ArticleBMC psychology2026
Trust in AI: scale development and validation for online distance learners.
Article in BMC psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Trust in artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a critical factor influencing students' interactions with AI-supported learning environments. However, validated instruments for measuring student trust in AI within educational contexts remain limited. This study developed and validated a multidimensional scale to assess student trust in AI systems in online distance education. Scale development followed a sequential multi-stage design, including item generation based on literature review, expert evaluation for content validity, and psychometric validation through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. A total of 837 distance learning students participated in the study (EFA = 412; CFA = 307; validation sample = 118). Exploratory factor analysis supported a five-factor structure explaining 63.20% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis with an independent sample indicated good model fit ([Formula: see text]/df = 2.17; CFI = .95; TLI = .94; RMSEA = .06). The scale demonstrated high internal consistency (α = .94; ω = .94). Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis supported metric invariance across gender, indicating comparable measurement across groups. No significant gender differences were observed, and trust in AI was not significantly associated with grade point average or system engagement frequency. These results suggest that trust represents a distinct perception that may influence how students engage with AI-supported learning environments. The resulting 21-item scale provides a reliable instrument for investigating student trust in AI and offers practical implications for the design and implementation of AI-supported learning in higher education.
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.