Cited by 245Technology Adoption and User BehaviourArtificial Intelligence in EducationGender and Technology in Education

Generative artificial intelligence acceptance scale: A validity and reliability study

Yilmaz, Fatma Gizem Karaoglan, Yilmaz, Ramazan, Ceylan, Mehmet·2024·International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to formulate an acceptance scale grounded in the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model. The scale is designed to scrutinize students’ acceptance of generative artificial intelligence (AI) applications. This tool assesses students’ acceptance levels toward generative AI applications. The scale development study was conducted in three phases, encompassing 627 university students from various faculties who have utilized generative AI tools such as ChatGPT during the 2022–2023 academic year. To evaluate the face and content validity of the scale, input was sought from professionals with expertise in the field. The initial sample group (n = 338) underwent exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to explore the underlying factors, while the subsequent sample group (n = 250) underwent confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for the verification of factor structure. Later, it was seen that four factors comprising 20 items accounted for 78.349% of total variance due to EFA. CFA results confirmed that structure of the scale, featuring 20 items and four factors (performance expectancy, effort expectancy, facilitating conditions, and social influence), was compatible with the obtained data. Reliability analysis yielded Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.97, and the test–retest method demonstrated a reliability coefficient of 0.95. To evaluate the discriminative power of the items, a comparative analysis was conducted between the lower 27% and upper 27% of participants, with subsequent calculation of corrected item-total correlations. The results demonstrate that the generative AI acceptance scale exhibits robust validity and reliability, thus affirming its effectiveness as a robust measurement instrument.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10447318.2023.2288730

Cites

66 of 66 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?

  • The autonomous learning dimension is distinct from prior dimensions such as performance expectancy and planning with AI.

    “which is distinct from the relevant devised dimensions in the prior studies, such as performance expectancy (e.g.Karaoglan Yilmaz et al., 2024) and planning with AI (Kim & Lee, 2022).”

    From Development and validation of the Generative AI Literacy for Learning Scale (GenAI-LLs) (2025) · cites this paper as Karaoglan Yilmaz et al., 2024

  • The present study makes an original contribution to the relevant literature by moving beyond the technical and ethical aspects of AI literacy in previous studies, which focus more on learning or teaching about AI.

    “The present study makes an original contribution to the relevant literature by moving beyond the technical and ethical aspects of AI literacy in previous studies, which focus more on learning or teaching about AI (e.g.Karaoglan Yilmaz et al., 2024;B. Wang et al., 2023).”

    From Development and validation of the Generative AI Literacy for Learning Scale (GenAI-LLs) (2025) · cites this paper as Karaoglan Yilmaz et al., 2024

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yilmaz, F. G. K., Yilmaz, R., & Ceylan, M.
Affiliations
  • Department of Computer Technology & Information Systems, Faculty of Science, Bartin University, Bartin, Turkey
  • Bartin University (TR)
Venue
International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction
Published
2023-12-12
Volume
40
Issue
24
Pages
8703-8715
ISSN
  • 1044-7318 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7590
OpenAlex
W4389638819
Cited by
244
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 104 · 2025: 96 · 2024: 44
FWCI
62.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
Keywords
generative AI, technology acceptance, UTAUT, scale development, university students, ChatGPT, performance expectancy, effort expectancy, facilitating conditions, social influence, measurement instrument validation

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