ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026
Generative Artificial Intelligence Literacy Scale for Nurses: Development and Psychometric Evaluation.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGenerative artificial intelligence (GenAI) can automate time-intensive tasks and support clinical decision-making in care settings. Nurses require appropriate competencies to ensure that integration of GenAI strengthens care quality and patient safety. However, validated literacy assessment tools remain limited. In particular, instruments tailored to nurses' role-specific GenAI competencies, including hallucination detection, risk identification, and ethical accountability, are lacking. These gaps highlight the need for a nurse-specific GenAI literacy scale.
objectiveThis study aimed to develop and psychometrically validate the Generative Artificial Intelligence Literacy Scale for Nurses (GenAILS).
methodsWe conducted a two-phase, cross-sectional online survey of registered nurses nationwide in Taiwan between June 2025 and October 2025. Phase 1 involved conceptualization and item generation based on a literature review, followed by content appraisal through expert discussion with 6 external reviewers. A 50-item pool was generated. Subsequently, 5 external reviewers evaluated content validity. Items with a content validity index of <0.78 or flagged for revision were revised or deleted. Phase 2 evaluated psychometric properties (item analysis, internal consistency, split-half reliability, and criterion-related validity) and construct validity via exploratory factor analysis (factor loading ≥0.60), followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The total sample was randomly split into 2 independent subsamples for exploratory factor analysis and CFA.
resultsIn phase 1, the initial 50 items underwent expert content validation and were revised to 46 items (scale content validity index based on the average method=0.92). In phase 2, 1313 questionnaires were collected, of which 191 invalid responses were excluded; 1122 valid responses were analyzed. Participants had a mean age of 34.66 (SD 7.8) years. Extreme-group comparison revealed statistically significant differences for each item (P<.001). The final scale comprised 24 items across six dimensions: responsible use, updated competencies, risk identification, fundamental knowledge, critical evaluation, and ethics and law. The cumulative variance explained was 53.1%. The first-order CFA demonstrated excellent model fit: root-mean-square error of approximation=0.035, standardized root-mean-square residual=0.032, comparative fit index=0.99, goodness-of-fit index=0.94, adjusted goodness-of-fit index=0.93, nonnormed fit index=0.99, and parsimony normed fit index=0.84. The second-order CFA demonstrated excellent model fit: root-mean-square error of approximation=0.039, standardized root-mean-square residual=0.040, comparative fit index=0.99, goodness-of-fit index=0.94, adjusted goodness-of-fit index=0.92, nonnormed fit index=0.99, and parsimony normed fit index=0.87. All heterotrait-monotrait ratio values were below 0.85, supporting discriminant validity. The scale was moderately correlated with the Short Form Meta-AI Literacy Scale (r=0.57; P<.001). Reliability was excellent (Cronbach α=0.92; McDonald ω=0.92; split-half reliability=0.81).
conclusionsThe GenAILS is a concise, nurse-specific self-report instrument with good psychometric properties across 6 clinically relevant domains. It supports needs assessment, targeted training, and intervention evaluation to promote the safe and ethical use of GenAI in nursing.
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.