ArticlePloS one2026
Validating the AIM-N: An AI-motivation and needs scale with multi-group invariance and MIMIC-DIF evidence in higher education.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The rapid adoption of generative AI in higher education raises critical questions about its impact on student motivation and basic psychological needs. This study introduces and validates the AI-Motivation and Needs (AIM-N) scale, a new instrument assessing how AI integration influences students' motivational orientations and need satisfaction in learning. Survey data were collected from N = 904 university students. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported a multi-factor structure for the AIM-N, comprising two subscales of AI-related redundancy beliefs (task-level and motivational-level) and three subscales of AI-related motivational orientations (intrinsic, identified, controlled), with acceptable model fit (CFI ≈ 0.96, TLI ≈ 0.95, RMSEA ≈ 0.05) and strong factor loadings. Internal consistency was good for most subscales (Cronbach's α = 0.70-0.90; McDonald's ω in similar range), except a single-item amotivation indicator. Multi-group CFA indicated that the AIM-N achieved configural, metric, and scalar invariance across gender, study level (Bachelor's, Master's, PhD), academic field, and frequency of AI use (ΔCFI < 0.01), after minor modifications for the AI-use groups. A MIMIC model (Multiple Indicators, Multiple Causes) revealed that higher AI tool usage was associated with stronger beliefs that AI renders learning tasks redundant and slightly more controlled motivation (β ≈ 0.30 and 0.21, p <.001), while gender showed no significant effects. Field of study had significant impacts: STEM students reported higher redundancy beliefs and controlled motivation than humanities students (p <.01). The MIMIC analysis also identified differential item functioning (DIF) for certain items; for example, students in competitive fields endorsed the "pressure to use AI" item more than expected from their latent trait levels. These results demonstrate that the AIM-N is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring the nuanced ways AI influences student motivation and needs. The discussion addresses theoretical implications for Self-Determination Theory in the age of AI, practical implications for educators, and recommendations for future research on sustaining meaningful student engagement when AI tools are pervasive.
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.