T., & Tabunshchyk, V. (2021). Teaching Tech to Talk: K-12 Conversational artificial intelligence literacy curriculum and development tools. In 2021 AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence (EAAI). · DOI
  10. Burbach, L., Nakayama, J., Plettenberg, N., Ziefle, M., & Valdez, A. C. (2018). User preferences in recommendation algorithms: the influence of user diversity, trust, and product category on privacy perceptions in recommender algorithms. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM conference on recommender systems (pp. 306–310). · DOI
  11. Collectif, C. (2018). Research ethics in machine learning (Doctoral dissertation, CERNA; ALLISTENE).
  12. Connelly, L. M. (2011). Cronbach’s alpha. Medsurg Nursing, 20(1), 45–47.
  13. Cox, E. O., Green, K. E., Seo, H., Inaba, M., & Quillen, A. A. (2006). Coping with late-life challenges: Development and validation of the care-receiver efficacy scale. The Gerontologist, 46(5), 640–649. · DOI
  14. Currie, G., Hawk, K. E., & Rohren, E. M. (2020). Ethical principles for the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in nuclear medicine. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 47(4), 748–752. · DOI
  15. Davis, L. L. (1992). Instrument review: Getting the most from your panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research, 5, 194–197. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Dineen, B. R., Noe, R. A., & Wang, C. (2004). Perceived fairness of web-based applicant screening procedures: Weighing the rules of justice and the role of individual differences. Human Resource Management: Published in Cooperation with the School of Business Administration, the University of Michigan and in Alliance with the Society of Human Resources Management, 43(2–3), 127–145. · DOI
  17. Dodds, Z., Greenwald, L., Howard, A., Tejada, S., & Weinberg, J. (2006). Components, curriculum, and community: Robots and robotics in undergraduate ai education. AI Magazine, 27(1), 11–11.
  18. Ellore, V. P. K., Mohammed, M., Taranath, M., Ramagoni, N. K., Kumar, V., & Gunjalli, G. (2015). Children and parent’s attitude and preferences of dentist’s attire in pediatric dental practice. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, 8(2), 102. · DOI
  19. Filieri, R., D’Amico, E., Destefanis, A., Paolucci, E., & Raguseo, E. (2021). Artificial intelligence (AI) for tourism: An European-based study on successful AI tourism start-ups. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. · DOI
  20. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. · DOI · Paper page
  21. Furey, H., & Martin, F. (2019). AI education matters: A modular approach to AI ethics education. AI Matters, 4(4), 13–15. · DOI
  22. Gefen, D., Straub, D., & Boudreau, M. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4. · DOI · Paper page
  23. Ghotbi, N., Ho, M. T., & Mantello, P. (2021). Attitude of college students towards ethical issues of artificial intelligence in an international university in Japan. AI & SOCIETY, 1–8. · DOI · Paper page
  24. Grgić-Hlača, N., Weller, A., & Redmiles, E. M. (2020). Dimensions of diversity in human perceptions of algorithmic fairness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.00808. · arXiv
  25. Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tathan, R., & Black, W. (2009). Análisis multivariante. Pearson.
  26. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152. · DOI · Paper page
  27. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate d data analysis: A global perspective. In P. P. Hall (Ed.), Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th Ed., Vol. 7th). Pearson.
  28. Han, X., Hu, F., Xiong, G., Liu, X., Gong, X., Niu, X., … & Wang, X. (2018). Design of AI+ curriculum for primary and secondary schools in Qingdao. In 2018 Chinese Automation Congress (CAC) (pp. 4135–4140). IEEE. · DOI · Paper page
  29. Hubbard, S. M., & Stage, F. K. (2009). Attitudes, perceptions, and preferences of faculty at Hispanic serving and predominantly Black institutions. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(3), 270–289. · DOI
  30. Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 195–204. · DOI · Paper page
  31. Kaiser, H. F. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 23, 187–200. · DOI
  32. Kaiser, H. F., & Rice, J. (1974). Little Jiffy, Mark Lv. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34(1), 111–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447403400115 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Kieslich, K., Keller, B., & Starke, C. (2021). AI-Ethics by Design. Evaluating public perception on the importance of ethical design principles of AI. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.00326. · DOI
  34. Kim, S., Jang, Y., Kim, W., Choi, S., Jung, H., Kim, S., & Kim, H. (2021a). Why and what to teach: AI curriculum for elementary school. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 35, No. 17, pp. 15569–15576). · DOI · Paper page
  35. Kim, S., Kim, W., Jang, Y., Choi, S., Jung, H., & Kim, H. (2021b). Student knowledge prediction for teacher-student interaction. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 35, No. 17, pp. 15560–15568). · DOI
  36. Lindqwister, A. L., Hassanpour, S., Lewis, P. J., & Sin, J. M. (2021). AI-RADS: An artificial intelligence curriculum for residents. Academic Radiology, 28(12), 1810–1816. · DOI · Paper page
  37. Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35, 382e385. · DOI · Paper page
  38. Majbar, M. A., Majbar, Y., Benkabbou, A., Amrani, L., Bougtab, A., Mohsine, R., & Souadka, A. (2020). Validation of the French translation of the Dutch residency educational climate test. BMC Medical Education, 20(1), 1–7. · DOI
  39. McFadden, D., Machina, M. J., & Baron, J. (1999). Rationality for economists?. In Elicitation of preferences (pp. 73–110). Springer. · DOI
  40. McGill, T., & Thompson, N. (2021). Exploring potential gender differences in information security and privacy. Information & Computer Security. · DOI
  41. Mohamed, N., & Ahmad, I. H. (2012). Information privacy concerns, antecedents and privacy measure use in social networking sites: Evidence from Malaysia. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2366–2375. · DOI
  42. Morhason-Bello, I. O., Olayemi, O., Ojengbede, O. A., Adedokun, B. O., Okuyemi, O. O., & Orji, B. (2008). Attitude and preferences of Nigerian antenatal women to social support during labour. Journal of Biosocial Science, 40(4), 553–562. · DOI
  43. Moss, T. P., Lawson, V., & White, P. (2015). Identification of the underlying factor structure of the Derriford Appearance Scale 24. PeerJ, 3, e1070. · DOI
  44. Nisar, N., Sohoo, N. A., & Memon, A. (2009). Knowledge, attitude and preferences of pregnant women towards modes of delivery. JLUMHS, 8(03), 228.
  45. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.
  46. Page, K. (2012). The four principles: Can they be measured and do they predict ethical decision making? BMC Medical Ethics, 13(1), 1–8. · DOI
  47. Peña, A., Serna, I., Morales, A., & Fierrez, J. (2020). Bias in multimodal AI: Testbed for fair automatic recruitment. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (pp. 28–29). · DOI
  48. Pierson, E. (2017). Gender differences in beliefs about algorithmic fairness. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.09124. · arXiv
  49. Qin, F., Li, K., & Yan, J. (2020). Understanding user trust in artificial intelligence-based educational systems: Evidence from China. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(5), 1693–1710. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12994 · DOI · Paper page
  50. Quinn, T. P., & Coghlan, S. (2021). Readying medical students for medical AI: The need to embed AI ethics education. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.02866. · arXiv
  51. Rabby, F., Chimhundu, R., & Hassan, R. (2021). Artificial intelligence in digital marketing influences consumer behaviour: A review and theoretical foundation for future research. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 25(5), 1–7.
  52. Sabuncuoglu, A. (2020). Designing one year curriculum to teach artificial intelligence for middle school. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 96–102). · DOI
  53. Sandoval-Henríquez, F. J., & Badilla-Quintana, M. G. (2021). Measuring stimulation and cognitive reactions in middle schoolers after using immersive technology: Design and validation of the TINMER questionnaire. Computers & Education, 166, 104157. · DOI
  54. Seo, J., & Im, S. (2021). Designing a learning model for an artificial intelligence curriculum. Review of International Geographical Education Online, 11(8), 1972–1977.
  55. Shahriari, K., & Shahriari, M. (2017). IEEE standard review—Ethically aligned design: A vision for prioritizing human wellbeing with artificial intelligence and autonomous systems. In 2017 IEEE Canada International Humanitarian Technology Conference (IHTC) (pp. 197–201). IEEE. · DOI
  56. Sharif, P. S., Javadi, M., & Asghari, F. (2011). Pharmacy ethics: evaluation pharmacists’ ethical attitude. Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine, 4.
  57. Sheehan, K. B. (1999). An investigation of gender differences in on-line privacy concerns and resultant behaviors. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 13(4), 24–38. · DOI
  58. Shin, D. (2020). User perceptions of algorithmic decisions in the personalized AI system: Perceptual evaluation of fairness, accountability, transparency, and explainability. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 64(4), 541–565. · DOI
  59. Shin, D. (2021). The effects of explainability and causability on perception, trust, and acceptance: Implications for explainable AI. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 146, 102551. · DOI · Paper page
  60. Siau, K., & Wang, W. (2020). Artificial intelligence (AI) ethics: Ethics of AI and ethical AI. Journal of Database Management (JDM), 31(2), 74–87. · DOI · Paper page
  61. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). Harper Collins College.
  62. Thiebes, S., Lins, S., & Sunyaev, A. (2021). Trustworthy artificial intelligence. Electronic Markets, 31(2), 447–464. · DOI · Paper page
  63. Tifferet, S. (2019). Gender differences in privacy tendencies on social network sites: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 1–12. · DOI
  64. Tiit, E. M. (2021). Impact of voluntary sampling on estimates. Papers on Anthropology, 30(2), 9–13. · DOI
  65. Tzafilkou, K., Perifanou, M., & Economides, A. A. (2021a). Development and validation of a students’ remote learning attitude scale (RLAS) in higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 1–27. · DOI · Paper page
  66. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70. · DOI · Paper page
  67. Waltz, C. F., & Bausell, R. B. (1981). Nursing research: Design, statistics, and computer analysis. F. A. Davis.
  68. Weisberg, E. M., & Fishman, E. K. (2020). Developing a curriculum in artificial intelligence for emergency radiology. Emergency Radiology, 27(4), 359–360. · DOI
  69. Williams, R., & Breazeal, C. (2020). How to train your robot: A middle school AI and ethics curriculum. IJCAI. · DOI
  70. Williams, T., Zhu, Q., & Grollman, D. (2020). An experimental ethics approach to robot ethics education. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 34, No. 09, pp. 13428–13435). · DOI
  71. Xu, J. J., & Babaian, T. (2021). Artificial intelligence in business curriculum: The pedagogy and learning outcomes. The International Journal of Management Education, 19(3), 100550. · DOI · Paper page
  72. Yapo, A., & Weiss, J. (2018). Ethical implications of bias in machine learning. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 135

Metadata

Authors
Jang, Y., Choi, S., & Kim, H.
Venue
Education and Information Technologies
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-05-18
Volume
27
Issue
8
Pages
11635-11667
ISSN
  • 1360-2357
  • 1573-7608
DOI
10.1007/s10639-022-11086-5
Cited by
135
References
19
Language
en
Update notices
correction (2022-06-18)
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review