The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Measuring undergraduate students' reliance on generative AI during problem-solving: Scale development and validation
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105329 · Paper page
Abstract
Reliance on AI describes the behavioral patterns of when and how individuals depend on AI suggestions, and appropriate reliance patterns are necessary to achieve effective human-AI collaboration. Traditional measures often link reliance to decision-making outcomes, which may not be suitable for complex problem-solving tasks where outcomes are not binary (i.e., correct or incorrect) or immediately clear. Therefore, this study aims to develop a scale to measure undergraduate students' behaviors of using Generative AI during problem-solving tasks without directly linking them to specific outcomes. We conducted an exploratory factor analysis on 800 responses collected after students finished one problem-solving activity, which revealed four distinct factors: reflective use, cautious use, thoughtless use, and collaborative use. The overall scale has reached sufficient internal reliability (Cronbach's alpha = .84). Two confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were conducted to validate the factors using the remaining 730 responses from this activity and 1,173 responses from another problem-solving activity. CFA indices showed adequate model fit for data from both problem-solving tasks, suggesting that the scale can be applied to various human-AI problem-solving tasks. This study offers a validated scale to measure students' reliance behaviors in different human-AI problem-solving activities and provides implications for educators to responsively integrate Generative AI in higher education.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 66 · Cited by 69
Metadata
- Authors
- Hou, C., Zhu, G., Sudarshan, V., Lim, F. S., & Ong, Y. S.
- Affiliations
- Nanyang Technological University (SG)
- Corresponding author
- Zhu, Gaoxia
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- Volume
- 234
- Pages
- 105329-105329
- ISSN
- 0360-1315 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2610.30195
- OpenAlex
- W4409601212
- Cited by
- 69
- References
- 66
- Citations by year
- 2026: 61
- FWCI
- 71.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- Computers & Education (publishedVersion)
- NIE Digital Repository (National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University) (acceptedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- DR-NTU (Nanyang Technological University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Ministry of Education - Singapore (RG133/24, MOE-T2EP40124-0004)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Keywords
- AI-assisted problem solving, human-AI collaboration, scale development, scale validation, undergraduate students
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