ArticleBMC psychology2025
Turkish adaptation of the artificial intelligence ethics scale (EAI): a validity and reliability study for nursing students.
Article in BMC psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI literacy and ethical attitudes toward AI in medical students: evidence from a structural model.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Ethical cognition, AI anxiety, and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: validation of the GAAIS, AT-EAI, and AIAS in an Albanian higher-education context.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- Research on artificial intelligence literacy among nursing professionals: a scoping review.BMC nursing · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study was designed to culturally adapt the "Attitude towards Artificial Intelligence Ethics (EAI)" scale into Turkish and to evaluate its validity and reliability in the Turkish population.
methodsThis study was designed as methodological research to adapt the Attitudes Towards EAI Scale into Turkish and to evaluate its psychometric properties. The linguistic and cultural adaptation of the scale was carried out using the translation-back translation method. The study sample sample consisted of 656 undergraduate nursing students studying at a university in Türkiye. Participants were determined by a simple random sampling method, and voluntary participation was taken as a basis.
resultsWhen the findings were evaluated, the results of the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) showed that the original five-factor structure of the scale (transparency, harmlessness, privacy, responsibility, and fairness) was largely preserved. According to the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) results, it was determined that the five-factor model had good fit values. The scale's internal consistency was evaluated with Cronbach Alpha (α) coefficient, and α values for all sub-dimensions ranged between 0.85 and 0.95. These results show that the scale has a high level of reliability. In addition, composite reliability (CR) values above 0.70 and average variance extracted (AVE) values above 0.50 supported the convergent and discriminant validity of the scale. Furthermore, discriminant validity was further confirmed by MSV (< 0.31) and ASV (< 0.18), and EFA results via the FACTOR program (RMSEA = 0.047, CFI = 0.993, NNFI = 0.985) also supported the five-factor structure. Measurement invariance across gender was established at all levels (∆CFI < 0.01).
conclusionThe results show that the EAI is an appropriate tool for assessing university students' attitudes toward artificial intelligence ethics in Turkish society. IMPLICATIONS: In this direction, testing the scale in different professional groups, age groups, and cultural contexts in the future may expand its generalizability and usage areas. In addition, such scales are thought to provide important contributions to educational programs and policy development processes to increase ethical awareness in today's rapidly developing artificial intelligence technologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.