ArticleScientific reports2026
AI self-efficacy and anxiety among university teachers.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the rapid integration of AI into higher education, teachers' psychological responses are critical for technology adoption. This study examines AI self-efficacy and AI anxiety among university teachers in a Chinese university. It investigates the relationship between these two constructs and explores differences based on gender, age and academic major. A quantitative survey was administered to 350 teachers selected through stratified random sampling based on major. Results showed that both AI self-efficacy and AI anxiety were significantly above the neutral midpoint (M = 4.48, SD = 0.76; M = 4.35, SD = 0.85). AI self-efficacy was strongly and negatively associated with AI anxiety (r = - 0.59, p <0.01) and remained a significant negative predictor after controlling for gender, age, and major (β = - 0.112, p = .026). Female teachers reported higher anxiety and lower self-efficacy than male teachers, whereas computer science teachers reported the highest self-efficacy and the lowest anxiety. These findings suggest that university teachers may feel simultaneously capable of using AI and apprehensive about its broader implications. The study provides evidence from Chinese higher education and highlights the value of differentiated institutional support that addresses both teachers' confidence in using AI and their professional concerns.
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.