Cited by 102Digital literacy in educationArtificial Intelligence in EducationGender and Technology in Education

Development and validation of ChatGPT literacy scale

Lee, Seyoung, Park, Gain·2024·Current Psychology

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12144-024-05723-0

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • AI literacy test and ChatGPT literacy scale both showed good evidence for internal consistency.

    “Both showed at least some evidence for content validity while showing good evidence for structural validity, internal consistency, and construct validity.”

    From A systematic review of AI literacy scales (2024) · cites this paper as [38]

  • AI literacy test and ChatGPT literacy scale both showed at least some evidence for content validity.

    “Both showed at least some evidence for content validity while showing good evidence for structural validity, internal consistency, and construct validity.”

    From A systematic review of AI literacy scales (2024) · cites this paper as [38]

  • AI literacy test and ChatGPT literacy scale are the scales with the most robust quality evidence for higher education students.

    “When aiming for an assessment of higher education students, AI literacy test32 and ChatGPT literacy scale38 are the scales with the most robust quality evidence.”

    From A systematic review of AI literacy scales (2024) · cites this paper as [38]

  • AI literacy test and ChatGPT literacy scale both showed good evidence for construct validity.

    “Both showed at least some evidence for content validity while showing good evidence for structural validity, internal consistency, and construct validity.”

    From A systematic review of AI literacy scales (2024) · cites this paper as [38]

  • AI literacy test and ChatGPT literacy scale both showed good evidence for structural validity.

    “Both showed at least some evidence for content validity while showing good evidence for structural validity, internal consistency, and construct validity.”

    From A systematic review of AI literacy scales (2024) · cites this paper as [38]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lee, S., & Park, G.
Affiliations
  • Sungkyunkwan University (KR)
  • New Mexico State University (US)
Corresponding author
Park, Gain
Venue
Current Psychology
Published
2024-02-14
Volume
43
Issue
21
Pages
18992-19004
ISSN
  • 1046-1310 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-4733
OpenAlex
W4391819811
Cited by
100
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 52 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 7
FWCI
37.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Current Psychology (publishedVersion)
Funders
Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2021S1A5C2A02088387)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Digital literacy in education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
Keywords
large language models, scale development, technical proficiency, critical appraisal, communication skills, creative applications, ethical competence, construct validity, content validity, university students, digital literacy

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