REVIEW
Validating an Instrument for Teachers' Acceptance of Artificial Intelligence in Education
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Validating an Instrument for Teachers' Acceptance of Artificial Intelligence in Education
read the original abstract
As artificial intelligence (AI) receives wider attention in education, examining teachers' acceptance of AI (TAAI) becomes essential. However, existing instruments measuring TAAI reported limited reliability and validity evidence and faced some design challenges, such as missing informed definitions of AI to participants. This study aimed to develop and validate a TAAI instrument, with providing sufficient evidence for high psychometric quality. Based on the literature, we first identified five dimensions of TAAI, including perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, behavioral intention, self-efficacy, and anxiety, and then developed items to assess each dimension. We examined the face and content validity using expert review and think-aloud with pre-service teachers. Using the revised instrument, we collected responses from 274 pre-service teachers and examined the item discriminations to identify outlier items. We employed the confirmatory factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha to examine the construct validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and reliability. Results confirmed the dimensionality of the scale, resulting in 27 items distributed in five dimensions. The study exhibits robust validity and reliability evidence for TAAI, thus affirming its usefulness as a valid measurement instrument.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.