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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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
DOI 10.1080/10447318.2023.2288730
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10447318.2023.2288730

Cites

67 of 67 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

Show all 65 references

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Ahmed F. Shubeck K. & Hu X. (2023 July). ChatGPT in the generalized intelligent framework for tutoring. Proceedings of the 11th Annual Generalized Intelligent Framework for Tutoring (GIFT) Users Symposium (GIFTSym11) (p. 109). US Army Combat Capabilities Development Command-Soldier Center.
  2. Balci, A. (2001). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma. Yöntem, teknik ve ilkeler [Research in the social sciences. Methods, techniques and principles]. PegemA Yayınları.
  3. Buyukozturk, S. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı [The data analysis handbook for social sciences]. Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
  4. Buyukozturk, S., Kilic Cakmak, E., Akgun, O. A., Karadeniz, S., & Ve Demirel, F. (2018). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods]. Pegem.
  5. Küchemann S. Steinert S. Revenga N. Schweinberger M. Dinc Y. Avila K. E. & Kuhn J. (2023). Physics task development of prospective physics teachers using ChatGPT. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10014. · arXiv
  6. 10.2196/preprints.48254 · DOI
  7. Shidiq M. (2023 May). The use of artificial intelligence-based chat-gpt and its challenges for the world of education; from the viewpoint of the development of creative writing skills. Proceeding of International Conference on Education Society and Humanity (Vol. 1 No. 1 pp. 353–357).
  8. Sumer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri [Structural equation models]. Turkish Psychological Articles, 3(6), 49–74.
  9. Tezbaşaran, A. (1997). Likert tipi ölçek hazırlama kılavuzu [Likert type scale preparation guide]. Türk Psikologlar Derneği.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–245 of 245

Related

See all

Metadata

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)
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2023-12-12
Volume
40
Issue
24
Pages
8703-8715
ISSN
  • 1044-7318 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7590
DOI
10.1080/10447318.2023.2288730
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
  • Social Sciences › Education › 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