Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 35 references

A Conversational Approach to Well-being Awareness Creation and Behavioural Intention

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that intrinsic motivation, not conversational style, drives both well-being awareness and intention to change in a scripted chatbot counselling chat.

desk verdict A useful null result on conversational style is buried under causal language that the cross-sectional design cannot support. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21702 v1 pith:CQYW4KII submitted 2025-04-30 cs.HC

Antonia Azzini , Ilaria Baroni , Irene Celino This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords conversationalagentwell-beinghealthylifestyleintrinsicmotivationawarenesscreationbehaviouralintentionchatbotstructuralequationmodelling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tests whether a scripted conversational counsellor can create awareness of healthy lifestyles and strengthen a user's intention to act, and which factors drive those outcomes. Analysing questionnaire responses from 600 participants who chatted with 'Allegra' in one of three conversational styles, it uses structural equation modelling to confirm that the intrinsic motivation factors of interest, value, trust and relatedness have a strong positive effect on awareness creation (path coefficient 0.93) and a substantial positive effect on behavioural intention (0.45), both significant at p<0.001. It reports no statistically significant effect of formal, informal, or multimedia-enriched informal conversational style on behavioural intention. If the claims hold, designers of well-being chatbot campaigns should concentrate on strengthening users' motivation rather than on fine-tuning the tone of the dialogue.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a three-part measurement and modelling chain. First, a scripted chat with a counsellor named Allegra follows a four-step coaching structure (Goal, Reality, Options, Will) and ends by asking the user whether they will follow a well-being suggestion in the coming month. Second, the experience is assessed with a 1-to-7 questionnaire whose items operationalise four intrinsic-motivation constructs from the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory — interest, value, trust, relatedness — together with awareness creation and behavioural intention; internal consistency is reported as high, with Cronbach's alpha 0.95 for the motivation items and 0.81 for each of the two outcome scales. Third, structural equation modelling, including exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, turns those ratings into path coefficients connecting the latent factors, and the same model is re-fit across the three stylistic variants to test the style hypothesis.

What would settle it

Run the same chat experiment, then check a month later whether participants actually did the healthy action they promised, and also ask how much they simply liked the chatbot; if the apparent effect of motivation shrinks once general liking is accounted for, or if motivated users do not follow through, the model's causal claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a fully scripted, survey-like conversational agent presented as a well-being counsellor can create awareness and solicit behavioural intention, and that those outcomes are driven by intrinsic motivation rather than by the agent's linguistic style. After an exploratory factor analysis collapsed interest, value, trust and relatedness into a single intrinsic-motivation latent factor, a confirmatory factor analysis found strong paths from intrinsic motivation to awareness creation (0.93) and to behavioural intention (0.45), both at p<0.001, with about 63 percent of the variance in the two outcomes explained. Pairwise t-tests and a grouped confirmatory analysis found no significant differences among the three conversational-style conditions. The paper interprets this as support for its hypotheses H1 and H2, while noting that actual behaviour change was not measured and that longer or AI-driven interactions might behave differently.

Load-bearing premise

The study assumes that what people tick on the questionnaire genuinely measures their motivation, awareness, and intention, and that the correlations among those answers can be read as causes; if a vague liking for the chatbot pushed up every answer, the path coefficients would not prove a distinct motivational effect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If intrinsic motivation is the active ingredient, well-being chatbot designs should focus on features that raise interest, perceived value, trust, and relatedness, and evaluation checklists should measure those constructs rather than relying on style choices.
  • The null style result implies that, for a single scripted encounter, formal wording and informal wording with emojis and GIFs are roughly interchangeable in their effect on behavioural intention; decisions between them can be driven by audience preference rather than by expected conversion.
  • The 0.93 path from intrinsic motivation to awareness creation suggests that awareness gains are largely mediated by motivation, so simply adding more health information to a chatbot may not create awareness if the interaction does not engage the user.
  • High average behavioural intention scores, around 5.8 out of 7, after a roughly three-minute chat indicate that a single coaching conversation can shift stated intentions, but the paper's own scope stops at intention and does not establish lasting behaviour change.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension the paper leaves implicit: style effects may emerge in longer or repeated use, because interest and trust can decay or accumulate over multiple sessions; a longitudinal version of the same three-style comparison would give style a fairer test.
  • Because awareness creation carries almost all of the motivational influence (0.93), an inference beyond the paper is that manipulations aimed at behaviour should target awareness first; behavioural intention may then follow indirectly rather than being directly purchasable by content nudges.
  • The path coefficients rest on self-reports collected in the same session; a replication that separates the chatbot evaluation from a later behavioural follow-up, for example checking whether the promised walking actually happened, would tell whether the causal reading survives objective measurement.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports a user study of a scripted conversational agent (Allegra) designed to promote well-being awareness and behavioural intention. Six hundred Prolific participants interacted with one of three versions differing in conversational style (informal, informal with multimedia elements, formal) and then completed a questionnaire measuring intrinsic motivation factors (interest, value, trust, relatedness), awareness creation (AC), and behavioural intention (BI). The authors use exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA/CFA) within a structural equation modelling framework to test H1 (intrinsic motivation influences BI) and H2 (intrinsic motivation influences AC), and they complement this with a sentiment analysis of free-text comments and a content analysis of conversation-topic choices. They report that intrinsic motivation has a strong positive path to AC (0.93) and a moderate path to BI (0.45), and that conversational style has no significant effect on behavioural intention. The abstract and conclusions present these results as evidence of causal influence.

Significance. If interpreted as correlational associations, this is a reasonably large (N=600) empirical contribution to the design of conversational well-being tools. Its strengths include a clearly described instrument based on established IMI constructs, a three-arm comparison of conversational styles, and an explicit null result for style effects, which is useful for the HCI literature. The paper does not ship code or data, but the methodological description is sufficiently detailed to permit replication. The main value is provisional and hypothesis-generating; the causal framing and the fit-statistic presentation currently exceed what the cross-sectional, single-source design can support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.4, Figure 5, H1/H2] The statement that the data 'confirm' H1 and H2 and that intrinsic motivation has a 'causal influence' is not supported by the design. All three construct families (intrinsic motivation, awareness creation, behavioural intention) were measured in one self-report questionnaire immediately after the chat, with no manipulation or temporal separation of the predictor; the SEM paths therefore estimate associations that can be inflated by common-method variance. The EFA's three-factor solution argues against a single method factor entirely explaining the data, but it does not rule out a shared method component that biases the structural paths. Please reword the claims as correlational, add an explicit common-method-bias limitation, and consider longitudinal or multi-source designs in future work.
  2. [Section 5.2, RQ1] The answer to RQ1 is based solely on absolute means (AC 4.58, BI 5.79) on a 1–7 scale, with no no-intervention or reading-only control condition. Mean levels above the scale midpoint do not demonstrate that the conversational approach 'influence[s]' awareness creation or behavioural intention; they only describe the participants' reported levels after exposure. Please reframe this as a descriptive finding and explicitly acknowledge the absence of a baseline.
  3. [Section 5.4, fit statistics] The fit indices are misreported. RMSEA = 0.10 is conventionally considered poor or at best borderline, not 'good or very good'; the text also contains 'RMSEA > 0.8', which appears to be a typo for 0.08 or 0.10. Because the authors use the fit statement to support the confirmatory conclusion, the fit indices should be reported accurately (e.g., CFI/TLI around 0.90 and RMSEA = 0.10 suggest marginal fit) and the implications for H1/H2 should be discussed rather than glossed over.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 4] The composite IM–BI correlation of 0.42 is inconsistent with the item-level correlations of 0.54–0.58 from which it is presumably derived; please clarify how the composite was computed, since a simple average of the four reported item correlations would be about 0.57.
  2. [Section 5.3] The ANOVA p-values appear swapped: F(1, 596) = 65.16 would correspond to an extremely small p-value, while F(1, 596) = 9.86 would correspond to a p around 0.002; please verify the reported values.
  3. [Table 2] Several items are phrased negatively (e.g., 'Allegra did not hold my attention at all') and it is not stated whether they were reverse-scored before computing Cronbach's alpha; the third behavioural-intention item is phrased as an open question rather than a 1–7 statement and should be aligned with the other items.
  4. [Section 5.4] The phrase 'may be a reason for RMSEA > 0.8' is unclear; also, 'Explanatory Factor Analysis' should be 'Exploratory Factor Analysis'.
  5. [Conclusions] The manuscript would benefit from a dedicated limitations subsection that explicitly lists the same-source design, lack of a baseline, no long-term follow-up, and possible demand effects from the chat setting.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

H1 is partially circular: two intrinsic-motivation items ask about future interaction with Allegra, which is the same construct the paper defines as behavioural intention.

  1. self definitional [Section 3 (RQ1 definition), Table 2 (questionnaire items), Section 5.4 (CFA/H1 confirmation)]
    "behavioural intention, which represents the individual perceived probability that he/she will use the conversational tool in the future ... Table 2: Relatedness item 'I'd like a chance to interact with Allegra again'; Value item 'I would be willing to chat with Allegra again because it has some value to me' ... Section 5.4: 'the data shows that intrinsic motivation has a statistically significant and quite strong positive effect on both awareness creation (0.93) and behavioural intention (0.45).'"

    The intrinsic-motivation latent variable is operationalized, in part, by items that directly ask about future interaction with and reuse of the conversational tool. That is the same construct the paper defines as behavioural intention ('perceived probability that he/she will use the conversational tool in the future'). When this IM latent is then used as the predictor of BI in the SEM, the estimated path is partly the outcome correlating with its own indicators. The EFA's three-factor grouping does not remove the wording overlap. The awareness-creation path is less affected, so the circularity is partial rather than total.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is an empirical SEM fitted to questionnaire responses, not a mathematical derivation from first principles, so most of the analysis is not circular in the restricted sense used here. The same-instrument, cross-sectional design creates common-method-variance and causal-inference concerns, but those are validity threats rather than definitional circularity. The one concrete circular element is the item-content overlap: the IM factor includes items about wanting to interact with Allegra again, while BI is defined as the perceived probability of using the tool in the future; the IM-to-BI path therefore has a self-definitional component. The self-citation to the Coney toolkit [32] is a normal tool citation and is not load-bearing for any theoretical claim, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The RQ1 'confirmation' from absolute mean scores without a baseline is an unsupported causal inference, but not a circularity. Overall, the H1 result is partially forced by item wording, while H2 and the conversational-style findings retain independent empirical content.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the validity of self-report measures, the SEM model's specification, and the representativeness of the Prolific sample. No new theoretical entities are introduced; Allegra is a concrete, scripted artifact. The path coefficients are fitted to the data, not predicted.

free parameters (2)
  • Path coefficient IM to awareness creation = 0.93
    Estimated in the SEM (Figure 5). It is the main quantitative support for H2.
  • Path coefficient IM to behavioural intention = 0.45
    Estimated in the SEM (Figure 5). It is the main quantitative support for H1.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Self-report questionnaire items validly measure the latent constructs without common-method bias.
    Section 4 defines the items; Section 5.4 uses them in CFA/SEM to confirm H1 and H2. If a general liking factor drives all answers, the path coefficients overestimate causal influence.
  • domain assumption The three conversational conditions implement meaningfully different styles.
    Section 4 describes the style variants. The null result for RQ3 is only interpretable if the manipulation was actually different; the authors note the two informal versions differed only by emojis/GIFs, weakening this assumption.
  • domain assumption Prolific participants are representative enough for the study's claims.
    Section 4 describes recruitment. The sample is 63% female and Europe-based, so generalisation to other populations is an assumption, not a demonstrated fact.
  • domain assumption Behavioural intention self-reports relate to actual future behaviour.
    The Behavioural Intention items ask about willingness to follow suggestions; the paper uses these as the outcome for H1 and RQ3, but no actual behaviour is measured.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Conversational Approach to Well-being Awareness Creation and Behavioural Intention." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CQYW4KII

@misc{pith2026250421702,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Conversational Approach to Well-being Awareness Creation and Behavioural Intention},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CQYW4KII}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21702}
}
read the original abstract

The promotion of a healthy lifestyle is one of the main drivers of an individual's overall physical and psycho-emotional well-being. Digital technologies are more and more adopted as ''facilitators'' for this goal, to raise awareness and solicit healthy lifestyle habits. This study aims to experiment the effects of the adoption of a digital conversational tool to influence awareness creation and behavioural change in the context of a well-being lifestyle. Our aim is to collect evidence of the aspects that must be taken into account when designing and implementing such tools in well-being promotion campaigns. To this end, we created a conversational application for promoting well-being and healthy lifestyles, which presents relevant information and asks specific questions to its intended users within an interaction happening through a chat interface; the conversational tool presents itself as a well-being counsellor named Allegra and follows a coaching approach to structure the interaction with the user. In our user study, participants were asked to first interact with Allegra in one of three experimental conditions, corresponding to different conversational styles; then, they answered a questionnaire about their experience. The questionnaire items were related to intrinsic motivation factors as well as awareness creation and behavioural change. The collected data allowed us to assess the hypotheses of our model that put in connection those variables. Our results confirm the positive effect of intrinsic motivation factors on both awareness creation and behavioural intention in the context of well-being and healthy lifestyle; on the other hand, we did not record any statistically significant effect of different language and communication styles on the outcomes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21702 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Representative schema of the defined model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of the screenshots extracted from the implemented conversations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Boxplot of Awareness Creation and Behavioral Intention of the participants [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Word cloud of the most frequent answers from free-text comments of participants [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Model regression values and significance level (*** means [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Boxplot of the Intrinsic Motivation sub-factors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Boxplot of the intention to use a specific conversational style (1 informal, 2 informal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. van Olmen, The promise of digital self-management: A reflection about the effects of patient-targeted e-health tools on self-management and well- being, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19 (3) (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Szinay, O

    D. Szinay, O. Perski, A. Jones, T. Chadborn, J. Brown, F. Naughton, Perceptions of factors influencing engagement with health and well-being apps in the united kingdom: Qualitative interview study, JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 9 (12) (2021) e29098:1–15

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Laban, T

    G. Laban, T. Araujo, Working together with conversational agents: The relationship of perceived cooperation with service performance evaluations, in: A. Følstad, T. Araujo, S. Papadopoulos, E. L.-C. Law, O.-C. Granmo, E. Luger, P. B. Brandtzaeg (Eds.), Chatbot Research and Design, Springer International Publishing, 2020, pp. 215–228

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Zheng, Y

    Q. Zheng, Y. Tang, Y. Liu, W. Liu, Y. Huang, Ux research on conversa- tional human-ai interaction: A literature review of the acm digital library, in: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems, 2022, pp. 1–24

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    A. B. Kocaballi, L. Laranjo, L. Clark, R. Kocielnik, R. J. Moore, Q. V. Liao, T. Bickmore, Special issue on conversational agents for healthcare and wellbeing, ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) 12 (2) (2022) 1–3

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Callejas, D

    Z. Callejas, D. Griol, Conversational Agents for Mental Health and Well- being, Springer International Publishing, 2021, Ch. 11, pp. 219–244

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Tudor Car, D

    L. Tudor Car, D. A. Dhinagaran, B. M. Kyaw, T. Kowatsch, S. Joty, Y.-L. Theng, R. Atun, Conversational agents in health care: Scoping review and conceptual analysis, Journal of Medical Internet Research 22 (8) (2020) e17158–1:21

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Liebrecht, L

    C. Liebrecht, L. Sander, C. van Hooijdonk, Too informal? how a chatbot’s communication style affects brand attitude and quality of interaction, in: A. Følstad, T. Araujo, S. Papadopoulos, E. L.-C. Law, E. Luger, M. Good- win, P. B. Brandtzaeg (Eds.), Chatbot Research and Design, Springer In- ternational Publishing, Cham, 2021, pp. 16–31. 21

    work page 2021

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Peters, R

    D. Peters, R. A. Calvo, R. M. Ryan, Designing for motivation, engagement and wellbeing in digital experience, Frontiers in Psychology 9 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    E. L. Deci, R. M. Ryan, Self-determination theory, Handbook of theories of social psychology 1 (20) (2012) 416–436

    2012

  3. [11]

    R. M. Ryan, V. Mims, R. Koestner, Relation of reward contingency and interpersonal context to intrinsic motivation: A review and test using cogni- tive evaluation theory., Journal of personality and Social Psychology 45 (4) (1983) 736

    1983

  4. [12]

    K. S. Ostrow, N. T. Heffernan, Testing the validity and reliability of intrin- sic motivation inventory subscales within assistments, in: Artificial Intel- ligence in Education: 19th International Conference, AIED 2018, London, UK, June 27–30, 2018, Proceedings, Part I 19, Spr...

    2018

  5. [13]

    Ehsan, Q

    U. Ehsan, Q. V. Liao, M. Muller, M. O. Riedl, J. D. Weisz, Expanding explainability: Towards social transparency in ai systems, in: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’21, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 20...

    2021

  6. [14]

    Q. V. Liao, D. Gruen, S. Miller, Questioning the ai: informing design practices for explainable ai user experiences, in: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 2020, pp. 1–15

    2020

  7. [16]

    Hsiao, H

    J. Hsiao, H. H. T. Ngai, L. Qiu, Y. Yang, C. C. Cao, Roadmap of de- signing cognitive metrics for explainable artificial intelligence (xai), ArXiv abs/2108.01737 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  8. [17]

    W.-P. Brinkman, Virtual health agents for behavior change: Research per- spectives and directions, in: Proceedings of the Workshop on Graphical and Robotic Embodied Agents for Therapeutic Systems, 2016, pp. 1–17

    2016

  9. [18]

    Dingler, D

    T. Dingler, D. Kwasnicka, J. Wei, E. Gong, B. Oldenburg, The use and promise of conversational agents in digital health, Yearbook of Medical Informatics 30 (01) (2021) 191–199

    2021

  10. [19]

    Følstad, M

    A. Følstad, M. Skjuve, Chatbots for customer service: User experience and motivation, in: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Conver- sational User Interfaces, CUI ’19, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2019, pp. 1–9. 22

    2019

  11. [20]

    Fadhil, G

    A. Fadhil, G. Schiavo, Y. Wang, B. A. Yilma, The effect of emojis when interacting with conversational interface assisted health coaching system, in: Proceedings of the 12th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare, PervasiveHealth ’18, A...

    2018

  12. [21]

    Peltola, K

    J. Peltola, K. Kaipainen, K. Keinonen, N. Kiuru, M. Turunen, Developing a conversational interface for an act-based online program: Understanding adolescents’ expectations of conversational style, in: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Conversational User Inter...

    2023

  13. [22]

    Silva, E

    G. Silva, E. Canedo, Towards user-centric guidelines for chatbot conversa- tional design, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction (2022) 1–23

    2022

  14. [23]

    Luger, A

    E. Luger, A. Sellen, ”like having a really bad pa” the gulf between user expectation and experience of conversational agents, in: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2016, pp. 5286–5297

    2016

  15. [24]

    V. Lai, C. Chen, Q. V. Liao, A. Smith-Renner, C. Tan, Towards a science of human-ai decision making: a survey of empirical studies, arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.11471 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Miller, Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences, Artificial Intelligence 267 (06 2017)

    T. Miller, Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences, Artificial Intelligence 267 (06 2017). doi:10.1016/j.artint. 2018.07.007

    2017 doi

  17. [26]

    T. C. Leonard, Richard H. Thaler, Cass R. Sunstein, Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness: Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 2008, 293 pp, $26.00, Constitutional Political Economy 19 (4) (2008) 356–360. doi:10.1007/s10602-008-9056-2 . URL http://li...

    2008 doi

  18. [27]

    Caraban, E

    A. Caraban, E. Karapanos, D. Gon¸ calves, P. Campos, 23 ways to nudge: A review of technology-mediated nudging in human-computer interaction, in: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’19, Association for Computing Machinery, New Yor...

    2019

  19. [28]

    Leeuwis, L

    L. Leeuwis, L. He, Hi, i’m cecil(y) the smoking cessation chatbot: The effec- tiveness of motivational interviewing and confrontational counseling chat- bots and the moderating role of the need for autonomy and self-efficacy, in: A. Følstad, T. Araujo, S. Papadopoulos, E. L.-C...

    2022

  20. [29]

    Whitmore, Coaching for Performance: The Principles and Practice of Coaching and Leadership fully revised 25th-anniversary edition, Hachette UK, 2010

    J. Whitmore, Coaching for Performance: The Principles and Practice of Coaching and Leadership fully revised 25th-anniversary edition, Hachette UK, 2010

    2010

  21. [30]

    Panchal, P

    S. Panchal, P. Riddell, The grows model: extending the grow coaching model to support behavioural change, International Journal of The Coach- ing Psychologist 16 (2) (2020)

    2020

  22. [31]

    F. D. Davis, Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology, MIS quarterly (1989) 319–340

    1989

  23. [32]

    Celino, G

    I. Celino, G. Re Calegari, Submitting surveys via a conversational interface: an evaluation of user acceptance and approach effectiveness, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 139 (2020) 102410. doi:10.1016/j. ijhcs.2020.102410

    2020

  24. [33]

    Palan, C

    S. Palan, C. Schitter, Prolific.ac — a subject pool for online experiments, Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance 17 (2018) 22–27

    2018

  25. [34]

    J. D. Brown, The cronbach alpha reliability estimate, JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter 6 (1) (2002)

    2002

  26. [35]

    C. D. Stapleton, Basic Concepts in Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) as a Tool To Evaluate Score Validity: A Right-Brained Approach., ERIC, 1997

    1997

  27. [36]

    T. A. Brown, Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research, Guilford publications, 2015. 24

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.