Development and Validation of the Lifelong Artificial Intelligence Ethical Awareness Scale (LAIEAS)

Veysel Bilal Arslankara; Ertuğrul Usta

doi:10.51535/tell.1813310

Development and Validation of the Lifelong Artificial Intelligence Ethical Awareness Scale (LAIEAS)

Abstract

This study aimed to develop and validate the Lifelong Ethical Awareness in Artificial Intelligence Scale (LAIEAS), designed to measure individuals’ ethical awareness toward artificial intelligence (AI) technologies within the framework of lifelong learning. The research followed a methodological design, including item pool generation, expert evaluation, pilot testing, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, and reliability-validity assessments. Data were collected online from two independent samples: a pilot group of 200 participants for Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and a confirmatory group of 472 participants for Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The initial 60-item pool was refined to a 26-item final form after excluding low-loading and cross-loading items. EFA results revealed a five-factor structure Awareness, Values/Attitude, Behavioral Intention, Critical Evaluation, and Lifelong Learning/Adaptation explaining 82.4% of the total variance (KMO = .931, Bartlett’s χ²(1770) = 6214.54, p < .001). CFA results confirmed the model’s adequacy with excellent fit indices (χ²/df = 2.47, CFI = .962, TLI = .953, RMSEA = .049, SRMR = .041). Reliability coefficients were high across all dimensions (Cronbach’s α ≥ .86), and validity analyses supported the convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity of the scale (AVE = .65-.72, HTMT < .85). The test–retest reliability over a three week interval yielded r = .89 (p < .001). The findings indicate that AIEAS is a psychometrically sound and theoretically grounded instrument for assessing individuals’ ethical awareness, values, and behaviors concerning AI technologies. The scale highlights that ethical awareness is not a static trait but a dynamic and lifelong competency integrating cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. Therefore, LAIEAS provides a valid and reliable tool for educational, institutional, and policy contexts to evaluate and promote ethical consciousness in the age of artificial intelligence.

Keywords

lifelong ethic , ethical awareness , artificial intelligence , scale development

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Arslankara, V. B. (2025). Artificial intelligence age communication in the context of instrumental rationality. Journal of Continuous Vocational Education and Training, 8(1), 98-114.
Arslankara, V. B., & Usta, E. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence as a lifelong learning self efficacy: Usage and competence scale. Journal of Teacher Education and Lifelong Learning, 6(2), 288-302. https://doi.org/10.51535/tell.1489304
Arslankara, V. B., & Usta, E. (2025). Yapay zeka her dilde aynı mı konuşur? üretken yapay zeka yanıtlarının dile göre farklılaşması üzerine bir inceleme. Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Ereğli Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(2), 623-641.
Boddington, P. (2017). Towards a code of ethics for artificial intelligence. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-31960648-4
Candy, P. C. (2002). Lifelong learning and information literacy. White House Conference on School Libraries. Washington, DC: U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science.
Cath, C. (2018). Governing artificial intelligence: Ethical, legal and technical opportunities and challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376(2133), 20180080. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2018.0080
Collins, C., Dennehy, D., Conboy, K., & Mikalef, P. (2021). Artificial intelligence in information systems research: A systematic literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Information Management, 60, 102383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102383
Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). London: Sage. Floridi, L. (2019). The logic of information: A theory of philosophy as conceptual design. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2019). A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harvard Data Science Review, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.8cd550d1
Gert, B. (2004). Common morality: Deciding what to do. New York: Oxford University Press.

Grassini, S. (2023). Development and validation of the AI attitude scale (AIAS-4): a brief measure of general attitude toward artificial intelligence. Frontiers in Psychology, 14:1191628. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1191628
Hagendorff, T. (2020). The ethics of AI ethics: An evaluation of guidelines. Minds and Machines, 30(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8
Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2021). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Paris: OECD Publishing. Structural
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Equation https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), -1-55.
Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389-399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2 Journal of Teacher Education and Lifelong Learning 329
Knapper, C., & Cropley, A. J. (2010). Lifelong learning in higher education (3rd ed.). London: Routledge. Lin, P., Abney, K., & Bekey, G. A. (2020). Robot ethics 2.0: From autonomous cars to artificial intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-16). https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376727
Ma, M., Ng, D. T. K., Liu, Z., Lin, J., & Wong, G. K. W. (2025). Why don’t teachers teach AI ethics? Understanding teachers’ beliefs and intentions in Chinese AI curriculum implementation through the theory of planned behaviour. Computers and Education:
Artificial Intelligence, 9, 100518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100518 Attitude Marengo, A., Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G., Yilmaz, R., & Ceylan, M. (2025). Development and validation of Generative Artificial Intelligence Scale for https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2025.1528455 Students. Frontiers in Computer Science, Volume 7.
Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716679679
Narvaez, D., & Lapsley, D. K. (2005). The psychological foundations of everyday morality and moral expertise. In D. K. Lapsley & C. Power (Eds.), Character psychology and character education (pp. 140-165). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17-59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-590241-0.50006-X
Peng, Y., Wang, Y., & Hu, J. (2023). Examining ICT attitudes, use and support in blended learning settings for students’ reading performance: Approaches of artificial intelligence and multilevel model. Computers & Education, 203, 104846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104846
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger. Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Moral awareness and ethical predispositions: Investigating the role of individualdifferences in the recognition of moral issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 233-243. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.233
Siau, K., & Wang, W. (2018). Building trust in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and robotics. Cutter Business Technology Journal, 31, 47-53.
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3-10.
UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
Weijters, B., Geuens, M., & Schillewaert, N. (2009). The proximity effect: The role of inter-item distance on reverse-item bias. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(1), 2-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2008.09.003
Williamson, B., & Eynon, R. (2020). Historical threads, missing strands, and future patterns: AI in education. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(3), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1798995

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Lifelong learning

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Veysel Bilal Arslankara ^*
0000-0002-9062-9210
Türkiye

Ertuğrul Usta
0000-0001-6112-9965
Türkiye

Publication Date

December 31, 2025

Submission Date

October 30, 2025

Acceptance Date

December 23, 2025

Published in Issue

Year 2025 Volume: 7 Number: 2

DOI

https://doi.org/10.51535/tell.1813310

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA92WR53KL

APA

Arslankara, V. B., & Usta, E. (2025). Development and Validation of the Lifelong Artificial Intelligence Ethical Awareness Scale (LAIEAS). Journal of Teacher Education and Lifelong Learning, 7(2), 319-329. https://doi.org/10.51535/tell.1813310

26172 20107

Development and Validation of the Lifelong Artificial Intelligence Ethical Awareness Scale (LAIEAS)

Abstract

Keywords

References

Details

Primary Language

Subjects

Journal Section

Authors

Publication Date

Submission Date

Acceptance Date

Published in Issue

DOI

IZ

Cite