ArticleFrontiers in research metrics and analytics2026
ChatGPT and higher education in Latin America: measuring perceived academic skills.
Article in Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 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 use of generative artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT has transformed various academic practices in higher education, generating interest in understanding its perceived impact on the development of students' communicative and analytical skills. This study aimed to validate the Student Perception of ChatGPT instrument. A non-experimental quantitative design with an instrumental and comparative approach was applied to a sample of 2,579 students with prior experience using ChatGPT, from Ecuador, Mexico, Chile, Brazil, Colombia, and Guatemala. The questionnaire included 18 items organized into two key dimensions, communicative skills and analytical skills, measured on a five-point Likert scale. Internal consistency analyses (α = 0.943; ω = 0.944), as well as exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, were conducted. The results confirmed high reliability and a coherent two-factor structure, with consistent groupings among items related to academic writing, digital communication, critical thinking, and problem-solving. These findings provide empirical evidence of the instrument's validity to measure students' perceptions of ChatGPT's contribution to the development of such skills. It is recommended to conduct longitudinal, mixed-method, and performance-based studies to more precisely examine its actual effect on university learning.
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.