Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36818102›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023

Technology moral sense: Development, reliability, and validity of the TMS scale in Chinese version.

Wen Wu, Xiuqing Huang, Xinyu Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Wen WuSchool of Marxism Studies, Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua, China.
Xiuqing HuangSchool of Marxism Studies, Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua, China.
Xinyu LiCollege of Psychology, Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The aggregation of intelligent technologies such as big data, algorithms, and biometrics poses new moral risks to humanity and has raised awareness of technology ethics. Based on the research on moral issues in the fields of ethics and psychology, we built the concept of technology moral sense (TMS) by investigating three dimensions-technology moral consensus, cognition, and emotion. Methods: We focused on the field of intelligent surveillance technology, adopted a scale, and conducted a questionnaire survey with more than 1,000 respondents. We used exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to test two different samples. Results: First, by combining item analysis and Cronbach's alpha coefficient, we established that all three dimensions are reliable. Our results indicated a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.944, 0.891 and 0.938 for technology moral consensus, emotion, and cognition. Second, exploratory factor analysis verified that there were three factors, the eigenvalues were all greater than one, and the cumulative variance explanation rate was 74.953%, and the factor loading coefficient of the 18 items are greater than 0.5. Finally, we used confirmatory factor analysis to test the fit of the model. The test shows that RMSEA = 0.078, CFI and TLI are greater than 0.9, which indicating the fit was suitable and the construct validity was good. Discussion: Our findings demonstrated that the new scale is a reliable tool for assessing the technology moral sense in China. The results support the reliability and validity of the Technology Moral Sense (TMS) scale, and explain the existence of the concept of technology moral sense through three dimensions.

Indexed as

cognitionethicsintelligent surveillance technologymoral emotiontechnology moral sense

Identifiers

PMID36818102
PMCPMC9932702

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.