Adaptation and Validation of the Artificial Intelligence Self-Efficacy Scale
Abstract
This study aimed to adapt the Artificial Intelligence Self-Efficacy Scale developed by Wang and Chuang (2024) into Turkish and evaluate its validity and reliability. The study was conducted with two independent samples: a group of 291 university students participated in the exploratory factor analysis (EFA), while a separate group of 374 participants was involved in the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The 22-item scale, along with demographic questions and one item on AI usage, was administered online. Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess reliability, and correlations with AI usage were examined to evaluate criterion validity. EFA revealed a four-factor structure: assistance, anthropomorphic interaction, comfort with AI, and technological skill, with factor loadings ranging from 0.43 to 0.85. The total variance explained by the factors ranged from 41.23% to 67.47% across the sub-dimensions. A weak negative correlation was found between AI self-efficacy and AI usage levels. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.958 for the overall scale, indicating high internal consistency. CFA results confirmed that the Turkish version of the scale is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring AI self-efficacy.
Keywords
artificial intelligence, self-efficacy, level of use, anthropomorphic interaction, comfort with ai
Ethical Statement
References
- An, X., Chai, C. S., Li, Y., Zhou, Y., & Yang, B. (2023). Modeling students’ perceptions of artificial intelligence assisted language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 38(5–6), 987–1008. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2023.2246519
- Asio, J. M. R., & Gadia, E. D. (2024). Predictors of student attitudes towards artificial intelligence: Implications and relevance to the higher education institutions. International Journal of Didactical Studies, 5(2), 27763. https://doi.org/10.33902/ijods.202427763
- Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
- Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186-3191.
- Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
- Bittencourt, I. I., Chalco, G., Santos, J., Fernandes, S., Silva, J., Batista, N., ... & Isotani, S. (2023). Positive artificial intelligence in education (P-AIED): A roadmap. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 34(3), 732-792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-023-00357-y
- Chiu, T. K. F., Ahmad, Z., & Çoban, M. (2025). Development and validation of teacher artificial intelligence (AI) competence self‑efficacy (TAICS) scale. Education and Information Technologies, 30(5), 6667-6685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13094-z
- Çelebi, C., Yılmaz, F., Demir, U., Karakuş, F. (2023). Artificial Intelligence Literacy: An Adaptation Study. Instructional Technology and Lifelong Learning, 4(2), 291-306. https://doi.org/10.52911/itall.1401740
- European Commission. (2025, August 13). Ethical guidelines for educators on using artificial intelligence. European Education Area. https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-topics/digital-education/action-plan/ethical-guidelines-for-educators-on-using-ai
- European Commission, Joint Research Centre. (2025). Selfie for Teachers: A self-reflection tool for teachers. European Education Area. https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-topics/digital-education/digcompedu-self-reflection-tools